251119.mbx

251119.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, November 19, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 231 Headlines 1 EAST 28TH STREET: Shalto Sues Over Discrimination on Premises 3M COMPANY: Farrell Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Viola Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 539 WALES AVENUE REALTY: Gomez Sues Over Discriminative Property 684 PIZZA INC: Norris Sues Over Discriminative Property 718 HILL LLC: Reynolds Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Calif. Securities Suit ADOBE INC: Foret Sues Over Automatic Subscription Renewal ALPHABET INC: AMI Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Simons Sues Over False and Misleading Assurances AMCI SPONSOR: $425,000 Class Settlement to be Heard on Jan. 20 AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Consolidated Anti-trust Suit in NY Court AMERICAN PHOENIX: Class Settlement in Charles Gets Initial Nod AMN WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS: Gill Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. AMPHASTAR PHARMA: Continues to Defend Wage & Hour Suit in Calif. ANTERO RESOURCES: Seeks Leave to File Class Opposition Sur-Reply ANTONE MONIZ: Court Certifies Class for Statutory Claim ARB GAMING: Walker Sues Over Illegal Gambling Platform ARCADIA POWER INC: Gratz Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ARCHERY TRADE: Borreson Suit Transferred to D. Colorado ASTON HEALTHCARE: Eubanks Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid AT&T INC: Plaintiff Seek Final OK of $177MM Class Settlement AUTOMATED HEALTH: Court Grants Class Cert. Pre-Discovery in "Delk" AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Court Narrows Claims in Sittol Suit B-TWO OPERATIONS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Illegal Operations BABA ENTERTAINMENT: Prince Files Suit Over Online Gambling Platform BATCHSERVICE LLC: Miller Class Suit Removed to N.D. Ill. BAY ALARM COMPANY: Riveral Sues Over Unpaid Compensation BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: $38MM Settlement Gets Final Nod BELK INC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Mobile Application BERWICK INSURANCE: Scheduling Order Entered in Bland Class Suit BESTWAY (USA) INC: Hill Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois BLACK RIFLE: Faces Class Action Suit Over USA-Forward Branding BLUFF ENTERPRISES: Beeson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Renewed Class Cert Bid Adjourned to Dec. 1 BOMBARDIER INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Hoffman Due Dec. 9, 2026 BOOM BOOM BROW: Doncouse Sues Over Discrimination on Premises C & J CLARK RETAIL: Joachim Suit Removed to E.D. California CAMI FEEK: Class Cert Bid Filing in Sterling Due July 30, 2026 CARRIAGE SERVICES: Continues to Defend "Denning" CARRIAGE SERVICES: Continues to Defend "Frost" CENTRAL ONE: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach CENTRUS ENERGY: Continues to Defend "McGlone" Contamination Suit CERNER CORPORATION: Greeno Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri CHILDREN'S RECEIVING HOME: Henry Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Filing for Class Cert in Gill Due June 4, 2026 CIGNA HEALTH: Stewart Seeks to File Reply Under Seal CINQUE RESTAURANT: Akrama Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages CLASSICA CRUISE: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over 2025 Data Breach CLOROX COMPANY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Air Purifiers CMS ENERGY: Newpage Seeks Prelim Approval of Class Settlement CNO FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Burnett" in California CONOCOPHILLIPS: Continues to Defend Concho Securities Suit CORECIVIC INC: Continues to Defend ICE Detainees' Suit CPA GLOBAL: Seeks Leave to File Class Exhibits Under Seal CREDENCE MANAGEMENT: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Opposition CREDENCE MANAGEMENT: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid CYBERRISK ALLIANCE: Hudson Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York DANA INC: Parker Balks at Mass Layoffs Without Advance Notice DANONE NORTH AMERICA: Press Suit Removed to N.D. California DENVER SHERIFFS: Johnson Seeks Approval of Class Notice Plan DEUTSCHE TELEKOM: Faces Palkon Suit over Stock Repurchase DEXTER STAMPING: Ramsey Sues Over WARN Act Violations DOXIMITY INC: Evidentiary Hearing Bid in Securities Suit Tossed DRIVER PROTECT: Skinner Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California EARTHGRAINS DISTRIBUTION: Munoz Seeks Class Certification ECHOSTAR CORP: DISH Continues to Defend "Jones" 401(k) Suit ECHOSTAR CORP: DISH Continues to Defend "Lingam" Securities Suit EIGHT ORANGES: $1.75MM Class Settlement in Mangahas Gets Final Nod ENERGY TRANSFER: Nov. 20 Court Conference in "La Hart" EXACT CARE: Weingrad Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid EXPEDIA INC: Bid to Extend Filing for Class Response Granted FLOWERS BAKERIES: Austin Suit Removed to C.D. California FLOWERS FOODS: Settles "Ludlow" and Companion Cases FLOYD BONNER: Just City Seeks Leave to File Post-Hearing Memo FORBES MEDIA: Filing for Class Certification Due April 3, 2026 FORD MOTOR: Droesser Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class FOUND HEALTH: Lewis Sues Over Unlawful Text Message and Calls FOX TELEVISION: Cabrera Suit Removed to N.D. California FRANKIE'S ORIGINAL: Zavala Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages FREEWAY INSURANCE: Rodney Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California FULLBEAUTY BRANDS: Class Cert. Filing in Broomes Due May 6, 2026 GEICO GENERAL: Bid to Seal Documents Tossed GEICO: SCI Seeks Class Certification GENERAL MOTORS: Class Cert. Bid in Milstead Due Jun. 26, 2026 GENWORTH FINANCIAL: "Trauernicht" Remains Pending GIORGIO ARMANI: Seeks to Strike Putative Member in Ahumada GLEIBERMAN PROPERTIES: Sued Over Failure to Follow Tenant Laws GOLD COIN GROUP: Kelsch Sues Over Sues Over Illegal Gambling GREYHOUND LINES INC: Underwood Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. HALLKEEN MANAGEMENT: Settlement Class in Cassamas Suit Wins Cert HEALTH CARE SERVICE: Afanador Sues Over Failure to Protect Data HERTZ LOCAL: Warren Class Cert Hearing Modified to July 15, 2026 HEYWOOD MEDICAL GROUP: Hoey Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. HILLSBOROUGH, FL: Case Management & Sched Order Entered in Mariotti HOME DEPOT: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Sell Due Feb. 9, 2026 HOME DESIGN: Bermudez Bid for Class Certification Tossed HOTEL HOLDINGS: Azzou Sues Over Accommodation Barriers HUEL INC: Protein Powder Contains Heavy Metals, Prokup Says HUEL INC: Tlaib Sues Over False and Misleading Representations INLAND FRESH: 11th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Bolton ERISA Suit INOTIV INC: $8.75MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Jan. 27 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Arechiga Sues Over Fiduciary Duties Breach INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due April 13, 2026 INTREPID POTASH: Continues to Defend Wage Suit IROBOT CORP: Awaits Ruling on Appeal from Securities Suit Dismissal IROBOT CORP: Continues to Defend "Savant" in New York J A ALEXANDER: FLSA Collective in Montero Wins Certification JAMES LEBLANC: Must File Status Report in Betz Class Action JOHN PAUL: Initial Case Management Conference Order Entered JOHNSON CONTROLS: Class Certification Order Entered in Kaufman KENT MARTIN: Burch Seeks Leave to File Reply to Class Opposition KHK GAMES INC: Walker Sues Over Sues Over Illegal Gambling KICKR GAMES PTY: Ruiz Sues Over Sues Over Illegal Gambling KIND PATCHES: Alaimo Sues Over False and Misleading Advertising KRISTI NOEM: ICWC Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action KTC HOLDING: Class Settlement in Meagher Suit Gets Initial Nod LAS VEGAS, NV: Discovery Deadlines in Myers Suit Stayed LAWRENCE LIVERMORE: Jones Suit Removed to N.D. California LEAFFILTER NORTH: Wright Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio LEN-CG SOUTH: Seeks Extension of Class Cert Bid Deadline LENNAR HOMES: Filing for Class Certification Due Jan. 5, 2026 LENS.COM: Bid for Leave to File Class Cert Tossed w/o Prejudice LIFEMD INC: Johnston Suit Transferred to S.D. New York LIT FINANCIAL: Class Cert Filing in Kirstein Due June 22, 2026 LOS ANGELES AIR: Echeverria Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. LUCAS COUNTY, OHIO : Class Cert Bid Filing Due Feb. 2, 2026 LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 26, 2025 MADAME ROUGE: Norris Sues Over Discriminative Property MALIBU BOATS: $7.8MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Jan. 27 MARTHA BOERSCH: Samad Class Cert Bid Tossed MAXLINEAR INC: Dismissed Shareholder Suit Under Appeal MDL 2724: Indirect Reseller Plaintiffs Seeks Class Certification MDL 2724: Plaintiffs Seeks to File Class Cert Memo Under Seal MDL 2724: Reseller Plaintiffs Seeks to File Memo Under Seal MDL 3035: Court Consolidates Cases in AME Church Fund Litigation MEDVI LLC: Kirshner Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MELTY WAY INC: Faldonie Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website MERCY HOSPITAL: Bid to Certify Class Tossed w/o Prejudice META PLATFORMS: Filing of Class Cert Opposition Due Dec. 9 META PLATFORMS: Plaintiffs Seeks Sealing of Class Cert Docs METLIFE GROUP: Faces Tracy Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. MICHAEL QUANE: Faces Perez Suit Over Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages MOBILEYE GLOBAL: Dismissal of McAuliffe Suit Under Appeal MOBIUSPAY INC: Seeks to Stay Proceedings Pending Cordiota Ruling MONSANTO COMPANY: Tanner Suit Transferred to N.D. California MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO: SSI Sun Seeks to Certify Class Action MORRISON INDUSTRIAL: Smith Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime MOVE INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Apaydin Due Feb. 2, 2026 MULTI MEDIA: Seeks to Dismiss Barber Class Action NCAA: Johnson Seeks Conditional Certification of FLSA Claims NEW DIRECTION: Theriault Seeks to Modify Scheduling Order NEW YORK, NY: Class Settlement in Piney Suit Gets Initial Nod NEW YORK: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Jan. 31, 2026 NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE: $19.375MM Class Settlement Gets Final Nod NIT NOI INVESTMENTS: Mackey Sues Over Physical Barriers NOR-CAL VENTURE: Trujillo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. NORDSTROM INC: Faces Class Suit Over Falsely Advertised Discounts NORDSTROM INC: Trama Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. NY COMMUNITY FINANCIAL: Brown Sues Over Discrimination on Premises OCHSNER CLINIC: Fifth Circuit Reverses Remand Order in Taylor Suit OFFICE DEPOT: Class Cert Bid in Yount Suit Due Jan. 13, 2026 ON TRAC: Vallarta Suit Removed to C.D. California OPTUMRX INC: Seeks Denial of LDS Class Cert Bid ORLANDO HEALTH: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid Response OSHKOSH CORP: Conspires to Fix Fire Trucks' Prices, Newstead Says PACIFIC COAST: Nelson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PACIRA BIOSCIENCES: Continues to Defend "Alvarez" in New Jersey PALLET LOGISTICS: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Askrens PANERA LLC: Cissokho Suit Seeks to Certify Collective Action PAPA JOHN'S: Parties in Jacob Suit Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines PENHALL COMPANY: Does not Properly Pay Employees, Fullilove Says PEOPLEGURU HOLDINGS: Fuentes Files Suit Over Data Breach PET PROS: Faces Youngren Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website PILOT AIR FREIGHT: Ruvalcaba Sues Over Unlawful Wage Deductions PLAY SPREE: Prince Sues Over Illegal Online "Sweepstakes" Casino PREMIER DEVELOPMENT: Cuevas Sues to Recover Unpaid Prevailing Wages PROGRESSIVE LEASING: Class Settlement in Dreger Gets Prelim. Nod QUEBEC: Superior Court Authorizes Class Lawsuit for Abused Kids QUEENS RESIDENTIAL: Faces Sanchez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. RAINFOREST CAFE: Azzou Sues Over Discriminative Barriers REBORN CABINETS: Harris Sues Over WARN Acts Violation REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Securities Suit REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Medicare Advantage Class Suit Stayed RENOUN LLC: Vogeney Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California RICCELLI HOLDINGS: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Sims Alleges RISINGER BROS: Contreras Files Suit Over Wage Law Violation ROBLOX CORP: Class Cert Expert Reports Due Feb. 10, 2026 ROCHESTER REGIONAL: Richardson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime ROCKET PHARMA: Continues to Defend Securities Suits RUSH UNIVERSITY: Bowles Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois SANOFI-AVENTIS: 2nd Cir. Vacates Dismissal of Mosaic Health Suit SAPP BROS INC: Noel Files Suit in D. Nebraska SELF FINANCIAL INC: Rudolph Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas SOLANO COUNTY, CA: Ayala Sues to Recover Unpaid Cashout SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Awaits Ruling in "Shen" Class Certification SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Pitsick-Perez Suit Removed to S.D. California SYMMETRY FINANCIAL: Level Up Asks Court to Quash Bennett's Subpoena SYNGENTA CROP: Autry Sues Over Negligent Marketing TESLA INC: Faces Shareholder Suit over Self-Driving Tech TORI FOOD: Faces Faldonie Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website TORRID LLC: Hernandez Sues Over Discriminative Website TOYOTA ARENA: Bid to Extend Class Cert Briefing Sched Tossed TRANS UNION: Bid to Seal Class Cert Filing Tossed TYLER PERRY: Case Management Order Entered in Dixon Class Suit UNITED STATES: Braxton Bid for Prelim. Injunction Tossed UNITED STATES: Perrone Seeks to Certify Claims as Class Action UNITED STATES: Watts Suit Seeks Class Certification UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Parties Seeks to Seal Class Cert Docs VAUGHAN MCLEAN: Seeks More Time to File Opposition Brief VIRGINIA MASON: Murphy Labor Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. VISA INC: Awaits Court Approval of "Burke" Settlement VISA INC: Bid to Dismiss Debit Surcharge Class Suit Remains Pending VISA INC: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Remains Pending VISA INC: Continues to Defend Consumer Interchange Litigation VISA INC: Continues to Defend Interchange MDL VISA INC: Continues to Defend VE Territory Covered Litigation VISA INC: EMV Chip Liability Shift Class Settlement Has Prelim OK VISA INC: Illinois Court Dismisses Mirage Wine Suit WARDEN FRITH: Moore's Petition for Writ of Habeas Tossed WC PERFORMANCE FORD: Han Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WESTERN-SOUTHERN FINANCIAL: Sladen Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages WHEELER REAL: Awaits Prelim Approval of Settlement in "Khoshaba" WHEELER REAL: Shareholders Suits vs. Cedar Remain Pending WYNDHAM VACATION: Huskey Seeks to Extend Class Cert Deadline XCEL ENERGY: Arandell Seeks Prelim Approval of Class Settlement YMCA: Valencia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ********* 1 EAST 28TH STREET: Shalto Sues Over Discrimination on Premises --------------------------------------------------------------- Lesaldo Shalto, and other similarly situated disabled individuals v. 1 EAST 28TH STREET PIZZA LLC, AND PROFILE ENTERPRISES 3 LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-09218 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 4, 2025), is brought seeking equitable, injunctive, and declaratory relief; monetary and nominal damages; along with attorney's fees, costs, and expenses pursuant to: Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"); the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"); and the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL") due to the Defendants' discrimination on their Premises. The Defendants' Premises is a commercial space as defined by the NYSHRL, and NYCHRL because, inter alia, a portion of the building and structure thereof used or intended to be used as a business, office, and commerce. On September 3, 2024, and other occasions thereafter, Plaintiff attempted to enter Defendants' Premises. The Defendants' Premises is less than 4.6 miles from Plaintiff's home located where Plaintiff routinely shops with his family. Because the existing barriers prevent access and restrict the paths of travel, such as a step at the entrance, Plaintiff was unable to enter Defendants' Premises. Because the existing barriers prevent access and restrict the paths of travel, such as a step at the entrance, Plaintiff was denied full and equal access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the commercial space and public accommodations within Defendants' Premises. The Defendants denying Plaintiff the opportunity to participate in and benefit from the services or accommodations offered within Defendants' Premises because of his disability has caused Plaintiff to suffer an injury in fact. The Plaintiff intends on immediately returning to Defendants' Premises once the barriers to access are removed and Defendants' Premises are ADA compliant. The Defendants' failure to comply with the ADA, NYSHRL, NYCHRL, et seq. impedes upon the rights of Plaintiff, and other similarly situated disabled individuals, to travel free of discrimination and independently access Defendants' Premises, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a paraplegic who uses a wheelchair for mobility. The Defendants' Premises, which operates a famous food outlet offering uniquely affordable pizzas, slices, fried foods, and burgers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly G. Marks, Esq. THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC 155 E 55th Street, Suite 4H New York, NY 1002 Phone:(646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: brad@markslawpc.com 3M COMPANY: Farrell Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Lee Farrell, et al, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-01884 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Nov. 3, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-13246-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven Davis, Esq. TORHOERMAN LAW LLC 210 South Main Street Edwardsville, IL 62025 Phone: (618) 656-4400 Fax: (618) 656-4401 Email: sdavis@thlawyer.com 3M COMPANY: Viola Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jeff La Viola, et al, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-15742 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Nov. 3, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-13265-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alan T. Friedman, Esq. BAGOLIE-FRIEDMAN, LLC 648 Newark Avenue Jersey City, NJ 07306 Phone: (201) 656-8500 Fax: (201) 656-4703 Email: alan@bagoliefriedman.com 539 WALES AVENUE REALTY: Gomez Sues Over Discriminative Property ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alexander Gomez, and other similarly situated persons v. 539 Wales Avenue Realty LLC, and 772 E 149 St Corp., Case No. 1:25-cv-09096 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 3, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (hereinafter, the "ADA") and the ADA's Accessibility Guidelines (hereinafter, the "ADAAG") as a result of the Defendants' discriminative subject property. On March 2025, and again on August 27, 2025, Plaintiff visited the subject property. On each of these occasions, the Plaintiff's ability to ambulate through the entrance of the Subject Property was constrained, hindered, and thwarted by the structural barriers, to wit; a significant concrete barrier step that which prevented access to the public accommodation due to impingement between the caster and front rigging of plaintiff's wheelchair against the entrance's barrier step, this contiguity between the wheelchair and step obstructing any entry. After coming upon the architectural barrier, it was found by Plaintiff to be entirely untraversable, thus preventing Plaintiff from accessing the public services therein. The Plaintiff has visited the Subject Property which forms the basis of this lawsuit on multiple occasions, and was denied access to the restaurant by discriminatory barriers and a continued policy of deliberate indifference to such barriers that Defendants are fully aware are unlawful under Title III of the ADA. Therefore, Defendants knowingly and wantonly discriminate against Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons in their refusal to remediate (for purposes of nondiscrimination on the basis of disability by public accommodations and in commercial facilities) to the minimum guidelines of the law, which are both feasible and readily achievable, says the complaint. The Plaintiff suffers from a spinal cord T-12 injury, uses a wheelchair for mobility, and is a qualified individual under the ADA. 539 WALES AVENUE REALTY LLC, is a domestic limited liability company which is authorized to and does transact business in the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maria-Costanza Barducci, Esq. BARDUCCI LAW FIRM, PLLC 5 West 19th Street, 10th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: (212) 433-2554 Email: MC@BarducciLaw.com 684 PIZZA INC: Norris Sues Over Discriminative Property ------------------------------------------------------- Namel Norris, and other similar situated v. 684 PIZZA, INC., a New York corporation, d/b/a WEST SIDE PIE, and ENTERPRISE 51 PARKING LLC, a New York limited liability company, Case No. 1:25-cv-09090 (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. 684 PIZZA, 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 718 HILL LLC: Reynolds Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Raphael Reynolds, an individual; and others similarly situated v. 718 HILL, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; YONATAN HAGOS, an individual; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive; Case No. 25STCV31772 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 31, 2025), is brought against the Defendants' violation of the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay minimum wage; failure to compensate for all hours worked; failure to pay overtime compensation; failure to pay rest period compensation; failure to pay meal period compensation; failure to furnish accurate wage and hour statements; failure to pay wages upon discharge; statutory penalties; failure to indemnify and illegal deductions from wages; unfair competition. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants misclassified workers as independent contractors in violation of Labor Code 226.8. The Defendants failed to keep track of Plaintiffs and other employees' actual hours worked. Employees' pay was rounded and inaccurate. This is in violation of the "Records" section of Wage Order(s) 5 and other wage orders. Defendants terminated Plaintiffs employment in retaliation for Plaintiffs disclosures and complaints regarding Defendants' unlawful pmctices, including rest break violations and other wage-and-hour discrepancies, in Violation Of Labor Code 1102.5 and 98.6, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a cook. 718 HILL, LLC, is a Delaware Limited Liability Company, organized and existing to do business under the laws of the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarkis Sirmabekian, Esq. SIRMABEKIAN LAW FIRM, PC 2600 W Olive Ave, Suite 549 Burbank, CA 91505 Phone: (818) 473-5003 Facsimile: (818) 476-5619 Email: contact@slawla.com ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Calif. Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Acadia Pharmaceuticals 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 securities class action pending before a California court. On April 19, 2021, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative securities class action complaint (captioned City of Birmingham Relief Retirement Systems v. Acadia Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 21-cv-0762) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against the Company and certain of the Company's then-current executive officers. On September 29, 2021, the Court issued an order designating lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On December 10, 2021, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint generally alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by failing to disclose that the materials submitted in support of its sNDA seeking approval of pimavanserin for the treatment of hallucinations and delusions associated with dementia-related psychosis contained statistical and design deficiencies and that the FDA was unlikely to approve the sNDA in its current form. The amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On March 11, 2024, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of class representatives and class counsel. The parties concluded discovery on September 24, 2025. The deadline for all pretrial motions is November 12, 2025. Remaining pretrial deadlines will be determined pending the Court's rulings on the parties' pretrial motions. ADOBE INC: Foret Sues Over Automatic Subscription Renewal --------------------------------------------------------- DUSTIN FORET, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. ADOBE INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-09221-PCP (N.D. Cal., October 27, 2025) is a class action complaint against the Defendant for its misleading practices in advertising, offering, and enrolling consumers in its subscription plans. The complaint relates that in 2013, Adobe launched the Creative Cloud as a subscription-only model requiring customers to pay monthly or annual fees to access software, services, and cloud storage, replacing the traditional model of a one-time purchase. The Plaintiff signed up for an "annual, billed monthly" ("ABM") subscription of the Creative Cloud All Apps 100GB plan on Adobe's website after viewing the plans and prices advertised on the website. While visiting Adobe's website and going through the Subscription Flow, the Plaintiff believed he was signing up for a month-to-month subscription. He did not know he was committing to a yearlong contract, that the subscription would automatically renew, or that he would be subject to a cancellation penalty. Had he known the terms of the subscription, he would not have agreed to it. He cancelled his subscription in September 2023, encountering many obstacles in the process, and paid a termination fee of $84. He subsequently re-subscribed to Adobe services in July 2025, when he signed up for a Lightroom subscription on Adobe's annual, prepaid plan. The complaint alleges that Adobe's misleading and opaque practices in advertising, offering, and enrolling consumers in its subscription plans--along with its deliberate efforts to make cancellation difficult--violate multiple consumer protection laws specifically enacted to prevent this type of harmful conduct. Adobe also hides unenforceable dispute resolution provisions in its terms of use in an attempt to escape any liability. These dispute resolution provisions require consumers to participate in a futile informal dispute resolution process and then submit claims to arbitration, with rules specifying that each party must pay an arbitrator fee before the arbitration can advance. But Adobe has no intention of honoring its arbitration agreement and allowing the arbitrations to proceed. Instead, Adobe simply refuses to pay the arbitrator, and as a result arbitration cannot move forward. Finally, when push comes to shove, Adobe claims the right to force all consumers into small claims court for every single dispute. The Plaintiff and other individuals represented by undersigned counsel previously sought to arbitrate their claims against Adobe in JAMS, relates the complaint. However, Adobe refused to pay JAMS' filing fee and asserted that Plaintiff's and the other individuals' claims must be resolved in small claims court. Adobe previously has taken the exact same position regarding other individuals, represented by other law firms, who sought to arbitrate claims against Adobe, instead refusing to arbitrate and demanding that these claims be resolved in small claims court. As a result, to the extent that Adobe's dispute resolution provisions in its terms of use might even be enforceable, Adobe has breached its agreement to arbitrate and forfeited its right to arbitrate, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings the action individually and on behalf of all subscribers of any of Adobe's subscriptions who, within the applicable statute of limitations period up to and including the date of judgment in this action, incurred unauthorized fees for their Adobe subscriptions. Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the small claims provision of Adobe's dispute resolution provision is unenforceable. And based on Adobe's unlawful practices, Plaintiff seeks damages, restitution, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs for violation of California's Automatic Renewal Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law. Plaintiff Dustin Foret is a New York resident. Defendant Adobe Inc. is a multinational software company that develops and distributes a wide range of digital tools and services used for graphic design, video editing, photography, document management, and web development. Its flagship software products include Photoshop, Illustrator, and Premiere Pro, were distributed via physical media such as CDs and DVDs and later as downloadable installers. It offers these products as part of subscriptions, which require users to pay recurring fees to access the software.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew C. Wolinsky, Esq. Yavar Bathaee, Esq. Bryce W. Talbot, Esq. BATHAEE DUNNE LLP 445 Park Avenue, 9th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (332) 322-8835 E-mail: awolinsky@bathaeedunne.com yavar@bathaeedunne.com btalbot@bathaeedunne.com - and - Allison Watson, Esq. BATHAEE DUNNE LLP 3420 Bristol Street, Suite 600 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (213) 458-7075 E-mail: awatson@bathaeedunne.com - and - Raphael Janove, Esq. JANOVE PLLC 500 7th Ave., 8th Fl. New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (646) 347-3940 E-mail: raphael@janove.law ALPHABET INC: AMI Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMI - GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND MANAGEMENT COMPANY LTD., Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. ALPHABET INC., GOOGLE LLC, and SUNDAR PICHAI, Case No. 3:23-cv-01186-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move for an order: (1) certifying a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 23(a) and 23(b)(3) and certifying the class defined below, (2) appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3), and (3) appointing Lead Counsel Pomerantz LLP as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g). The Plaintiffs seek certification of the following Class: "All persons and entities other than the Defendants, members of the immediate family of the Individual Defendant, Alphabet Inc.'s subsidiaries and affiliates; any person who is or was an officer or director of the Company or any of the Company's subsidiaries or affiliates during the Class Period; any entity in which any Defendant has a controlling interest; and the legal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns of any such excluded person or entity, who purchased or otherwise acquired Alphabet's Class A and/or Class C shares between Sept. 14, 2020 and Jan. 23, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period") on (i) any stock exchanges located in the United States, (ii) on any alternative trading systems located in the United States, or (iii) pursuant to other domestic transactions, seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against Alphabet, Google LLC, and Sundar Pichai." Alphabet is a multinational technology holding company whose lifeblood is Google, which functions as the worldwide dominant player in the field of digital advertising. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EjkaEt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Emma Gilmore, Esq. Villi Shteyn, Esq. Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. Orly Guy, Esq. Eitan Lavie, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com egilmore@pomlaw.com vshteyn@pomlaw.com jpafiti@pomlaw.com oguy@pomlaw.com eitan@pomlaw.com - and - Robert D. Klausner, Esq. KLAUSNER KAUFMAN JENSEN & LEVINSON 7080 NW 4th Street Plantation, FL 33317 Telephone: (954) 916-1202 Facsimile: (954) 916-1232 E-mail: bob@robertdklausner.com AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Simons Sues Over False and Misleading Assurances ------------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Simons, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-09042 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2025), is brought on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired AMC Preferred Equity Units ("APEs") during the Class Period and were damaged thereby as a result of the Defendant's false and misleading public assurances regarding economic equivalence. The Class Period begins on August 18, 2022, the date of AMC's false and misleading public assurances regarding economic equivalence, and ends on November 1, 2023, when the truth was first publicly revealed. On August 18, 2022, AMC filed a Frequently Asked Questions ('FAQ') document with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ('SEC') that made unqualified statements to investors that each APE was "designed to have the same economic value as a share of Class A Common Stock" and "designed to have the same voting rights as a share of common stock." AMC further stated that, because of this design, "in theory, the common stock and AMC Preferred Equity unit should have similar market values and the impact of the AMC Preferred Equity unit dividend should be similar to a 2/1 stock split." These statements were materially false and misleading because the rights of APE holders were in fact constrained by the Certificate of Designations ("COD") for AMC's preferred stock, which contained a highly-technical loophole allowing AMC to exclude APE holders from distributions occurring after conversion to common stock. This loophole was subtle, non-obvious, and undisclosed in the FAQ or other public investor communications. The harm to APE holders accrued on August 28, 2023 when, after converting the APEs to AMC common stock, the Company delivered a special dividend of common stock exclusively to the prior holders of common stock (the "Special Dividend"), pursuant to a settlement of litigation brought on behalf of common shareholders. The fraudulent nature of AMC's earlier statements was finally revealed when AMC, in a November 1, 2023 motion to dismiss a breach of contract action brought by APE holders, openly argued that APE holders had no right to participate in the Special Dividend. AMC's legal arguments constituted a plain admission that APEs were not economically equivalent to common shares and therefore a plain admission of AMC's fraud, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an investor who purchased or otherwise acquired APE units during the Class Period. AMC is a Delaware corporation with principal executive offices located in Leawood, Kansas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank Iacono, Esq. IACONO LAW LLC 6 Donald Court West Blue Point, NY 11715 Phone: 917 685 0537 Email: fiacono@iacono-law.com AMCI SPONSOR: $425,000 Class Settlement to be Heard on Jan. 20 -------------------------------------------------------------- IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE WILL A. SCHARA, JR. AND GONUL SCHARA, Plaintiffs, v. NIMESH PATEL, BRIAN BEEM, PATRICK MURPHY, HANS MENDE, ADRIAN PATERSON, MARK PINHO, JILL WATZ, KATE BURSON, AND AMCI SPONSOR II LLC, Defendants. SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF STOCKHOLDER CLASS ACTION, SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR TO: ALL RECORD AND BENEFICIAL HOLDERS OF AMCI CLASS A COMMON STOCK DURING THE CLASS PERIOD, THEIR HEIRS, SUCCESSORS-IN-INTEREST, SUCCESSORS, TRANSFEREES, AND ASSIGNS, WHO OBTAINED SHARES BY OPERATION OF LAW, BUT EXCLUDING THE EXCLUDED PERSONS (THE "CLASS"). THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS SUMMARY NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court") and Delaware Court of Chancery Rule 23 that: (i) the action is pending in the Court and has been preliminarily certified as a class action; and (ii) Plaintiffs and Defendants have reached a proposed settlement for $425,000.00 in cash as set forth in the Stipulation, a copy of which is available at www.AMCIStockholdersLitigation.com. The Settlement, if approved by the Court, will resolve all claims in the Action. A hearing will be held on January 20, 2026 at 1:30 p.m., before The Honorable Paul A. Fioravanti, Vice Chancellor, either in person at the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, 500 North King Street, Wilmington, Delaware, 19801, or remotely by telephone or videoconference (in the discretion of the Court), to, among other things: (i) determine whether to finally certify the Class for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Court of Chancery Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(2); (ii) determine whether Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel have adequately represented the Class, and whether Plaintiffs should be finally appointed as Class representatives for the Class and Plaintiffs' Counsel should be finally appointed as counsel for the Class; (iii) determine whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class and in the best interests of the Class; (iv) determine whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice and the Releases provided under the Stipulation should be granted; (v) determine whether the Order and Final Judgment approving the Settlement should be entered; (vi) determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund is fair and reasonable, and should therefore be approved; (vii) determine whether and in what amount any Fee and Expense Award should be paid to Plaintiffs' Counsel out of the Settlement Fund and whether and in what amount any service award to each named Plaintiff should be paid out of the Fee and Expense Award; (viii) hear and rule on any objections to the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or Plaintiffs' Counsel's application for any Fee and Expense Award; and (ix) consider any other matters that may properly be brought before the Court in connection with the Settlement. Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or remote appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the Settlement website at www.AMCIStockholdersLitigation.com. If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the Notice, you may obtain a copy of the Notice by contacting the Settlement Administrator by phone at (833) 583-6375 or via email at info@AMCIStockholdersLitigation.com. A copy of the Notice can also be downloaded from the Settlement website at www.AMCIStockholdersLitigation.com. If the Settlement is approved by the Court and the Effective Date occurs, the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed on a pro rata basis to Eligible Class Members in accordance with the terms of the proposed Plan of Allocation stated in the Notice or such other plan of allocation as is approved by the Court. The Class is a non "opt-out" class pursuant to Delaware Court of Chancery Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1) and 23(b)(2). Accordingly, Class Members will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Stipulation. Any objections to the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Plaintiffs' Counsel's application for the Fee and Expense Award must be filed with the Register in Chancery in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and delivered to Plaintiffs' Counsel, Defendants' Counsel, and counsel for the Company such that they are received no later than DECEMBER 30, 2025, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court or the Office of the Register in Chancery regarding this Summary Notice. All questions about this Summary Notice, the Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Settlement Administrator or Plaintiffs' Counsel. Requests for the Notice should be made to the Settlement Administrator: AMCI Stockholder Litigation c/o Analytics Consulting, LLC P.O. Box 2005 Chanhassen, MN 55317-2005 (833) 583-6375 www.AMCIStockholdersLitigation.com Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, should be made to Plaintiffs' Counsel: Russell D. Paul, Esq. Berger Montague PC 800 N. West Street, 2nd Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 691-9545 Email: rpaul@bergermontague.com Eric Lechtzin Marc H. Edelson Edelson Lechtzin LLP 411 South State Street, Suite N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 elechtzin@edelson-law.com DATED: November 17, 2025 AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Consolidated Anti-trust Suit in NY Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- American Airlines Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2025, that on December 5, 2022, and December 7, 2022, two private party plaintiffs filed putative class action antitrust complaints against American and JetBlue in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleging that American and JetBlue violated U.S. antitrust law in connection with the previously disclosed NEA. American, together with JetBlue, filed a motion to dismiss on September 21, 2023, which remains pending. In September 2023, American, together with JetBlue, filed a motion to dismiss a third amended complaint, and that motion remains pending. In September 2024, the court denied that motion. AAG and JetBlue filed answers to the private party plaintiffs' third amended complaint in October 2024, and the parties are now engaged in discovery. These actions were consolidated on January 10, 2023. The private party plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on February 3, 2023. On February 2, 2023, and February 15, 2023, private party plaintiffs filed two additional putative class action antitrust complaints against American and JetBlue in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, respectively. On May 12, 2023, and May 24, 2023, respectively, the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York was consolidated with the other actions, and the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On June 23, 2023, the private party plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint. American Airlines Group Inc. is an airline holding company based in Texas. AMERICAN PHOENIX: Class Settlement in Charles Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MONTE CHARLES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN PHOENIX, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00255-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge James Peterson entered an order that the parties' motion for class certification and preliminary approval of their settlement agreement is denied without prejudice. The parties may have until Dec. 4, 2025, to submit a renewed motion. The court has several concerns about both the scope of the class and collective and the proposed settlement. First, the parties do not explain why the class and collective have a different temporal scope. Second, it is not clear why the class and collective appear to be mutually exclusive. Third, the amounts the parties provide do not add up to $100,000. The settlement defines the proposed class as follows: "The 249 current and former hourly paid, non-exempt production employees of the Defendant who (i) worked at the Defendant's facility in Topeka, Kansas, (ii) for at least one workweek between April 17, 2021, and May 27, 2025, and (iii) do not timely exclude themselves from this action ("Class Members")." The settlement defines the collective as follows: "The 212 current and former hourly-paid, non- exempt employees of the Defendant, including Class Representative, who timely opted-in to this Lawsuit by filing a Consent form with the Court on or before the forty-fifth (45th) day after mailing of the Notice authorized by the Court in Dkt. 21." The group shall be referred to as the "Collective Members." A list of putative Collective Members is attached as Exhibit 1. A different portion of the settlement clarifies that the collective period goes from October 1, 2021, to November 12, 2024. Id. at 7. The settlement does not explain how the collective members were chosen, but the notice previously approved by the court stated that the collective included production employees at American Phoenix’s facilities in Topeka, Kansas; Danville, Virginia; Fayetteville, North Carolina; Lawton, Oklahoma; and Anniston, Alabama. The basic terms of the settlement are as follows: -- American Phoenix will pay out $100,000. -- Class counsel will receive one-third of the total, or $33,333.33. -- The settlement administrator will be paid $12,634. Id. at 13. -- The class representative will receive a $2,500 incentive payment. -- The class will receive "approximately" $23,686.68. -- The collective will receive "approximately" $19,808.77. -- Each collective or class member will receive a pro-rata share based on the number of weeks that employee worked during the relevant period. The average payout for an employee will be about $94, which, according to the parties' estimates, represents between four and five minutes a day during the relevant period. American provides rubber mixing services. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Oct. 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Gtx5Cs at no extra charge.[CC] AMN WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS: Gill Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AMN Workforce Solutions, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Barinder Kaur Gill, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. AMN Workforce Solutions, LLC, Adventhealth ACO Plus, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0016243 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Oct. 31, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." AMN Healthcare -- https://www.amnhealthcare.com/ -- offers innovative staffing and total talent solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arsine Grigoryan, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N. Brand Blvd., Ste. 840 Glendale, CA 91203-2920 Email: a.grigoryan@d.law AMPHASTAR PHARMA: Continues to Defend Wage & Hour Suit in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, 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 wage and hour lawsuit pending in a California court. On June 20, 2024, a former employee initiated an employment litigation against Amphastar, IMS and Roth Staffing Companies L.P. by filing a complaint having individual and class action claims for alleged violations of the California Labor Code pertaining to wage and hour, and other state laws. This complaint was filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles. In the complaint, the plaintiff is seeking damages and related remedies under California Law, as well as various penalty payments under the California Labor Code. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against the complaint. ANTERO RESOURCES: Seeks Leave to File Class Opposition Sur-Reply ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TREVA KIRKBRIDE, as trustee of the R and K Trust, v. ANTERO RESOURCES CORPORATION, Case No. 2:23-cv-03212-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting combined motion for leave to file and sur-reply in opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. In Plaintiff's reply in support of her motion for class certification, she sets forth a new argument that the opinions of one of Antero's experts, Kris Terry, should be excluded or otherwise disregarded. Antero properly disclosed Ms. Terry's expert report in June of 2025, in accordance with the Court's class certification expert disclosure deadlines. Plaintiff did not previously take issue with Ms. Terry's expert opinions; in fact, Plaintiff did not even seek to depose Ms. Terry. Thus, Antero could not have anticipated this new argument and therefore requests leave to file this brief sur-reply (provided below) limited to addressing Plaintiff's argument regarding Ms. Terry and detailing Ms. Terry's assignment and the ways in which Antero relies upon her opinions. Accordingly, in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for class certification, Antero relies on Ms. Terry’s lease categorizations to support its arguments related to variations in those provisions that she identified. Contrary to Plaintiff’s suggestion, it was not Ms. Terry's assignment to offer "legal conclusions as to Antero's royalty payment obligations," nor did any of her opinions in fact do so. She does not opine "as to Antero's royalty payment obligations under the Class Leases" as Plaintiff contends. And, while Plaintiff does not identify expressly the portion of Ms. Terry's opinions that Plaintiff believes is a legal conclusion, Antero does not rely on any opinions that could possibly be considered one. Nor does Plaintiff explain how any of Ms. Terry’s opinions at issue here are comparable to the opinions offered in the cases Plaintiff cites. Plaintiff does not argue that Ms. Terry's lease review and categorizations—the assignment identified in Ms. Terry's report and the opinions on which Antero relies—are incorrect or improper. Those opinions are therefore unrebutted, and the Court should consider them. Antero is an American company engaged in hydrocarbon exploration. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JtPbVo at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Daniel T. Donovan, Esq. Ragan Naresh, Esq. Holly Trogdon, Esq. Saunders McElroy, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 389 5000 E-mail: daniel.donovan@kirkland.com ragan.naresh@kirkland.com holly.trogdon@kirkland.com saunders.mcelroy@kirkland.com - and - Timothy B. McGranor, Esq. Ilya Batikov, Esq. VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP 52 East Gay Street Columbus, OH 43216 1008 Telephone: (614) 464 6400 E-mail: tbmcgranor@vorys.com ibatikov@vorys.com ANTONE MONIZ: Court Certifies Class for Statutory Claim ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE ARNULFO GUERRERO ORELLANA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. ANTONE MONIZ, Superintendent, Plymouth County Correctional Facility, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-12664-PBS (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Patti B. Saris entered an order certifying the following class for the statutory claim (Count I): "All people who are arrested or detained in Massachusetts, or are detained in a geographical area over which, as of Sept. 22, 2025, an Immigration Court located in Massachusetts is the administrative control court, or who are otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of an Immigration Court located in Massachusetts, where: (a) the person is not in any Expedited Removal process under 8 U.S.C. section 1225(b)(1), does not have an Expedited Removal order under 8 U.S.C. section 1225(b)(1), and is not currently in proceedings before an immigration judge due to having been found to have a credible fear of persecution under 8 U.S.C. section 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii); (b) for the person's most recent entry into the United States, the government has not alleged that the person was admitted into the United States and has not alleged that person was paroled into the United States pursuant to 8 U.S.C. section 1182(d)(5)(A) at the time of entry; (c) the person does not meet the criteria for mandatory detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. section 1226(c); (d) the person is not subject to post-final order detention under 8 U.S.C. section 1231; and (e) the person is not a person whose most recent arrest occurred at the border while they were arriving in the United States and has been continuously detained thereafter." The Court appoints the following counsel as class counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g): Foley Hoag LLP; the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Massachusetts, Inc.; the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation; the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire; the American Civil Liberties Union of Maine Foundation; Araujo & Fisher, LLC; and the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program. Plymouth County Correctional Facility is located in Plymouth, Massachusetts Operated by the Plymouth County Sheriff's Department. The prison is the largest prison in Plymouth. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Oct. 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7MXnVa at no extra charge.[CC] ARB GAMING: Walker Sues Over Illegal Gambling Platform ------------------------------------------------------ Nathan Walker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ARB GAMING, LLC; and ARB INTERACTIVE INCORPORATED, Case No. 2:25-cv-00991 (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 advertise and promote the Modo 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 Modo Gambling Platform is actually a dangerous and plainly unlawful gambling enterprise. The Defendants sell digital "coins" to consumers on the Modo Gambling Platform--including consumers in Utah--and then immediately accept those coins back (from by the consumers who purchased them) as wagers on the outcomes of the various casino-style games of chance offered on the Modo Gambling Platform. Consumers who purchase and then wager "coins" on the Modo 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. Utah law clearly prohibits what Defendants have 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 Plaintiff and numerous other Utah residents have lost significant sums of their hard earned money placing wagers on the Modo Gambling Platform, and Defendants have in turn reaped enormous profits from the losses these people have sustained, says the complaint. The Plaintiff created an account on the Modo Gambling Platform. The Defendants collectively own and operate the Modo Gambling Platform, which is available at Modo.us.[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 ARCADIA POWER INC: Gratz Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Eli Gratz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Arcadia Power, Inc., Case No. 2025CH09835 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Oct. 31, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-13349 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract. Arcadia Power -- https://www.arcadia.com/ -- is a climate software and data company that develops a clean energy tech platform, serving customers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq. Jennifer Ann Riley, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 190 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 3700 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 499-6710 Email: gmaatman@duanemorris.com jariley@duanemorris.com ARCHERY TRADE: Borreson Suit Transferred to D. Colorado ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jon Borreson, 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-03578 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-03451-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: Anthony Stauber, Esq. Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. Michelle J. Looby, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 333-8844 Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com - and - Dianne M. Nast, Esq. KOHN, NAST & GRAF, P.C. One South Broad Street #2100 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Phone: (215) 238-1700 Fax: 238-1968 - and - Joseph N. Roda, Esq. Michele Burkholder, Esq. NASTLAW LLC 1101 Market Street, Suite 2801 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Phone: (215) 923-9300 Fax: (215) 923-9302 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 ASTON HEALTHCARE: Eubanks Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BETH EUBANKS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. ASTON HEALTHCARE, LLC a foreign limited liability company, and WOODSIDE OPERATIONS, LLC d/b/a Woodside Health and Rehabilitation, a foreign limited liability company, Case No. 2:24-cv-01041-SPC-DNF (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting the plaintiff's opposed motion to extend class certification deadline: Event Current Proposed Deadline Deadline Motion for class Oct. 31, 2025 Dec. 31, 2025 certification: On Aug. 20, 2025, Plaintiff served Defendants with Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Production of Documents. After requesting several extensions, Defendants responded on October 6, 2025. The Defendant produced ZERO documents and objected to every interrogatory. Without any documents or information, including targeted discovery for Rule 23 certification currently in Defendant’s possession, the Plaintiff cannot move for class certification. The parties are in the final stages of conferral. If the discovery dispute is not resolved, Plaintiff’s counsel will be seeking court intervention on or before Wednesday, Nov. 5, 2025. On June 18, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a five-count Amended Complaint alleging that the Defendants violated and retaliated against the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and further violated and retaliated against the Plaintiff's individual rights under the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA). Aston is a provider of primary healthcare services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IZnALe at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc R. Edelman, Esq. George G. Triantis, Esq. Sophia L. Walker, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 577-4722 Facsimile: (813) 257-0572 E-mail: Medelman@forthepeople.com Gtriantis@forthepeople.com Sophia.walker@forthepeople.com AT&T INC: Plaintiff Seek Final OK of $177MM Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned Re: AT&T Inc Customer Data Security Breach Litigation (RE: AT&T INC. CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION), Case No. 3:24-cv-00757-E (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (1) granting final approval of the settlement; (2) affirming certification of the Settlement Classes for settlement purposes, pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3); (3) confirming the Plaintiffs' appointment as Class Representatives; (4) confirming the appointments of Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g)(1); (5) confirming Kroll's appointment as Settlement Administrator; (6) awarding $49,666,666.66 to AT&T 1 Class Counsel and $9,333,333.33 for AT&T 2 Class Counsel for attorneys' fees, and AT&T 1 Class Counsel $564,792.90 and AT&T 2 Class Counsel $231,438.36 for reimbursement of costs; (7) awarding each Class Representative a $1,500.00 Service Award; (8) overruling all objections; and (9) entering final judgment dismissing the Action with prejudice and reserving jurisdiction over Settlement implementation. The Settlement provides meaningful benefits for tens of millions of individuals whose personal information was exposed in two distinct cybersecurity incidents resulting in class actions consolidated into two separate MDLs. The relief includes two non-reversionary, all-cash Settlement Funds totaling $177,000,000 ($149,000,000 for the AT&T 1 Settlement Class and $28,000,000 for the AT&T 2 Settlement Class). The AT&T 1 Settlement Class is defined as: "All living persons in the United States whose AT&T 1 Data Elements were included in the AT&T 1 Data Incident." The AT&T 2 Settlement Class is defined as: "AT&T Account Owners or Line or End Users whose AT&T 2 Data Elements were involved in the AT&T 2 Data Incident." Both Settlement Classes exclude: (a) AT&T, any entity in which AT&T has a controlling interest, and AT&T's officers, directors, legal representatives, successors, subsidiaries, and assigns; (b) any judge, justice, or judicial officer presiding over this Action, and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff; (c) any persons who have Released Claims relating to the subject Data Incident or Action prior to Final Approval; and (d) any persons who timely opt-out of the subject Settlement Class(es). On March 30, 2024, AT&T announced that AT&T 1 Data Elements including various combinations of names, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, dates of birth, account passcodes, billing account numbers, and Social Security numbers were contained in a dataset released on the dark web. AT&T is in the business of providing wireless communication services, including voice, data, and messaging to consumers in the United States. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QXMMH8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: W. Mark Lanier, Esq. THE LANIER LAW FIRM, P.C. 10940 W. Sam Houston Pkwy N., Suite 100 Houston, TX 77064 Telephone: (713) 659-5200 E-mail: mark.lanier@lanierlawfirm.com - and - Chris Seeger, Esq. Shauna Itri, Esq. SEEGER WEISS, LLP 325 Chestnut Street, Suite 917 Philadelphia, PA 19106 E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com sitri@seegerweiss.com - and - James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com - and - Jean Sutton Martin, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N Franklin Street 6th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 559-4908 E-mail: jeanmartin@forthepeople.com - and - Sean S. Modjarrad, Esq. MODJARRAD ABUSAAD & SAID 212 W Spring Valley Road Richardson, TX 75081 Telephone: (972) 789-1664 E-mail: smodjarrad@mas.law - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - John Heenan, Esq. HEENAN & COOK 1631 Zimmerman Trail Billings, MT 59102 Telephone: (406) 839-9091 E-mail: john@lawmontana.com - and - Raphael Graybill, Esq. GRAYBILL LAW FIRM, PC 300 4th Street North Great Falls, MT 59401 Telephone: (406) 452-8566 E-mail: raph@graybilllawfirm.com - and - J. Devlan Geddes, Esq. GOETZ, GEDDES & GARDNER P.C. 35 N. Grand Ave. Bozeman, MT 59715 Telephone: (406) 587-0618 E-mail: devlan@goetzlawfirm.com - and - Jason S. Rathod, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H St NE, Suite 302 Washington DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 E-mail: jrathod@classlawdc.com AUTOMATED HEALTH: Court Grants Class Cert. Pre-Discovery in "Delk" ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Julie Delk, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated; Amy Babcock, Michelle Roldan, Plaintiffs, v. Automated Health Systems, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00802-MJH (W.D. Pa.), Judge Marilyn J. Horan of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs' Pre-Discovery Motion for Conditional Certification and Court-Authorized Notice in this Fair Labor Standards Act collective action. On June 3, 2024, Plaintiffs filed this action against Defendant. On March 14, 2025, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, bringing Class/Collective action claims under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act for overtime compensation, 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq, the Massachusetts Wage Act, the Massachusetts Overtime Act, and for common law breach of contract or unjust enrichment. On March 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Pre-Discovery Motion for Conditional Certification and Court-Authorized Notice. On April 21, 2025, Defendant filed its Brief in Opposition. On May 19, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their Reply. On October 16, 2025, the Court heard argument on Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification and Court-Authorized Notice. Defendant provides business process outsourcing services to businesses and government agencies throughout the United States. Defendant has a contract with the Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and Human Services to provide contact center services for MassHealth members, applicants, providers, provider applicants and other interested parties. Plaintiffs Julie Delk and Michelle Roldan worked as remote hourly Customer Service Representatives on the Massachusetts Medicaid project. Opt-in Plaintiffs Clarissa Lewis and Kimberly Bigelow were employed as hourly CSRs on the Florida Medicaid project. Named Plaintiff Amy Babcock was employed in two different hourly positions: (1) an hourly Eligibility Specialist, and (2) a Quality Assurance Associate, and worked on the Wyoming Medicaid project. Plaintiffs allege that all of Defendant's hourly employees were subject to the same quarter of an hour time rounding policy, contained in AHS's Employee Manual. The time-rounding and overtime policy covers all non-exempt employees of AHS. The time-rounding policy states: For the purposes of calculating hours of work, Automated Health Systems will round all time reported by the finger scanner to the nearest quarter hour. Time recorded seven (7) minutes before or seven (7) minutes after a quarter hour will be rounded to that quarter hour for pay purposes. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant stopped using this time rounding policy on May 13, 2024. In addition to the time rounding policy, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant does not pay Plaintiffs for the time that it takes them to bootup the required applications to perform their jobs. Plaintiffs allege that the bootup time can take anywhere from ten to fifteen minutes, and in some cases, even more time. Plaintiffs request that this Court issue an order conditionally certifying two FLSA collectives. The Court addressed Defendant's argument that the expert declaration and the Sampling Data must be stricken. The Court found that the expert declaration and the Sampling Data would be subject to discovery and Defendant does not suggest otherwise. Thus, the expert declaration will not be stricken. Upon review of the First Amended Complaint and the record, the Court found that Plaintiffs have met the modest factual showing to establish a conditional collective; however, Plaintiffs' proposed collectives are too broad considering the record. The First Amended Complaint, Sampling Data, and provided affidavits focus upon the effect of Defendant's policies on CSRs. Plaintiffs have not pled facts or provided evidence sufficient for this Court to approve any collective which includes all of Defendant's employees. As such, the Court certified more limited conditional collectives, as follows: (1) All persons who work or worked for Defendant at any time from June 3, 2021 until May 13, 2024 as a full-time hourly non-exempt Customer Service Representative, were required to bootup a computer to perform their jobs, and who were subject to the time rounding policy; (2) All persons who work or worked for Defendant as a full-time hourly non-exempt remote Customer Service Representative at any time from May 13, 2024 to present. The Court declined to apply equitable tolling, finding that Plaintiffs have not pointed to any evidence to show any of the three principal situations are implicated in this matter. Plaintiffs' request for equitable tolling was denied. The Court declined to determine whether Defendant's alleged violations were willful at this stage. Plaintiffs' allegations that Defendant willfully violated the FLSA are sufficient to warrant notice based upon a three-year statute of limitation. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VSZEY6 from PacerMonitor.com AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Court Narrows Claims in Sittol Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RANI SITTOL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-02124-BRM-JBC (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Martinotti entered an order granting part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss. Accordingly, because the Plaintiff has not established standing to bring claims under laws other than the laws of New Jersey, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for lack of standing is granted to the extent it is premised on state-law claims brought on behalf of putative class members outside of New Jersey.9 The Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to sustain an NJCFA claim at the motion to dismiss stage. Accordingly, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's NJCFA claim for failure to state a claim is denied. Plaintiff and his wife are critical care medicine physicians who have a one-year-old child and live at Avalon Teaneck, an Avalon property in Teaneck, New Jersey. The Defendant is a Maryland corporation and one of the largest Real Estate Investment Trusts ("REIT") in the country. A copy of the Court's opinion dated Oct. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KOLMJC at no extra charge.[CC] B-TWO OPERATIONS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Illegal Operations ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that SpinBlitz's operation of its online casino business in Illinois is illegal, given that gambling games in the state may only be offered by licensed operators at approved physical locations. According to the 30-page lawsuit, SpinBlitz advertises itself as a social casino that offers users thousands of online, casino-style games purely for fun and without the risk of losing any real money or similarly valuable items. However, the suit alleges that SpinBlitz, contrary to its representations, facilitates real-money games of chance through its Sweepstakes Coins system, which allows players to wager items of tangible value in exchange for real-world prizes. The case states that gambling is strictly regulated in Illinois, with the state's laws mandating that gambling games can be offered only by licensed operators at certain physical locations. "SpinBlitz's operations flout these legal requirements by providing unlicensed gambling services to Illinois residents via the internet," the class action lawsuit summarizes. The complaint explains that in order to play the casino games offered by SpinBlitz, a player must wager one of two types of in-game coins: Gold Coins or Sweepstakes Coins. While Gold Coins can be obtained for free and cannot be exchanged for any items of real monetary value, the filing says that Sweepstakes Coins can be redeemed for cash prizes and gift cards, making them a proxy for real money with a value of one U.S. dollar per coin, the lawsuit says. The complaint contends that Sweepstakes Coins effectively represent and can be exchanged for real money or items of real monetary value, and that SpinBlitz thus allows, enables and encourages players to engage in real-money gambling. Additionally, while Sweeptakes Coins can be obtained through promotional giveaways and participation in various SpinBlitz events, the lawsuit contends that the most common way players acquire Sweepstakes Coins is when they are bundled as a "free" bonus with purchases of Gold Coins. The complaint also claims that players repeatedly make these purchases even when they have large amounts of Gold Coins, meaning that the transactions are primarily made for the purpose of acquiring more Sweepstakes Coins. In light of this, the filing argues that the sale of Gold Coins is simply a mechanism to disguise the sale of Sweepstakes Coins and obscure the real-money nature of the Sweepstakes Coins and any purchases thereof. Further, SpinBlitz also makes it difficult for players to redeem their Sweepstakes Coins for any of the promised prizes by enforcing a "1x playthrough" rule, the lawsuit says. The "1x playthrough" rule means that players must wager the amount of Sweepstakes Coins they wish to redeem before the redemption can occur, making it more difficult for players to redeem the coins through the randomized potential to lose them in one of SpinBlitz's casino games. Per the suit, this serves to compel players to continue to gamble and risk further losses under the guise of redeeming rewards they earned previously. The SpinBlitz class action lawsuit seeks to represent all Illinois residents who lost money wagering on SpinBlitz's online casino games during the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] BABA ENTERTAINMENT: Prince Files Suit Over Online Gambling Platform ------------------------------------------------------------------- TANYA PRINCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BABA ENTERTAINMENT LTD.; and BABA GLOBAL, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00996 (D. Utah, November 2, 2025) is a class action complaint brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, to redress Defendants' widespread violations of Utah's Gambling Act. The Defendants own, operate, and receive significant revenue from their online "sweepstakes" casino available at www.babacasino.com, where they offer casino-style slots to anyone willing to spend real money wagering on them (the "Baba Gambling Platform"). While Defendants advertise and promote the Baba 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 Baba Gambling Platform is actually a dangerous and plainly unlawful gambling enterprise, the complaint asserts. Accordingly, the Defendants sell digital "coins" to consumers on the Baba Gambling Platform and then immediately accept those coins back (from by the consumers who purchased them) as wagers on the outcomes of the various casino-style games of chance offered on the Baba Gambling Platform. Consumers who purchase and then wager "coins" on the Baba Gambling Platform do so in the hopes of winning more "coins," which can be used to place more wagers and, in some instances, are redeemable for cash. The Plaintiff and numerous other Utah residents have lost significant sums of their hard earned money placing wagers on the Baba Gambling Platform, and Defendants have in turn reaped enormous profits from the losses these people have sustained, says the suit. Baba Entertainment Ltd. operates online casino available at www.babacasino.com, where it offer casino-style slots.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elliot O. Jackson, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140 Miami, FL 33131-3302 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 E-mail: ejackson@hedinllp.com - and - David W. Scofield, Esq. PETERS ❘ SCOFIELD A Professional Corporation 7430 Creek Road, Suite 303 Sandy, UT 84093-6160 Telephone: (801) 322-2002 E-mail: dws@psplawyers.com - and - Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. GUCOVSCHI LAW FIRM, PLLC 140 Broadway, Fl 46 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 E-mail: adrian@gr-firm.com BATCHSERVICE LLC: Miller Class Suit Removed to N.D. Ill. -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as RANDALL MILLER, ISABEL SIPPO STOCKMAN, JOSEPH JACKSON, BRANDY GARNER, SAMIRA SEGRETI, and REX WAER individually and as the representatives of classes of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. BATCHSERVICE LLC D/B/A BATCHDATA, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and EQUIMINE INC. D/B/A PROPSTREAM a California Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2025-LA 001235, was removed from the Circuit Court for the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit, DuPage County, State of Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on November 3, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-13474 to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants operate a platform that allows users to access property owners' identifying information in violation of Plaintiffs' statutory rights of publicity protected by Illinois, California, Indiana, and Alabama state law. BatchService LLC is a real estate data and technology company.[BN] Defendant Equimine Inc. is represented by: Rachael Lamkin, Esq. BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. 101 California Street, Suite 3200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 291-6264 Facsimile: (415) 291-6364 E-mai: rachael.lamkin@bakerbotts.com - and - Matthew Baker, Esq. BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. 101 California Street, Suite 3200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 291-6213 Facsimile: (415) 291-6313 E-mail: matthew.baker@bakerbotts.com - and - Samir A. Bhavsar, Esq. BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 900 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 953-6581 Facsimile: (214) 661-4581 E-mail: samir.bhavsar@bakerbotts.com - and - Parker Hancock, Esq. BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. 910 Louisiana Street Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 229-1196 Facsimile: (713) 229-2896 E-mail: parker.hancock@bakerbotts.com BAY ALARM COMPANY: Riveral Sues Over Unpaid Compensation -------------------------------------------------------- Angelica Grace Riveral, as an aggrieved employee, and on behalf of all other aggrieved employees under the Labor Code Private Attorneys' General Act of 2004 v. THE SPEARMINT RHINO COMPANIES WORLDWIDE, INC., a Nevada corporation; WPS ENTERTAINMENT INC., a California Corporation; MIDNIGHT SUN ENTERPRISES, INC., a California Corporation; THE OXNARD HOSPITALITY SERVICES, INC., a California Corporation; FARMDALE HOSPITALITY SERVICES, INC., a California corporation; RIALTO POCKETS, INCORPORATED a California corporation; SANTA BARBARA HOSPITALITY SERVICES, INC., a California corporation; SPEARMINT RHINO COMPANIES WORLDWIDE, INC, a Nevada corporation; INLAND RESTAURANT VENTURE I, INC., a California corporation; OLYMPIC AVENUE VENTURE, INC., a California corporation; PLATINUM SJ ENTERPRISE a California corporation; SANTA MARIA RESTAURANT ENTERPRISES, INC., a California corporation; GALE AVENUE HOSPITALITY VENTURE INC., a California corporation; CITY OF INDUSTRY HOSPITALITY VENTURE, INC., a California corporation doing business as SPEARMINT RHINO; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV31911 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 31, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") and the California Labor Codes as a result of failure to pay proper compensation. The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants, and each of them, had and have a policy or practice of requiring Plaintiff and other Aggrieved Employees to work more than 8 hours per day, 40 hours per week, and/or 7 straight workdays in a workweek (in violation of Labor Code sections 551 and 552) without paying them proper overtime wages every day, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants from August of 2019 through April of 2024. BAY ALARM is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Rothman, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: (310) 438-5555 Fax: (310) 300-1705 Email: jason@tomorrowlaw.com BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: $38MM Settlement Gets Final Nod --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHEET METAL WORKERS' NATIONAL PENSION FUND and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS LOCAL NO. 710 PENSION FUND, individually and as Lead Plaintiffs on behalf of all others similarly situated, and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS PENSION FUND OF EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA AND DELAWARE, individually and as Named Plaintiff, on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, WERNER BAUMANN, WERNER WENNING, LIAM CONDON, JOHANNES DIETSCH, and WOLFGANG NICKL, Case No. 3:20-cv-04737-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order certifying the Settlement Class and granting final approval of the Settlements. The Court directs consummation of the Settlements pursuant to their terms. The Action is dismissed with prejudice and without costs and the Court's judgment is final. The $38 million Settlement Amount is adequate relief, representing over 9% of the maximum damages expert by Plaintiffs' damages expert. The Plaintiffs are sophisticated institutional investors and are familiar with the obligations of serving as lead plaintiffs and class representatives under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA") Plaintiffs are pension funds that collectively purchased close to 600,000 Bayer American Depositary Receipts (ADRs), which represent ownership shares of Bayer. In 2020, Plaintiffs brought securities claims against Defendants based on averred misrepresentations made by Bayer in connection with the company’s acquisition of the agrochemical company Monsanto (the “Action”). Pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a class was certified in May 2023 of: "All persons or entities, subject to certain exclusions, that purchased or otherwise acquired Bayer's publicly traded ADRs from May 23, 2016, to July 6, 2020." On June 27, 2025, the Court preliminarily approved the Settlement and appointed A.B. Data Group as the Claims Administrator. Bayer is a German multinational pharmaceutical and biotechnology company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8C3aLH at no extra charge.[CC] BELK INC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Mobile Application ---------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Belk, Inc., Case No. 0:25-cv-04190 (D. Minn., Nov. 3, 2025), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.belk.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Mobile Application, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Mobile Application has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Mobile Application content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Mobile Application users. Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Mobile Application in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Mobile Application fail to ensure its Mobile Application is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Mobile Application content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers clothing and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, tops, bottoms, dresses, activewear, jackets, suits, shoes, jewelry, handbags, bedding, bath supplies, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com BERWICK INSURANCE: Scheduling Order Entered in Bland Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kelly Bland, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. Berwick Insurance Group, L.L.C., Case No. 4:25-cv-00364-AMM-MAA (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Ambri entered a scheduling order as follows: The court issues this Scheduling Order pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and based on the Joint Case Management Report submitted by the parties and the parties' representations at the Scheduling Conference. Motions to amend the pleadings or join additional parties shall be filed by Feb. 27, 2026. The parties shall disclose lay witnesses by May 29, 2026. The plaintiff(s) shall disclose expert witnesses and expert testimony by June 26, 2026. The defendant(s) shall disclose expert witnesses and expert testimony by June 26, 2026. Discovery, including answers to interrogatories and supplements to interrogatories, shall be completed by July 31, 2026. Plaintiff shall file her motion for class certification on or before Aug. 14, 2026. All dispositive motions shall be filed by Jan. 4, 2027, or within 30 days from the date of the class certification order, whichever is later. Berwick is a National Independent Marketing Organization specializing in the sales & distribution of senior products. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uPaKM1 at no extra charge.[CC] BESTWAY (USA) INC: Hill Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Katrina Hill, Lisa Weeks, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bestway (USA) Inc., Case No. 5:25-cv-08928 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Nov. 3, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-13422 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Account Receivable. Bestway -- https://bestwayusa.com/ -- manufactures a wide range of inflatable outdoor and recreational products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David S. Almeida, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Phone: (312) 576-3024 Email: david@almeidalawgroup.com The Defendant is represented by: Jeffrey Brian Margulies, Esq. Yi Yang, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 555 South Flower St., 41st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 892-9286 Email: jeff.margulies@nortonrosefulbright.com eva.yang@nortonrosefulbright.com - and - Katherine Garamendi Connolly, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP One Embarcadero Center, Ste. 1050 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (628) 231-6816 Email: katie.connolly@nortonrosefulbright.com BLACK RIFLE: Faces Class Action Suit Over USA-Forward Branding -------------------------------------------------------------- Daily Coffee News reports that Black Rifle Coffee Company is facing a federal class action alleging that its "America's Coffee" branding and flag-heavy packaging misleads shoppers into thinking they are buying coffee produced entirely in the United States. The case may have broad impact on product marketing strategies in the U.S. coffee industry, which relies on imports of green coffee from high-elevation countries within the tropics. In a complaint filed Nov. 3 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, California resident Justin Bakker and New York resident Noah Lundgren accuse Black Rifle Coffee Company LLC and parent company, BRC Inc., of deceptive "Made in USA" advertising. The plaintiffs say they bought bags of Black Rifle coffee blends -- with names including Wakin the Neighbors, Spirit of '76 and Tactisquatch -- that prominently featured an American flag on the front and the slogan "America's Coffee," while any qualifying language about foreign sourcing appeared only in small print elsewhere on the package. "Plaintiffs are among the many Americans who try to buy American-made products and are sometimes willing to pay more for American-made products," the suit states. "Had Plaintiffs known the truth (that Defendants' coffee is not, in fact, made in the United States), Plaintiffs would have paid less for Defendants' products or they would not have purchased Defendants' coffee at all. As a result, Plaintiffs have been deceived and suffered economic injury." Salt Lake City-based Black Rifle Coffee, which went public in 2022 on the New York Stock Exchange, has not replied to DCN's request for comment on the class action. The suit claims violations of California's "Made in USA" statute, which bars unqualified "Made in America," "USA" or similar claims when merchandise is "entirely or substantially" made or produced outside the country. The complaint also cites Federal Trade Commission guidance, which treats unqualified "Made in USA" claims -- including implied claims created by flags and patriotic slogans -- as requiring that a product be "all or virtually all" made in the U.S. Made in USA Challenges Elsewhere The case comes amid a broader wave of "Made in USA" litigation against brands that lean on patriotic imagery while relying on foreign-derived ingredients. In April, a California jury awarded about $2.36 million to tea drinkers in Banks v. R.C. Bigelow Inc., finding that the Bigelow tea brand's USA-forward labeling was deceptive because the tea leaves it used were grown and processed overseas. In New York, Reynolds Consumer Products is defending a proposed class action over "Made in USA" on Reynolds Wrap aluminum foil, with plaintiffs alleging that most of the bauxite used in the foil is mined abroad. At the federal level, the FTC's Made in USA Labeling Rule and guidance have emphasized that "all or virtually all" of a product's significant parts and processing must be domestic. [GN] BLUFF ENTERPRISES: Beeson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bluff Enterprises, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Valerie Beeson, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bluff Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Folsom Care Center, Does 1 to 50, Case No. 25CV026146 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Oct. 31, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Bluff Enterprises, Inc. doing business as Folsom Care Center -- https://folsomcarecenter.com/ -- is a 5 star Medi-cal, Medicaid family owned skilled nursing facility in Folsom, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Sandoval, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 660 S. Figueroa St., Sky Lobby Los Angeles, CA 90017 BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Renewed Class Cert Bid Adjourned to Dec. 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Patlan v. BMW of North America, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-09546-CCC-SDA (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Adams entered an order that the renewed motion for class certification is adjourned to Dec. 1, 2025. BMW NAs opposition is due Nov. 17, 2025, and the Plaintiffs' reply is due Nov. 24, 2025. BMW markets and sells motor vehicles. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QAtsKv at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Christopher J. Dalton, Esq. BUCHANAN 550 Broad Street, Suite 810 Newark, NJ 07102-4582 Telephone: (973) 273-9800 Facsimile: (973) 273-9430 E-mail: christopher.dalton@bipc.com BOMBARDIER INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Hoffman Due Dec. 9, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HOFMANN, et al., v. Bombardier, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-22600 (S.D. Fla., Filed June 6, 2025), the Hon. Judge Jose E. Martinez entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time. The deadline for joining additional parties, amending the complaint, and class certification motions shall be Dec. 9, 2026 . If the Parties wish to further extend the deadline after Dec. 9, 2026, the Parties shall request a second extension of time. All other deadlines shall remain unaffected. After this Court has ruled on Plaintiffs' Motion for Remand, a new scheduling order will be issued if deemed necessary. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Airplane Product Liability. Bombardier is a Canadian aerospace manufacturer which produces business jets.[CC] BOOM BOOM BROW: Doncouse Sues Over Discrimination on Premises ------------------------------------------------------------- Graciela Doncouse, and other similarly situated disabled individuals v. BOOM BOOM BROW BAR, LTD., and 14 L. PIERRE ASSOCIATES, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-09215 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 4, 2025), is brought seeking equitable, injunctive, and declaratory relief; monetary and nominal damages; along with attorney's fees, costs, and expenses pursuant to: Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"); the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"); and the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL") due to the Defendants' discrimination on their Premises. The Defendants' Premises is a commercial space as defined by the NYSHRL, and NYCHRL because, inter alia, a portion of the building and structure thereof used or intended to be used as a business, office, and commerce. On February 28, 2025, and other occasions, Plaintiff attempted to enter Defendants' Premises, which operates the first no appointment, walk-in only eyebrow bar offering tinting, waxing, and shaping services. Defendants' Premises is less than 0.8 miles from Plaintiff's home. Because the existing barriers prevent access and restrict the paths of travel, such as a step at the entrance, Plaintiff was unable to enter Defendants' Premises. Because the existing barriers prevent access and restrict the paths of travel, such as a step at the entrance, Plaintiff was denied full and equal access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the commercial space and public accommodations within Defendants' Premises. The Defendants denying Plaintiff the opportunity to participate in and benefit from the services or accommodations offered within Defendants' Premises because of his disability has caused Plaintiff to suffer an injury in fact. The Plaintiff intends on immediately returning to Defendants' Premises once the barriers to access are removed and Defendants' Premises are ADA compliant. The Defendants' failure to comply with the ADA, NYSHRL, NYCHRL, et seq. impedes upon the rights of Plaintiff, and other similarly situated disabled individuals, to travel free of discrimination and independently access Defendants' Premises, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a paraplegic who uses a wheelchair for mobility. Boom is a domestic business corporation authorized to conduct business within the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly G. Marks, Esq. THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC 155 E 55th Street, Suite 4H New York, NY 1002 Phone:(646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: brad@markslawpc.com C & J CLARK RETAIL: Joachim Suit Removed to E.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Mark Joachim, as an individual, on behalf of himself and all persons similarly situated v. C & J CLARK RETAIL, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CU25-06796 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Solano, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on Nov. 4, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-03212-DC-JDP. The Plaintiff's Complaint sets forth 6 causes of action, including: Failure to Timely Pay Minimum and/or Regular Wages; Failure to Timely Pay Overtime and/or Double Time Wages; Failure to Provide Legally Compliant Meal Periods and/or Timely Pay Premium Wages; Failure to Provide Legally Complaint Rest Periods and/or Timely Pay Premium Wages; Failure to Timely Pay all Wages Due and Owing upon Separation of Employment; and Violation of California's Unfair Competition Law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Donald P. Sullivan, Esq. Andrew J. Mailhot, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 50 California Street, 9th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4615 Phone: (415) 394-9400 Facsimile: (415) 394-9401 Email: Donald.Sullivan@jacksonlewis.com Andrew.Mailhot@jacksonlewis.com CAMI FEEK: Class Cert Bid Filing in Sterling Due July 30, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAMARIO RASHEED STERLING, v. CAMI L. FEEK, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-05250-DGE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge entered an order setting class certification briefing schedule: Deadline for joining additional parties May 1, 2026 and to amend pleadings: The Plaintiff's disclosure of experts April 17, 2026 related to class certification: The Defendants' disclosure of experts May 18, 2026 related to class certification: The Plaintiff's disclosure of rebuttal June 8, 2026 experts related to class certification: Deadline to complete expert depositions: July 1, 2026 The Plaintiff's motion for class July 30, 2026 certification due: The Defendants' response to the Sept. 14, 2026 Plaintiff's motion for class certification due: The Plaintiff's reply due: Oct. 19, 2026 Hearing on motion for class certification: To be set by the Court A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XARh90 at no extra charge.[CC] CARRIAGE SERVICES: Continues to Defend "Denning" ------------------------------------------------ Carriage Services, 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 they continue to defend the case styled Denning v. Carriage Services, Inc., et al., Superior Court of California, Ventura County, Case No. 2024 CU OE 028098. On July 29, 2024, a wage and hour class action was filed against the Company and several of its subsidiaries. Plaintiff, a former employee, seeks monetary damages on behalf of herself and other similarly situated current and former non-exempt employees as the putative class for the alleged failure to pay legally mandated compensation and reimbursement expenses. As of September 30, 2025, we are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or ranges of loss, if any. The prospective class has not been certified by a court of competent jurisdiction and the Company intends to vigorously defend itself in all respects. CARRIAGE SERVICES: Continues to Defend "Frost" ---------------------------------------------- Carriage Services, 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 they continue to defend the case styled Frost v. Rolling Hills Memorial Park, Superior Court of California, Contra Costa County, Case No. C24-02653. On October 4, 2024, a consumer class action was filed against the Company's subsidiary, Rolling Hills Memorial Park. Plaintiff, an owner of an interment right and purchaser of merchandise and services from Rolling Hills Memorial Park, seeks monetary damages on behalf of herself and other similarly situated current and former consumers and owners of interment rights as the putative class for the alleged failure to properly set cemetery merchandise and maintain the perpetual care cemetery. "As of September 30, 2025, we are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or ranges of loss, if any. The prospective class has not been certified by a court of competent jurisdiction and the Company intends to vigorously defend itself in all respects," the Company stated. CENTRAL ONE: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Central One Federal Credit Union data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who received a notice stating they were impacted. Central One Federal Credit Union Security Incident: What Happened? Massachusetts-based Central One Federal Credit Union has reported a data breach to the Texas Attorney General's Office. According to the alert, which was published to the AG's website on November 12, 2025, the Central One Federal Credit Union data breach potentially exposed Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, government-issued ID numbers, financial information, medical information and health insurance information. Individuals affected by the data breach are expected to be mailed notices with more information. Central One Federal Credit Union has locations throughout Massachusetts, with its main office in Shrewsbury. What You Can Do After the Central One Federal Credit Union Data Breach If your information was exposed in the data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Central One Federal Credit Union to ensure it takes proper steps to protect the information it was entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] CENTRUS ENERGY: Continues to Defend "McGlone" Contamination Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Centrus Energy Corp. disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend against the contamination suit filed by Ursula McGlone resulting from activities on the Portsmouth GDP site. On May 26, 2019, the Company, Enrichment Corp., and six other DOE contractors who have operated facilities at the Portsmouth GDP (including, in the case of the Company, the American Centrifuge Plant site located on the premises) were named as defendants in a class action complaint filed by Ursula McGlone, Jason McGlone, Julia Dunham, and K.D. and C.D., minor children by and through their parent and natural guardian Julia Dunham (collectively, the "McGlone Plaintiffs") in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. The complaint seeks damages for alleged off-site contamination allegedly resulting from activities on the Portsmouth GDP site. The McGlone Plaintiffs are seeking to represent a class of (i) all current or former residents within a seven-mile radius of the Portsmouth GDP site; and (ii) all students and their parents at the Zahn's Corner Middle School from 1993-present. The complaint was amended on December 10, 2019, and on January 10, 2020 to add additional plaintiffs and new claims. On July 31, 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the case. The court dismissed ten of the fifteen claims and allowed the remaining claims to proceed to the next stage of the litigation process. On August 18, 2020, the McGlone Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint and notice of dismissal of three of the individual plaintiffs. On March 18, 2021, the McGlone Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint to add new plaintiffs and allegations. On March 19, 2021, the court granted the McGlone Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the complaint to include Price-Anderson Act and eight other state law claims. On May 24, 2021, the Company, Enrichment Corp., and the other defendants filed their motion to dismiss the complaint. On March 31, 2022, the court granted the Company's motion in part by dismissing claims brought on behalf of the minor children but allowed the other claims to proceed. As such, the discovery stage of litigation is continuing. On April 28, 2022, the Company, Enrichment Corp., and the other defendants filed their answer to the fourth amended complaint. The Company believes that its operations at the Portsmouth GDP site were fully in compliance with the NRC's regulations. Further, the Company and Enrichment Corp. believe that any such liability should be indemnified under the Price-Anderson Act. The Company and Enrichment Corp. have provided notifications to DOE required to invoke indemnification under the Price-Anderson Act and other contractual provisions. CERNER CORPORATION: Greeno Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Dillon Greeno, Marlene King, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Cerner Corporation doing business as: Oracle Health Inc., Albany Med Health System, Glens Falls Hospital, Case No. 1:25-cv-01085 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on Nov. 3, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-00865-BP to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Cerner Corporation doing business as Oracle Health -- https://www.oracle.com/ -- is a US-based, multinational provider of health information technology platforms and services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David S. Almeida, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Phone: (312) 576-3024 Email: david@almeidalawgroup.com The Defendant is represented by: Eric R Fish, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza-17th Floor New York, NY 10111 Phone: (212) 589-4647 Email: efish@bakerlaw.com CHILDREN'S RECEIVING HOME: Henry Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Children's Receiving Home of Sacramento, et al. The case is styled as Natasha Henry, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Children's Receiving Home of Sacramento, Does 1-10, Case No. 25CV026365 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 3, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." The Children's Receiving Home of Sacramento -- https://crhkids.org/ -- provides a spectrum of services for youth in crisis across the Sacramento region.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung L. Yang, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 355 S. Grand Ave., Suite 1450 Los Angeles, California 90071 Phone: (213) 985-1150 Fax: (213) 985-2155 Email: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Filing for Class Cert in Gill Due June 4, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HUDSON GILL, CLAIR AWAD, NICHOLAS ULRICH, JEREMEY GRANATH, JANIBEL SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., Case No. 8:24-cv-01672-FWS-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fred W. Slaughter entered an order lifting the stay, and issuing revised scheduling order as follows: EVENT DATE Hearing on motion to dismiss third amended Dec. 4, 2025 Complaint: Deadline to file motion for summary judgment: Mar. 6, 2026 Last Date to file motion for class June 4, 2026 certification: Deadline to file opposition to motion for July 30, 2026 class certification: Deadline to file reply in support of Aug. 20, 2026 motion for class certification: Hearing on motion for class certification: Sept. 3, 2026 Expert discovery cut-Off: Aug. 28, 2026 Chipotle is an American multinational chain of fast casual restaurants specializing in bowls, tacos, and Mission burritos made to order in front of the customer. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UGcJyw at no extra charge.[CC] CIGNA HEALTH: Stewart Seeks to File Reply Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JILL STEWART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:22-cv-00769-OAW (D. Conn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5(e)(4)(a), granting motion to file her Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Class Certification and the Reply Declaration of Andrew N. Goldfarb as well as Exhibits 3 and 5 thereto under seal. The Memorandum and Reply Declaration discuss in detail and quote from documents, information, and testimony that Defendant Cigna Health and Life Insurance Co. has designated "Confidential" and "Confidential – Attorneys' Eyes Only" under the First Amended Protective Order approved by the Court. On Nov. 3, 2025, Ms. Stewart's counsel advised Cigna’s counsel that Ms. Stewart planned to file a Memorandum and Reply Declaration referencing confidential internal Cigna programs as well as exhibits including documents and deposition testimony that had been designated by Cigna as confidential. On Nov. 4, 2025, Ms. Stewart's counsel further advised Cigna that Ms. Stewart planned to file Exhibit 3, which is an internal Cigna document discussing confidential cost-containment programs and which Cigna designated "Confidential – Attorneys' Eyes Only." Cigna offers health insurance plans. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2bNnra at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth K. Acee, Esq. BARCLAY DAMON LLP 545 Long Wharf Drive, Ninth Floor New Haven, CT 06511 Telephone: (203) 672-2659 Facsimile: (203) 654-3260 E-mail: eacee@barclaydamon.com - and - Andrew N. Goldfarb, Esq. R. Miles Clark, Esq. Alyssa Howard Card, Esq. Jason S. Cowart, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 2100 L Street, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (202) 778-1800 Facsimile: (202) 822-8106 E-mail: agoldfarb@zuckerman.com mclark@zuckerman.com acard@zuckerman.com jcowart@zuckerman.com - and - Leslie Howard, Esq. Michael Fried, Esq. COHEN HOWARD, LLP 331 Newman Springs Road Building 2, Suite 236 Red Bank, NJ 07701 Telephone: (732) 747-5202 E-mail: lhoward@cohenhoward.com mfried@cohenhoward.com CINQUE RESTAURANT: Akrama Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Mohammad Akrama, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CINQUE RESTAURANT INC. d/b/a OSTERIA BAROCCA and IYAD HAMSHO, Case No. 1:25-cv-09159 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 3, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff minimum and overtime wages. The Defendants have engaged in a long-standing pattern and practice of paying their employees at a rate less than the statutory minimum wage; failing to pay their employees overtime pay for the work they performed in excess of 40 hours per week; failing to provide their employees with proper wage notices at the time of hire and proper wage statements on each payday; failing to pay their employees spread of hours pay when their workdays exceeded 10 hours; stealing their employees' cash tips and making other illegal and unauthorized deductions from their wages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed at Osteria Barocca from July 2024 to January 2025. Cinque Restaurant Inc. is a current or former owner, operator, licensor, licensee, lessee, or manager of the restaurant known as Osteria Barocca located in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick McPartland, Esq. Jared E. Blumetti, Esq. LAROCCA, HORNIK, GREENBERG, KITTREDGE, CARLIN & MCPARTLAND LLP 40 Wall Street, Suite 1608 New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 530-4837, 4831 Email: pmcpartland@lhgkcm.com jblumetti@lhgkcm.com CLASSICA CRUISE: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over 2025 Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that Margaritaville at Sea failed to protect its customers' sensitive personal and health information from a September 2025 data breach. The 58-page lawsuit against Classica Cruise Operator, Ltd, Inc. claims that Margaritaville at Sea failed to properly secure and protect customers' personal information from a September 23, 2025 cyberattack perpetrated by ransomware group Lynx. The case says the cybercriminals managed to extract names, dates of birth, addresses, passport details, financial information, Social Security numbers, health data and other personal information belonging to the defendant's cruise customers. Lynx, per the suit, has become notorious for targeting sensitive data stored by high-profile U.S. companies and then ransoming the data for millions of dollars, often threatening to release or sell it on the dark web if the group's demands are not met. The victims of the Margaritaville at Sea data breach, the complaint claims, are now similarly at risk of their data being sold or listed on the dark web for future illegal, harmful use. Specifically, the lawsuit says that those affected by the Margaritaville at Sea data breach face a heightened risk of: -- Identity theft and fraud, as well as time and money lost discovering and/or mitigating the effects or potential effects of any theft or fraud; -- Delays in the receipt of tax refunds; -- Loss of control over the use of their private information, including unauthorized use of any stolen information; -- The continued compromise or publication of their private information online; -- Invasion of privacy; and -- A continued risk to their private information that remains in the cruise company's possession for as long as the company, per the suit, similarly fails to properly secure its customers' data. Furthermore, the complaint claims that the data breach has also caused proposed class members to lose out on the benefits of their bargain with Margaritaville at Sea, given that transacting with the defendant required the exchange of the now-compromised information. A 2024 study by communications conglomerate Cisco reported that "privacy has become a critical element and enabler of customer trust, with 94 percent of organizations saying their customers would not buy from them if they did not protect data properly," with 89 percent of consumers stating that they "care about data privacy," "[are] willing to spend time and money to protect data" and that they "expect to pay more" for their privacy. In light of this, the complaint alleges that Margaritaville at Sea not only violated consumers' trust but failed to provide the expected data security that was, the case argues, a meaningful factor in consumers' decision to complete their transactions—which included sharing their personal information—with the cruise company. The filing alleges that Margaritaville at Sea should have known that the information exposed in the data breach was sensitive and a valuable target for cyberattacks, especially given the 211-percent increase in corporate data breaches from 2023 to 2024. The Margaritaville at Sea class action lawsuit seeks to represent all U.S. residents who were affected by the September 23, 2025 Margaritaville data breach. [GN] CLOROX COMPANY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Air Purifiers ------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Clorox and Hamilton Beach Brands have falsely marketed their Clorox 11030 Air Purifier as equipped with a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter when, in fact, the standard filter that comes with the product and replacement filters do not meet HEPA standards. According to the 21-page complaint, Clorox deceived consumers about the purported HEPA air filters so as to sell the 11030 Air Purifier at a premium price. Per the case, independent testing performed by the plaintiff's counsel revealed that the filters in the products, as well as replacement filters sold by the defendants, fall short of HEPA standards. Without the alleged deception, the plaintiff argues, reasonable consumers would have been willing to pay less for the air purifiers -- or not bought them at all. "Defendants knew this, but continued hocking their wares, making a killing selling the Air Purifier and replacement filters since the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic," the class action lawsuit charges. To meet HEPA standards, a filter must remove 99.97 percent of all dust, mold, bacteria, and other microscopic particles, the lawsuit explains. However, an independent laboratory hired by the plaintiff's counsel determined the Clorox filters removed only 99.83 percent of particles in the air, meaning their efficacy does not meet the threshold for HEPA compliance, the filing says. The suit argues that Clorox was aware that its filters weren't up to HEPA standards but advertised the products as meeting HEPA standards anyway, so as to influence consumers into paying a higher price. The suit relays that the COVID-19 pandemic and drastic uptick in wildfire smoke caused a surge in the demand for air filters, with the air purifier market expected to balloon to $25.26 billion in 2030. The case accuses Clorox of capitalizing on widespread contamination fears while failing to disclose that its air purifiers had no actual HEPA filtration. The lawsuit goes on to allege that the defendants were "in a position to know (and did know) the true quality and capability of their Products but affirmatively warranted that the Products had a greater purifying ability than they actually did." The plaintiff is a California resident who purchased the 11030 Air Purifier in May 2025. Per the suit, the plaintiff chose this particular model of air purifier after reviewing information that stated the device had a HEPA filter. The lawsuit maintains that the plaintiff would not have bought the air purifier had they known it was not equipped with a HEPA filter. The Clorox air purifier lawsuit looks to cover all consumers in the United States who purchased a Clorox 11030 Air Purifier within the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] CMS ENERGY: Newpage Seeks Prelim Approval of Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NEWPAGE WISCONSIN SYSTEM INC., v. CMS ENERGY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, et al., Case No. 3:09-cv-00240-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (i) Granting expedited consideration of this motion, including scheduling a final fairness hearing at the earliest date that is 105 days or more after the date of this filing, at which the Court will consider: (a) whether to grant final approval of the Dynegy and Xcel Settlements; (b) class counsel's applications for attorneys' fees and costs; and (c) any request for service awards to individual Class Plaintiffs. (ii) Granting preliminary approval of the class action settlement agreement that the Plaintiffs and Dynegy and Xcel have signed; (iii) Preliminarily certifying the Dynegy and Xcel Settlement Class for the Wisconsin Class (Arandell and NewPage); (iv) Appointing Arandell Corporation, Briggs & Stratton Corporation, Carthage College, Ladish Co., Inc. (n/k/a ATI Ladish LLC), Merrick's, Inc., Billerud Wisconsin LLC (f/k/a NewPage Wisconsin System Inc., f/k/a, Verso Minnesota Wisconsin LLC), and Sargento Foods, Inc., as Wisconsin Class Plaintiffs for the Wisconsin Settlement Class; (v) Appointing Kohner Mann & Kailas, S.C., Perkins Coie LLP, and Polsinelli PC as Settlement Counsel; (vi) Approving the manner and form of giving notice of the Dynegy and Xcel Settlements to class members; (vii) Establishing the timetable outlined above for publishing class notice and lodging objections to the terms of the Dynegy and Xcel Settlement; (viii) Approving the procedures outlined above for Wisconsin Class Members to exclude themselves from the Dynegy and Xcel Settlement Class and object to the Xcel Settlements; (ix) Appointing AB Data as the settlement administrator to conduct the duties assigned to that position in the Dynegy and Xcel Settlements; (x) Staying all non-settlement proceedings in the Wisconsin Actions against Dynegy and Xcel pending final approval of the Dynegy and Xcel Settlement; and (xi) Providing such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. The Wisconsin Actions arise from a well-publicized arrangement to manipulate the prices of natural gas sold to industrial and commercial users in the 2000 to 2002 time frame in violation of the laws of the state of Wisconsin. This settlement resolves claims brought by the Wisconsin Class against Dynegy and Xcel. The respective Complaints define the Class Members as: "All industrial and commercial purchasers of natural gas for their own use or consumption during the Relevant Time Period [from Jan. 1, 2000 until Oct. 31, 2002], and which gas was used or consumed by them in Wisconsin." Excluded from the Class are (a) entities that purchased natural gas for resale (to the extent of such purchase for resale); (b) entities that purchased natural gas for generation of electricity for the purpose of sale (to the extent of such purchase for generation); (c) entities that purchased natural gas from entities that sold natural gas at rates approved by the Wisconsin Public Service Commission (to the extent of such purchases at such approved rates); (d) defendants and their predecessors, affiliates and subsidiaries; and (e) the federal government and its agencies. The Plaintiffs have alleged that the Defendants' price manipulation began no later than Jan. 1, 2000, and continued in many respects until at least Oct. 31, 2002. The Plaintiffs have alleged, and their experts' work has confirmed, that the Defendants' actions resulted in Wisconsin Class Members paying excessive prices for natural gas. CMS operates as a consumer energy company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4jrBK6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan M. Billings, Esq. Melinda A. Bialzik, Esq. Lance E. Duroni, Esq. KOHNER, MANN & KAILAS, S.C. Barnabas Business Center 4650 N. Port Washington Road Milwaukee, WI 53212 Telephone: (414) 962-5110 Facsimile: (414) 962-8725 - and - Christopher G. Hanewicz, Esq. Autumn N. Nero, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 33 East Main Street, Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 663-7460 Facsimile: (608) 663-7499 - and - Russell S. Jones, Jr., Esq. Andrew J. Ennis, Esq. POLSINELLI PC 900 W. 48th Place, Suite 900 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 753-1000 Facsimile: (816) 753-1536 CNO FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Burnett" in California ---------------------------------------------------------- CNO Financial 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 continues to defend itself against the putative class action lawsuit entitled Burnett v. Conseco Life Ins. Co. against, among others, CNO Financial Group, Inc. and CNO Services, LLC, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On October 5, 2012, plaintiffs William Jeffrey Burnett and Joe H. Camp commenced an action entitled Burnett v. Conseco Life Ins. Co. against, among others, CNO Financial Group, Inc. and CNO Services, LLC (collectively, the "CNO Entities") in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of a putative class of former interest-sensitive whole life insurance policyholders who surrendered their policies or let them lapse. The Plaintiffs' first amended complaint alleges that the CNO Entities are liable under an alter ego theory for Conseco Life Insurance Company's purported breach of the optional premium payment provision (the "Optional Premium Payment") and other provisions of plaintiffs' insurance policies. In January 2018, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. On August 17, 2020, the Court denied the CNO Entities' motions to dismiss. On January 13, 2021, the Court granted final approval of a class action settlement between plaintiffs and co-defendant Conseco Life Insurance Company (n/k/a Wilco Life Insurance Company). The case remains pending against the CNO Entities. On March 25, 2022, the Court certified a Rule 23(b)(3) class of under 2,000 policyholders who invoked the policy's Optional Premium Payment prior to October 2008 and who surrendered their policies between October 7, 2008 and September 1, 2011. The Court's certification order acknowledged the existence of individualized issues of causation and damages, which the Court stated could be addressed in individualized proceedings following a class trial on the alter ego allegations and the meaning of the subject insurance policy language. On September 25, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part the CNO Entities' Motion for Summary Judgment on the breach of contract claim. On November 12, 2024, the Court granted CNO Entities' Motion to Bifurcate the trials of the breach of contract and alter ego claims. On May 7, 2025, the CNO Entities conceded that certain actions by Conseco Life Insurance Company breached the policies' terms; the CNO Entities maintain that such breaches did not cause any damages to Plaintiffs. A three-day jury trial on causation and damages as to the two class representatives commenced on June 16, 2025, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the class representatives on June 18, 2025 for approximately $0.2 million collectively. This verdict is notional and contingent and has no preclusive effect on any follow on trials by absent class members in terms of causation and damages. The class representatives' ability to collect any damages from the CNO Entities will depend on the outcome of the bench trial on alter ego liability. The bench trial on alter ego liability was held between August 26 to September 2, 2025, but no ruling has been made yet. The parties are currently preparing post-trial briefing, which is anticipated to be concluded by mid-November. Any liability of any kind will depend on the outcome of the alter ego trial, and in the event the court rules in favor of Plaintiffs on that issue, whether absent class members will participate in follow on trials to determine whether they are entitled to damages, and the outcome of those trials. The outcome of all trials will be subject to appeal. Because there is no final judgment in the case resulting from the jury trial, the CNO Entities cannot yet appeal the jury verdict, and all rights to appeal with respect to all issues have otherwise been preserved. Any follow on trials and appeals with respect to absent class members may take years to resolve. The CNO Entities continue to vigorously defend the case. CONOCOPHILLIPS: Continues to Defend Concho Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- ConocoPhillips 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 a federal securities class action was filed against Concho Resources Inc. In July 2021, a federal securities class action was filed against Concho Resources Inc. (Concho), certain of Concho's officers, and ConocoPhillips as Concho's successor in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. On October 21, 2021, the court issued an order appointing Utah Retirement Systems and the Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern California as lead plaintiffs (Lead Plaintiffs). On January 7, 2022, the Lead Plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint alleging that Concho made materially false and misleading statements regarding its business and operations in violation of the federal securities laws and seeking unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, costs, equitable/injunctive relief and such other relief that may be deemed appropriate. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on March 8, 2022. On June 23, 2023, the court denied defendants' motion as to most defendants including Concho/ConocoPhillips. On April 7, 2025, the court certified a class. "We believe the allegations in the action are without merit and are vigorously defending this litigation," the Company stated. CORECIVIC INC: Continues to Defend ICE Detainees' Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Corecivic, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend the lawsuit filed by detainees of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). On May 31, 2017, two former ICE detainees, who were detained at the Company's Otay Mesa Detention Center ("OMDC") in San Diego, California, filed a class action lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The complaint alleged that the Company forces detainees to perform labor under threat of punishment in violation of state and federal anti-trafficking laws and that OMDC's Voluntary Work Program ("VWP") violates state labor laws including state minimum wage laws. ICE requires that CoreCivic offer and operate the VWP in conformance with ICE standards and ICE prescribes the minimum rate of pay for VWP participants. The Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, exemplary damages, restitution, penalties, and interest as well as declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of former and current detainees. On April 1, 2020, the district court certified a nationwide anti-trafficking claims class of former and current detainees who participated in an ICE VWP at a CoreCivic facility. It also certified a state law class of former and current detainees who participated in a VWP wherever the Company held ICE detainees in California. The Company has exhausted appeals of the class certification order. On May 6, 2024, the district court stayed the filing of dispositive motions on state law claims under California law pending the outcome of a related case being prosecuted by another private prison company. That case is currently on appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The claims resulting in certified classes are proceeding in all other respects in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, where the discovery process has commenced. A second California lawsuit concerning the VWP at OMDC has been stayed pending the outcome of class proceedings in the first California case. Due to the stage of the ongoing proceedings, the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcomes, nor can it estimate the amount of loss or range of loss, if any, that may result. As a result, the Company has not recorded an accrual relating to these matters at this time, as losses are not considered probable or reasonably estimable at this stage of these lawsuits. CPA GLOBAL: Seeks Leave to File Class Exhibits Under Seal --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRAINCHILD SURGICAL DEVICES, LLC, a New York limited liability company, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v. CPA GLOBAL LIMITED a foreign entity formed under the laws of the Island of Jersey, Channel Islands, Case No. 1:21-cv-00554-RDA-LRV (E.D. Va.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for leave to file exhibits under seal as follows: (a) Exhibits 1 and 3–6 to CPA Global's Opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification”), as well as certain portions of its memorandum of law in support of the opposition, and certain portions of the declaration of Andrew Proctor in support of the opposition and Exhibit A thereto; (b) Exhibits 1-4 to CPA Global's motion to strike or otherwise exclude the declaration of David A. Cass and for sanctions (the "Cass Motion to Strike"), as well as certain portions of its memorandum of law in support of the Cass motion to strike; and (c) certain portions of its memorandum of law in support of the motion to strike or otherwise exclude the declaration of John Keogh and for sanctions. The relevant exhibits have been designated as confidential and highly confidential by CPA Global and/or extensively discuss and quote from documents that have been designated as confidential and highly confidential by CPA Global because they reflect CPA Global's pricing, negotiation, and contracting strategy, as well as the confidential information of CPA Global's clients, who are third parties to this lawsuit. Such material is commercially sensitive and kept in confidence in order to safeguard the confidential and proprietary decision-making that goes into CPA Global's strategy and pricing, and permitting them to be filed on the public docket would significantly prejudice CPA Global's business interests. CPA provides general, legal, and intellectual property (IP) support services. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8UnZMW at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Eric C. Lyttle, Esq Meghan M. McCaffrey, Esq. J. Matthew Hamann, Esq. Kyra Simon, Esq. Anthony P. Alden, Esq. Michael L. Fazio, Esq. Maria M. Mortenson, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 1300 I Street, NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 538-8000 Facsimile: (202) 538-8100 E-mail: ericlyttle@quinnemanuel.com meghanmccaffrey@quinnemanuel.com matthewhamann@quinnemanuel.com kyrasimon@quinnemanuel.com anthonyalden@quinnemanuel.com michaelfazio@quinnemanuel.com mariamortenson@quinnemanuel.com CREDENCE MANAGEMENT: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Opposition ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNA GERRARD, ALEXA LUBOMSKI, and SARA LAMB, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. CREDENCE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00952-AJT-WEF (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Trenga entered an order granting the defendant's consent motion to extend deadline to oppose the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class, appoint class representatives, and appoint class counsel. Credence provides innovative technology, health, engineering, and management solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=x8qSFz at no extra charge.[CC] CREDENCE MANAGEMENT: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNA GERRARD, ALEXA LUBOMSKI, and SARA LAMB, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. CREDENCE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00952-AJT-WEF (E.D. Va.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting consent motion to extend deadline to oppose the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class, appoint class representatives, and appoint class counsel. The Defendant requests that the Court grant an extension of time to file its opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify up to and including Nov. 3, 2025. The Plaintiffs filed this action as a Class Action Complaint on June 5, 2025, and Defendant answered on July 1, 2025. The parties submitted their Joint Proposed Discovery Plan on August 27, 2025, providing, among other things, that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification would be due October 17, 2025, with Defendant's opposition due October 31, 2025. The Court issued the Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order, approving the parties’ discovery plan. On Oct. 16, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a Consent Motion to Extend Deadline for Filing of Class Certification, of one week, to Oct. 24, 2025. The Court found good cause, and granted the Plaintiffs' requested extension. Credence provides management and technology solutions, strategy, business transformation, advisory and implementation services. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9NUbUi at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Matthew E. Feinberg, Esq. Zachary S. Stinson, Esq. PILIEROMAZZA PLLC 1001 G Street NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 857-1000 Facsimile: (202) 857-0200 E-mail: mfeinberg@pilieromazza.com zstinson@pilieromazza.com CYBERRISK ALLIANCE: Hudson Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CyberRisk Alliance, LLC. The case is styled as Kimberly Hudson, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CyberRisk Alliance, LLC, Case No 1:25-cv-09064-AS (S.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. CyberRisk Alliance -- https://www.cyberriskalliance.com/ -- is a business intelligence company serving the cybersecurity and information risk management marketplace specialized businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig Thor Kimmel, Esq. KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, P.C. 30 E. Butler Ave. Ambler, PA 19002 Phone: (267) 468-7638 Fax: (877) 600-2112 Email: teamkimmel@creditlaw.com DANA INC: Parker Balks at Mass Layoffs Without Advance Notice ------------------------------------------------------------- MELINDA PARKER, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DANA INCORPORATED; DANA THERMAL PRODUCTS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-13478-LVP-CI (E.D. Mich., October 31, 2025) is a class action complaint brought under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, by the Plaintiff on her own behalf and on behalf of the other similarly situated persons against Defendants, her employers for WARN Act purposes. The complaint relates that over the last 90 days, the Defendants abruptly terminated several groups of employees, unilaterally and without proper notice to employees or staff, terminating over 50 employees and at least 33% of active full time employees, including Plaintiff, at the Dana Facility. Upon information and belief, Dana will continue mass layoffs through January 31, 2026. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and other similarly situated former employees who worked for Defendants and were terminated as part of the foreseeable result of a mass lay off or plant closing ordered by Defendants around October 9, 2025 and within 90 days of that date and who were not provided 60 days' advance written notice of their terminations by Defendants, as required by the WARN Act. The Plaintiff worked as a quality technician at the Dana Facility, where she was a full time employee. Dana Incorporated operates a facility located in Auburn Hills, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Powell Miler, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 W. University Dr., Ste. 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Sam K. Gladneu, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS, & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa Parks Ave., Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com sgladney@stranchlaw.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenmalad.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI, LLP 613 Williamson St., Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 237-1775 Facsimile: (608) 509-4423 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com DANONE NORTH AMERICA: Press Suit Removed to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Katerina Press, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DANONE NORTH AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 25CV145622 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on Oct. 31, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-09423. On September 25, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint against Danone North America, LLC asserting the following causes of action: violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), violations of the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), and breach of express warranty.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Tia Q. Nguyen, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 555 Mission Street, Suite 2400 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 836-2500 Fax: (415) 836-2501 Email: tia.nguyen@us.dlapiper.com - and - Keara M. Gordon, Esq. Colleen M. Carey Gulliver, Esq. Connor D. Rowinski, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 27th Floor New York, NY 10020 Phone: (212) 335-4500 Fax: (917) 778-8037 Email: keara.gordon@us.dlapiper.com colleen.gulliver@us.dlapiper.com connor.rowinski@us.dlapiper.com DENVER SHERIFFS: Johnson Seeks Approval of Class Notice Plan ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Johnson v. Denver Sheriffs Department (re DENVER JAIL COVID-19 LITIGATION), Case No. 1:20-cv-01795-JLK-KAS (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B) approving Plaintiffs' proposed form and manner of providing notice (the "Notice Plan"), directing the Colorado Department of Corrections, the Division of Probation Services, and the Division of Parole Offices to assist in providing notice, and appointing EAG Gulf Coast, LLC (EAG) as notice administrator. During and following the COVID-19 pandemic, individuals incarcerated at the Denver City and County Jails brought cases forward alleging the Defendant failed to protect them from contracting COVID-19 in violation of their constitutional rights. On Feb. 25, 2021, the Court consolidated the. The Court issued an Order Granting Class Certification on March 8, 2024, certifying the following Classes: Primary Class "All detainees who were placed in the custody of the Denver County Jails (combined facilities) and tested positive for the coronavirus while detained, excluding those detainees who tested positive at intake and did not contract the virus again while detained." The class period commenced on Jan. 1, 2020, and ended Feb. 1, 2022. Denver County Jail Class "All detainees who were placed in the custody of the Denver County Jail and tested positive for the coronavirus while detained, excluding those detainees who tested positive at intake and did not contract the virus again while detained." The class period commenced on Jan. 1, 2020, and ended Feb. 1, 2022. Denver Downtown Jail Class "All detainees who were placed in the custody of the Van Cise Simonet Downtown Detention Center and tested positive for the coronavirus while detained, excluding those detainees who tested positive at intake and did not contract the virus again while detained." The class period commenced on Jan. 1, 2020, and ended Feb. 1, 2022. The Defendant is a criminal justice agency based in Denver, Colorado, United States. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XfnfNK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradley A. Levin, Esq. Robyn Levin, Esq. Gideon S. Irving, Esq. Annika K. Adams, Esq. LEVIN SITCOFF PC 455 Sherman St., Ste. 490 Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 575-9390 Facsimile: (303) 575-9385 E-mail: brad@lsw-legal.com robyn@lsw-legal.com gideon@lsw-legal.com annika@lsw-legal.com - and - Rick D. Bailey, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RICK D. BAILEY, ESQ. 1085 Lafayette St., Suite 702 Denver, CO 80218 Telephone: (720) 676-6023 E-mail: rick@rickbaileylaw.com - and - Zachary D. Warren, Esq. HIGHLANDS LAW FIRM 501 S. Cherry St., 11th Floor Denver, CO 80246 Telephone: (720) 722-3880 Facsimile: (720) 815-3380 E-mail: zwarren@highlandslawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Ashley M. Kelliher, Esq. Robert N. Lyman, Esq. Bryan Kaufman, Esq. DENVER CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 201 West Colfax Ave., Dept. 1108 Denver, CO 80202 E-mail: Ashley.Kelliher@denvergov.org Robert.Lyman@denvergov.org Bryan.Kaufman@denvergov.org DEUTSCHE TELEKOM: Faces Palkon Suit over Stock Repurchase --------------------------------------------------------- T-Mobile US, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2025, that on February 25, 2025, a purported company shareholder filed a putative class action and derivative lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery under the caption "Palkon v. Deutsche Telekom AG, et al.," Case No. 2025-0211-PAF, against four Deutsche Telekom entities, its current directors, and certain of its former directors, asserting breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims relating to its 2022 Stock Repurchase Program and our 2023-2024 Stockholder Return Program. T-Mobile US, Inc. is a telecommunications company based in Washington. Deutsche Telekom AG, which as of April 2023, holds a 53.3% majority stake in the company. DEXTER STAMPING: Ramsey Sues Over WARN Act Violations ----------------------------------------------------- Matthew Ramsey, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. DEXTER STAMPING COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-01262 (M.D. Tenn., Oct. 31, 2025), is brought under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (the "WARN Act"), by the Plaintiffs against Defendant, their employer for WARN Act purposes. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and other similarly situated former employees who worked for Defendant and were terminated as part of the foreseeable mass lay off or plant closing ordered by Defendant on or around October 28, 2025 and within 90 days of that date and who were not provided 60 days' advance written notice of their terminations by Defendant, as required by the WARN Act. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees should have received the full protection afforded by the WARN Act. The Defendant did not provide proper WARN Act Notice, 60 days' in advance, as required by the WARN Act even though it planned to abolish, terminate, and/or layoff at least 50 employees and 33% of the employees employed at the Facilities. By failing to provide its affected employees who were temporarily or permanently terminated on October 28, 2025, with proper WARN Act Notices and other benefits. The Defendant acted willfully and cannot establish that they had any reasonable grounds or basis for believing its actions were not in violation of the WARN Act, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was terminated from a worksite located in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, on October 28, 2025, as part of a mass layoff or plant closing without proper notice. The Defendant conducted business in this district operated the facility in Murfreesboro, Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Samuel K. Gladney, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com sgladney@stranchlaw.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 636-6481 Email: ltoops@cohenmalad.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS & BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com DOXIMITY INC: Evidentiary Hearing Bid in Securities Suit Tossed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Doximity, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:24-cv-02281-NW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Noel Wise entered an order denying the Defendants' administrative motion for an evidentiary hearing. On Sept. 26, 2025, the Defendants Doximity, Inc. and Jeffrey Tangney filed an administrative motion for an evidentiary hearing in connection with Lead Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Court is unpersuaded that an evidentiary hearing is currently necessary and denies Defendants' motion. The parties have provided the Court with a sufficient record to consider the motion for class certification. Doximity operates as a digital platform for medical professionals in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8OTjtT at no extra charge.[CC] DRIVER PROTECT: Skinner Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Driver Protect, Inc. The case is styled as Sharon Skinner, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. Driver Protect, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-01468-SKO (E.D. Cal., Oct. 31, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mona Amini, Esq. Gustavo Ponce, Esq. Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (800) 400-6808 ext. 8 Fax: (800) 520-5523 Email: mona@kazlg.com gustavo@kazlg.com ak@kazlg.com - and - David James McGlothlin, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 3240 E. Union Hills Drive, Suite 105 Phoenix, AZ 85050 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Email: david@kazlg.com EARTHGRAINS DISTRIBUTION: Munoz Seeks Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TLALOC MUNOZ, an individual; MIGUEL RUIZ, an individual; EDGAR CORONA, an individual; STEVEN SNAVELY, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. EARTHGRAINS DISTRIBUTION, LLC a Delaware limited liability company; BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:22-cv-01269-AJB-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Jan. 15, 2026, will seek an order certifying a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The "Class" is defined as: "All individuals during the Class Period who personally operated an Earthgrains or Bimbo territory, i.e., a "Distributor," in California and who were not classified as employees." The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to enter an order: -- Appointing Plaintiffs Tlaloc Munoz, Miguel Ruiz, Edgar Corona, and Steven Snavely as the Class Representatives; and -- Appointing the law firm of Nicholas & Tomasevic, LLP as class Counsel. The Plaintiffs allege that themselves and other Bimbo Bakeries distributors were misclassified as independent contractors and denied the benefits of California employment laws. The Plaintiffs assert that class certification is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) because (1) the class that Plaintiffs seek to certify is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions and answers of law or fact common to class members; (3) the claims of the representative Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class they seek to represent; and (4) the representative Plaintiffs and their counsel will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the proposed class. Earthgrains is a facility that specializes in the distribution of various food products. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IDwtJa at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shaun Markley, Esq. Craig M. Nicholas, Esq. Alex Tomasevic, Esq. Shaun Markley, Esq. Jordan Belcastro, Esq. NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP 225 Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 325-0492 Facsimile: (619) 325-0496 E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org smarkley@nicholaslaw.org jbelcastro@nicholaslaw.org ECHOSTAR CORP: DISH Continues to Defend "Jones" 401(k) Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- EchoStar 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 its wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network continues to defend itself against the Jones 401(k) litigation. "On December 20, 2021, four former employees filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network, its Board of Directors, and its Retirement Plan Committee alleging fiduciary breaches arising from the management of our 401(k) Plan. "The putative class, comprised of all participants in the Plan on or after January 20, 2016, alleges that the Plan had excessive recordkeeping and administrative expenses and that it maintained underperforming funds. "On February 1, 2023, a Magistrate Judge issued a recommendation that the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint be granted, and on March 27, 2023, the district court judge granted the motion. As permitted by the Court's order, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 10, 2023, which is limited to allegations regarding the retention and alleged underperformance of the Fidelity Freedom Funds. On November 7, 2023, a Magistrate Judge issued a recommendation that the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint be denied as to the duty to prudently monitor fund performance, but be granted as to the duty of loyalty and, on November 27, 2023, the district court judge entered an order adopting the recommendation. On March 1, 2024, by stipulation, the plaintiffs dismissed their claims against the Board of Directors and the Retirement Plan Committee, leaving DISH Network as the sole defendant. On April 30, 2024, pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the Court certified the proposed plaintiff class. "Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the case was stayed from October 30, 2024 through May 29, 2025 to facilitate a mediation, but the parties did not reach a settlement. The plaintiffs' expert claims damages of $16.7 million, which is reduced to $10.7 million when Fidelity revenue sharing is credited. "We intend to vigorously defend this case. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages," the Company stated. ECHOSTAR CORP: DISH Continues to Defend "Lingam" Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- EchoStar 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 its wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network continues to defend itself against the Lingam securities class action. "On March 23, 2023, a securities fraud class action complaint was filed against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network and Messrs. Ergen, Carlson and Orban in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint was brought on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of our securities during the February 22, 2021 to February 27, 2023 class period. "In general, the complaint alleged that DISH Network's public statements during that period were false and misleading and contained material omissions, because they did not disclose that DISH Network allegedly maintained a deficient cyber-security and information technology infrastructure, were unable to properly secure customer data and DISH Network's operations were susceptible to widespread service outages. "In August 2023, the Court appointed a new lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel, and, on October 20, 2023, they filed a First Amended Complaint that abandoned the original allegations. In their First Amended Complaint, plaintiffs alleged that, during the class period, the defendants concealed problems concerning the 5G network build-out that prevented scaling and commercializing the network to obtain enterprise customers. The amended complaint added as individual defendants James S. Allen, DISH Network's Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer; John Swieringa, our President, Technology and Chief Operating Officer; Dave Mayo, DISH Network's former Executive Vice President of Network Development; Marc Rouanne, DISH Network's former Executive Vice President and Chief Network Officer; and Stephen Bye, DISH Network's former Executive Vice President and Chief Commercial Officer. "After the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, asserting the same theory, on February 23, 2024. The new complaint drops Erik Carlson, John Swieringa, Paul Orban and James Allen as individual defendants. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, and on March 20, 2025, the Court granted the motion without granting plaintiffs permission to further amend. The plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, and briefing was completed on September 12, 2025. "We intend to vigorously defend this case. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages," the Company stated. EIGHT ORANGES: $1.75MM Class Settlement in Mangahas Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSY MANGAHAS, et al., v. EIGHT ORANGES INC. d/b/a THE BAO, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-04150-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis Liman entered an order that: -- The Plaintiffs' motion for certification of the Settlement Class and for final approval of the Settlement Agreement under Rule 23 and FLSA is granted except as otherwise noted in this Opinion and Order. -- Class Counsel's motion for fees, costs, and administrative expenses is granted. -- The motion for service awards is granted. The Plaintiffs move under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(3), (e)(2), and (h) for: (1) certification of a settlement class comprised of "All persons who work or have worked as servers, bussers, runners, bartenders, barbacks and all other similar employees at The Bao located at 13 St Marks Place, New York, New York 10003 and Uluh located at 152 2nd Avenue, New York, New York 10003 between Oct. 15, 2015 and Oct. 1, 2023"; (2) final approval of the Settlement Agreement dated July 10, 2025 at Dkt. No. 206-1; (3) service awards to the Named Plaintiffs and certain opt-in plaintiffs; (4) attorneys’ fees and costs; and (5) administrative costs to the Claims Administrator. Dkt. No. 205. Named Plaintiffs also move for final approval of the FLSA settlement pursuant to Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 296 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015). The motions are granted. The final Settlement Agreement submitted to the Court for approval and dated July 10, 2025, provides that Defendants shall pay a gross settlement amount of $1,750,000 to be used to fund individual settlement amounts to class members and plaintiffs, court-approved attorneys’ fees and costs, court-approved service payments, and fees and expenses incurred by the Claims Administrator. The Plaintiffs are employees who worked at two New York restaurants, The Bao and Uluh, that serve Chinese-influenced cuisine. They allege violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). Eight is a creative agency. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Oct. 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qMANUH at no extra charge.[CC] ENERGY TRANSFER: Nov. 20 Court Conference in "La Hart" ------------------------------------------------------ Energy Transfer LP disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that court conferences in the putative class action filed by Daniel and Katherine La Hart as well as individual actions are set for November 20, 2025. On March 27, 2025, Daniel and Katherine La Hart ("Plaintiffs") filed a Class Action Complaint against SPLP, Energy Transfer, and Energy Transfer R&M (collectively, "Defendants") in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, captioned Daniel La Hart and Katherine La Hart v. Sunoco Pipeline L.P., Energy Transfer, and Energy Transfer R&M; Case No. 250303655. The action is related to the release of jet fuel (the "Release") from the 14" Twin-Oaks to Newark Pipeline (the "Pipeline") in Upper Makefield Township, Bucks County, Pennsylvania. The putative class was defined in the complaint as all "Pennsylvania citizens who owned, rented, and/or resided" in properties "within a one-mile radius" of the location of the Release from "September 1, 2023, to the present." Excluded from the class definition are homeowners of six properties which are among those properties which have brought individual actions related to the Release. Plaintiffs asserted causes of action for negligence, gross negligence, negligence per se, strict liability/abnormally dangerous/ultrahazardous activity, public nuisance, private nuisance, trespass, negligent infliction of emotional distress and medical monitoring. Plaintiffs sought compensatory damages, punitive damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, and medical monitoring for their alleged exposure to petroleum constituents at their properties and in groundwater. Defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the "E.D. Pa.") on April 24, 2025 and filed a motion to dismiss on May 14, 2025. On May 27, 2025, Plaintiffs moved to remand. On June 4, 2025, Plaintiffs amended their complaint (the "Amended Complaint"), consolidating their negligence, negligence per se and gross negligence claims into a single cause of action. On June 13, 2025, the E.D. Pa. granted Plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. Defendants have appealed the remand decision. On June 25, 2025, Defendants filed their preliminary objections to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint which included an objection based on improper venue, and on June 27, 2025, Defendants filed a Motion to Transfer the case to the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, Pennsylvania on the grounds of forum non conveniens. On July 9, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction, seeking inter alia, to enjoin the operation of the Pipeline; which Defendants opposed on July 21, 2025. In connection with the venue issues raised by these filings, the Court of Common Pleas has ordered certain discovery, followed by amended pleadings and/or supplemental briefing. Court conferences in the La Hart putative class action as well as individual actions are set for November 20, 2025. Defendants intend to vigorously defend these claims. EXACT CARE: Weingrad Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEON WEINGRAD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EXACT CARE PHARMACY, LLC, CONVERSION FINDER, AND JORDAN SOBLICK, Case No. 2:25-cv-01843-MMB (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting unopposed motion for extension of time to file motion for class certification. As such, the Plaintiff requests that the Court require the Plaintiff to file his Motion for Class Certification on January 19, 2026, with a response due February 12, 2026, and a reply due by February 19, 2026. The Plaintiff, Leon Weingrad, with the non-objection of the Defendants, requests that the Court extend the deadlines for Class Certification. Currently, the Court's order directs the Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification no later than November 19, 2025, with a response due December 12, 2025, and a reply due by December 19, 2025. The Plaintiff requests that those deadlines be extended to January 19, 2026, with a response due February 12, 2026, and a reply due by February 19, 2026. ExactCare is a national medication management and pharmacy provider. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JxDZfK 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 EXPEDIA INC: Bid to Extend Filing for Class Response Granted ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARICELA MATA, et al., v. EXPEDIA, INC.; et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-22529-CMA (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga entered an order granting in part the Defendants' unopposed motion to extend deadline to file response to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Defendants' deadline to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification (which is due by Dec. 24, 2025 in accordance with the Scheduling Order) is extended to 21 days after the Plaintiffs file their motion for class certification. Expedia is an American travel technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CwlfVG at no extra charge.[CC] FLOWERS BAKERIES: Austin Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Tristan Austin, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. FLOWERS BAKERIES SALES OF SOCAL, LLC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV28273 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-10510. In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts the following causes of action: Failure to Pay Wages for all Hours Worked at the Minimum Wage in Violation of Labor Codes; Failure to Pay Overtime and/or Failure to Pay Overtime Wages at the Proper Overtime Rate of Pay in Violation of Labor Codes; Failure to Pay Wages for Accrued Pay Sick Days at the Regular Rate of Pay in Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Provide Complete and Accurate Wage Statements in Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Timely Pay all Earned Wages and Final Paychecks due at Time of Separation in Violation of Labor Codes; and Unfair Business Practices in Violation of Business and Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jared L. Palmer, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. One Embarcadero Center, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415-369-3553 Facsimile: 415-442-4870 Email: jared.palmer@ogletree.com - and - Frank L. Tobin, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92122 Phone: 858-652-3100 Facsimile: 858-652-3101 Email: frank.tobin@ogletree.com FLOWERS FOODS: Settles "Ludlow" and Companion Cases --------------------------------------------------- Flowers Foods, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended October 4, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it has settled the class action lawsuit styled Ludlow et al. v. Flowers Foods, Inc., Flowers Bakeries, LLC and Flowers Finance, LLC, and two companion cases. Since the beginning of Fiscal 2024, the company has settled, and the appropriate court has approved, the following collective/class action lawsuits filed by IDPs alleging that such IDPs were misclassified as independent contractors: Ludlow et al. v. Flowers Foods, Inc., Flowers Bakeries, LLC and Flowers Finance, LLC, 3:18-cv-01190, U.S. District Court Southern District of California, filed on 6/6/2018. On March 18, 2024, the court approved a settlement to settle this lawsuit and two companion cases -- Maciel et al. v. Flowers Foods, Inc. et al., No. 3:20-cv-02059-JO-JLB (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California) and Maciel v. Flowers Foods, Inc. et al., No. 20-CIV-02959 (Superior Court of San Mateo County, California). The settlement provides for a $55 million common fund, which was paid during the second quarter of Fiscal 2024, to cover settlement payments to a class of approximately 475 plaintiffs, service awards, attorneys' fees and settlement administration expenses. The settlement also required a phased repurchase of distribution rights associated with approximately 350 territories in California. The company now services its California market with an employment model. The repurchase of distribution rights was completed in the second quarter of Fiscal 2025. The repurchase cost of the 350 territories, along with 50 additional California territories that are not part of the settlement, was $79.0 million (of which $65.3 million was originally included in other accrued liabilities and the remaining $14.9 million in a contra account to notes receivable). These amounts were recorded in the selling, distribution, and administrative expenses line item of the Consolidated Statements of Income during Fiscal 2023, net of an adjustment recorded during the first quarter of Fiscal 2025 of $1.2 million. FLOYD BONNER: Just City Seeks Leave to File Post-Hearing Memo ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Just City, Inc., and class representatives Deangelo Towns and Marshawn Barnes, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Floyd Bonner Jr., Shelby County Sheriff, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-02540-TLP-tmp (W.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting them leave to file the attached post-hearing memorandum in support of their motion for class certification. The Defendants include Lee Wilson, Presiding Shelby County General Sessions Criminal Court Judge; and John Marshall, Robert Barber, Rhonda Harris, Kevin Reed, Christopher Ingram, Shayla Purifoy, Ross Sampson, Serena Gray, Terita Hewlett, Mischelle Best, Kenya Smith, Zayid Saleem, Kathy Kirk Johnson, Leslie Mozingo, Shelby County Judicial Commissioners, in their official capacities. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DfEzAW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ashika Verriest, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION CRIMINAL LAW REFORM PROJECT 125 Broad Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (347) 302-2797 E-mail: averriest@aclu.org - and - Stella Yarbrough, Esq. Lucas Cameron-Vaughn, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF TENNESSEE Nashville, TN 37212 Telephone: (615) 320-7142 E-mail: syarbrough@aclu-tn.org - and - Craig S. Waldman, Esq. David Elbaum, Esq. Jared Quigley, Esq. SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 455-2000 E-mail: cwaldman@stblaw.com david.elbaum@stblaw.com jared.quigley@stblaw.com FORBES MEDIA: Filing for Class Certification Due April 3, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOMENICA BERMAN and ABYGAEL PIEHL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FORBES MEDIA LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-09287-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Orrick entered an order modifying pre-trial schedule as schedule: Close of Fact Discovery March 10, 2026 The Plaintiffs' motion for class April 3, 2026 certification: Forbes's opposition to motion for class May 1, 2026 Certification: The Plaintiffs' reply in support of May 29, 2026 motion for class certification: Hearing on motion for class June 17, 2026 certification: Last Day to file dispositive motions Sept. 4, 2026 and Daubert motions: Hearing on dispositive motions: Oct. 14, 2026 Final pretrial conference: Dec. 14, 2026 Forbes is a media, branding, and technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xdalOm at no extra charge.[CC] FORD MOTOR: Droesser Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DROESSER, et al., v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 2:19-cv-12365-LJM-APP (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1)-(4) and (b)(3), and appointing the Counsel and Class Representatives pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). Specifically, the Plaintiffs move for certification of the classes listed below under Rule 23(b)(3) with respect to "Class Vehicles," which are defined as "Model Year 2011-present Ford Power Stroke 6.7L diesel trucks." 1. California Class "All persons or entities who purchased one or more of the Class Vehicles in California and have paid, or will have paid, out of pocket for a CP4 repair." 2. Indiana Class "All persons or entities who purchased one or more of the Class Vehicles in Indiana and have paid, or will have paid, out of pocket for a CP4 repair." 3. Louisiana Class "All persons or entities who purchased one or more of the Class Vehicles in Louisiana and have paid, or will have paid, out of pocket for a CP4 repair." 4. New Jersey Class "All persons or entities who purchased one or more of the Class Vehicles in New Jersey and have paid, or will have paid, out of pocket for a CP4 repair." 5. Ohio Class "All persons or entities who purchased one or more of the Class Vehicles in Ohio and have paid, or will have paid, out of pocket for a CP4 repair." 6. Pennsylvania Class "All persons or entities who purchased one or more of the Class Vehicles in Pennsylvania and have paid, or will have paid, out of pocket for a CP4 repair." 7. South Carolina Class "All persons or entities who purchased one or more of the Class Vehicles in South Carolina and have paid, or will have paid, out of pocket for a CP4 repair." The Plaintiffs further move for appointment of the following Plaintiffs as Class Representatives for the Classes: Curtis McNeal Mertz and Joseph Sawicki (California); Sonja Bauers (Indiana); Joey Angona and Jeffrey A. Ford (Louisiana); Jay Eriv (New Jersey), Matthew Parker (Ohio); Trevor Wentz (Pennsylvania); and Keith Williams (South Carolina). Plaintiffs also move for appointment of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Hilliard Law, and The Miller Law Firm P.C. as Class Counsel for all Classes, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). Because Plaintiffs and thousands of Class members were economically harmed by Ford’s failure to disclose the defect in the same manner, and their interests are aligned, the proposed Classes meet the numerosity, typicality, and adequacy requirements under Rule 23(a)(1), (3), and (4). Ford is an American multinational automaker. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BeVNqz at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Jerrod C. Patterson, 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 jerrodp@hbsslaw.com - and - Robert C. Hilliard, Esq. Lauren Akers, Esq. HILLIARD LAW 719 S. Shoreline Blvd. Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 882-1612 E-mail: bobh@hilliard-law.com lakers@hilliard-law.com - and - E. Powell Miller, Esq. Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 W. University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 Facsimile: (248) 652-2852 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com dal@millerlawpc.com - and - James L Ward, Jr., Esq. MCGOWAN, HOOD, FELDER & PHILLIPS LLC 10 Shem Dr., Ste. 300 Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 388-7202 Facsimile: (843) 388-3194 FOUND HEALTH: Lewis Sues Over Unlawful Text Message and Calls ------------------------------------------------------------- Kimberly Figueroa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. A O. SMITH CORPORATION, Case No. CACE-25-016737 (Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Oct. 31, 2025), is brought for injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for violations Of the Caller ID Rules of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA"). In direct contravention of the Caller ID Rules, however, many callers, such as Defendant, make Telephonic Sales Calls a central part of their marketing strategy, and in doing so, intentionally transmit telephone numbers to recipient's Caller ID services that are not capable of receiving telephone calls. As such, Plaintiff, brings this action alleging that Defendant violated the FTSA's Caller ID Rules by transmitting a phone number that was not capable of receiving phone calls when it made Telephonic Sales Calls by text message ("Text Message Sales Calls"). Specifically, Defendant made Text Message Sales Calls that promoted Aquasana ("Aquasana Text Message Sales Calls") and violated the Caller ID Rules when it transmitted to the recipients' caller identification services a telephone number that was not capable of receiving telephone calls, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is the regular user of a cellular telephone number that receives Defendant's telephonic sales calls. A. O. Smith Corporation, is registered as a Foreign Corporation, which sells various goods to persons throughout the country through its online store.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. Shawn A. Heller, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Phone: (202) 709-5744 Fax: (866) 893-0416 Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com FOX TELEVISION: Cabrera Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Maximiliano Cabrera, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and the general public v. FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25CV144529 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on Oct. 31, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-09422. On September 23, 2025, Plaintiff commenced this Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") representative action by filing a Representative Action Complaint.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: David H. Stern, Esq. Alex E. Spjute, Esq. Matthew J. Goodman, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1900 Avenue of The Stars, Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310.820.8800 Facsimile: 310.820.8859 Email: dstern@bakerlaw.com aspjute@bakerlaw.com mgoodman@bakerlaw.com FRANKIE'S ORIGINAL: Zavala Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Danilo Zavala and Wilson Quintanilla, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated v. FRANKIE'S ORIGINAL PIZZERIA AND RESTAURANT, LLC and FRANK LONIGRO, Case No. 2:25-cv-06156 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 4, 2025), is brought as a result of the Defendants' violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") due to unpaid overtime wages. The Plaintiffs regularly worked more than 40 hours in a work week but were not paid overtime in violation of the FLSA and the NYLL. The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff overtime at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for time worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Throughout his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff regularly worked more than ten hours in a single day. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff spread-of hours pay for each day in which their spread of hours exceeded 10 hours. The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff overtime at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for time worked in excess of 40 hours per week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from July 2024 to September 2025. FRANKIE'S ORIGINAL PIZZERIA AND RESTAURANT, LLC operates a restaurant in the County of Nassau and State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Phone: (631) 257-5588 Email: Promero@RomeroLawNY.com FREEWAY INSURANCE: Rodney Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Freeway Insurance Services America, LLC. The case is styled as Wendi Rodney, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Freeway Insurance Services America, LLC, Case No. 8:25-cv-02459 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 31, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Freeway Insurance Services America, LLC -- https://www.freeway.com/ -- is an American insurance agency with over 600 retail locations in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott A. Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 1925 Century Park E, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com FULLBEAUTY BRANDS: Class Cert. Filing in Broomes Due May 6, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA BROOMES, MARY UHT, BARBARA FITCH, JESSICA HILLIS, CHRISTINA THIELE-YANCY, and KELLEY ROBINSON, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, v. FULLBEAUTY BRANDS OPERATIONS, LLC, an Indiana limited liability company, Case No. 3:24-cv-03558-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Rita Lin entered an order extending deadlines and modifying scheduling order as follows: Event Proposed New Deadline Joint letter with name of the mediator Feb. 2, 2026 and date of the mediation: Deadline to complete ADR: Apr. 2, 2026 Motion for Class Certification: May. 6, 2026 Opposition to Motion for Class Certification: June 15, 2026 Reply in support of Motion for Class July 13, 2026 Certification: Class Certification Motion Hearing: Aug. 4, 2026 at 10:00 AM Fullbeauty offers shirt, paint, shoes, sandals, and other related products. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MfRba0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William J. Edelman, Esq. Alexander E. Wolf, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 South Beverly Drive, Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (872) 365-7060 E-mail: wedelman@milberg.com awolf@milberg.com - and - Jessica Meng Liu, Esq. Charles Toomajian III, Esq. Caleb Marker, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 6420 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1080 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (877) 500-8780 E-mail: jessica.liu@zimmreed.com charles.toomajian@zimmreed.com caleb.marker@zimmreed.com - and - Winston S. Hudson, Esq. JENNINGS & EARLEY PLLC 500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 110 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 255-8569 E-mail: winston@jefirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Jacob M. Harper, Esq. Heather F. Canner, Esq. Joseph Elie-Meyers, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 350 South Grand Ave., 27th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 633-6800 E-mail: jacobharper@dwt.com heathercanner@dwt.com josepheliemeyers@dwt.com GEICO GENERAL: Bid to Seal Documents Tossed ------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN MARCELLETTI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 6:23-cv-06211-EAW-CDH (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth Wolford entered an order denying the Defendant's motions to seal. The Defendant has not met its burden of demonstrating with specific and particular facts that it will suffer competitive harm if the alleged confidential business information at issue is disclosed, the Court says. The information at issue generally relates to data that the Defendant tracks related to total loss claims, including the precise number of certain types of claims during a particular time period, but the arguments advanced by Defendant with respect to the confidentiality of this information are too conclusory to overcome even a modest presumption of public access. Indeed, they are the same exact arguments that Defendant has asserted in connection with other motions to seal other information in this case and which have been uniformly rejected as being conclusory. The materials at issue on the Defendant's pending motions to seal consist of briefs, declarations, and portions of deposition transcripts filed in connection with and relied upon by the Court in resolving the Plaintiff's emergency motion to enforce the scheduling order. These materials cannot be considered documents merely exchanged by the parties during discovery or wholly tangential to the matters at issue on the discovery motion. Accordingly, at the very least, a presumption of access applies. Having concluded that the information and exhibits are judicial documents entitled to a presumption of public access, the Court considers whether the presumption is outweighed for the reasons advanced by Defendant. The Court concludes that Defendant has not established that there are compelling reasons to maintain the information under seal. The Plaintiff John Marcelletti commenced this putative class action against defendant GEICO General Insurance Company (GEICO”), asserting a claim for breach of contract based on Defendant’s failure to pay sales tax for total loss vehicles that are leased On April 24, 2025, Plaintiff filed an emergency motion to enforce the third amended scheduling order. Geico operates as an insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vlRc2v at no extra charge.[CC] GEICO: SCI Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE CHING INSURANCE, INC., et al., v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 8:23-cv-03033-PX (D. Md.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the following Class and Subclass ("the Class"): Agency Class (Breach of Contract – DP-1 Policy Diversions; Unjust Enrichment – DP-1 Policy Diversions): "All current and former GEICO local agencies that worked for GEICO pursuant to a GEICO Field Representative Agreement at any time during the relevant period and did not enter a confidential settlement agreement with GEICO regarding their termination." Former Agency Subclass (Breach of Contract – Renewal Commissions; Unjust Enrichment – Renewal Commissions; Breach of Contract – Termination; Wrongful Termination: "All former GEICO local agencies whose GEICO Field Representative Agreement was terminated by GEICO without cause during the relevant period and did not enter a confidential settlement agreement with GEICO regarding their termination." Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(c)(4) ("issue" classes), Plaintiff moves for an order certifying the Former Agency Subclass for the adjudication of the unconscionability of the termination provision, and an element of their wrongful termination claim, whether they were "discharged" under Maryland law. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g), Plaintiff moves for the appointment of Adam J. Levitt, John E. Tangren, Diandra "Fu" Debrosse, and Eaghan S. Davis of DiCello Levitt LLP, and Benjamin Crump and Gabrielle Higgins of Ben Crump Law, as Lead Class Counsel for the certified Class. Government is an American vehicle insurance company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lN0n8E at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Amy E. Keller, Esq. John Tangren, Esq. Eaghan S. Davis, Esq. Diandra S. Debrosse Zimmerman, Esq. Eli Hare, Esq. Kenneth P. Abbarno, Esq. Justin J. Hawal, Esq. Eviealle J. Dawkins, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 10 North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com akeller@dicellolevitt.com jtangren@dicellolevitt.com edavis@dicellolevitt.com fu@dicellolevitt.com ehare@dicellolevitt.com kabbarno@dicellolevitt.com jhawal@dicellolevitt.com edawkins@dicellolevitt.com - and - Benjamin Crump, Esq. Gabrielle Higgins, Esq. Brendan H. Chandonnet, Esq. BEN CRUMP LAW, PLLC 122 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Telephone: (800) 691-7111 E-mail: ben@bencrump.com gabrielle@bencrump.com brendan@bencrump.com The Defendants are represented by: Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq. Jennifer A. Riley, Esq. Justin Donoho, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 190 S. LaSalle St., Suite 3700 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 499-6700 Facsimile: (312) 499-6701 E-mail: gmaatman@duanemorris.com jariley@duanemorris.com jrdonoho@duanemorris.com GENERAL MOTORS: Class Cert. Bid in Milstead Due Jun. 26, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES MILSTEAD, et al., v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-06338-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an order granting stipulation to modify case schedule: Event Date Class certification motion and the Plaintiffs' Jun. 26, 2026 class certification expert disclosures due: Class certification opposition and Defendants' Sept. 17, 2026 class certification expert disclosures due: Class certification expert discovery cut-off: Nov. 4, 2026 Class certification reply due: Nov. 20, 2026 The Defendant is an American multinational automotive manufacturing company A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bgwlp3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard M. Heimann, Esq. Nimish R. Desai, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 E-mail: rheimann@lchb.com ndesai@lchb.com The Defendants are represented by: Renee D. Smith, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.w. Washington, DC 20004 GENWORTH FINANCIAL: "Trauernicht" Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------- 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 the putative class action styled Trauernicht et al v. Genworth Financial remains pending. "On August 1, 2022, a putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia by two former Genworth employees against Genworth Financial, its Board of Directors and the Fiduciary and Investments Committee of Genworth Financial's Retirement and Savings Plan ("Savings Plan"). "The plaintiffs purport to act on behalf of the Savings Plan and all similarly situated participants and beneficiaries of the Savings Plan. The complaint asserts that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by imprudently offering and inadequately monitoring a suite of BlackRock Target Date Funds as a retirement investment option for Genworth employees. The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, monetary damages and attorney's fees. "By stipulation entered September 6, 2022, the complaint was dismissed, without prejudice, against the Board of Directors and the Fiduciary and Investments Committee of Genworth Financial's Savings Plan. On October 17, 2022, we moved to dismiss the complaint against the sole remaining defendant, Genworth Financial. The plaintiffs filed opposition papers on November 10, 2022, and we filed our reply papers on November 16, 2022. By order dated January 20, 2023, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to serve an amended complaint, rendering our initial motion to dismiss moot. On January 20, 2023, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and on February 2, 2023, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 16, 2023, the Court directed the plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint and denied our motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The plaintiffs filed the second amended complaint on April 17, 2023. On May 15, 2023, we answered and moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. On September 13, 2023, the Court granted in part and denied in part our motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. "The plaintiffs moved for class certification on October 16, 2023, and we filed opposition papers on December 4, 2023. Oral argument on the plaintiffs' class certification motion was heard on February 12, 2024. On February 20, 2024, we moved for summary judgment dismissing the claims, and the plaintiffs filed opposition papers on March 5, 2024. Oral argument was conducted on our summary judgment motion on March 25, 2024. On August 15, 2024, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion and certified the case as a class action. On August 29, 2024, the Court denied our motion for summary judgment. "We filed a motion for leave to appeal from the trial court's class certification order, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted leave to appeal on September 13, 2024. On March 7, 2025, we filed our opening appellate brief in the Fourth Circuit, and the plaintiffs filed their responding brief on April 7, 2025. The case is now stayed in trial court pending the determination of our appeal to the Fourth Circuit, oral argument of which occurred on October 21, 2025. "We intend to continue to vigorously defend this action," the Company stated. GIORGIO ARMANI: Seeks to Strike Putative Member in Ahumada ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACQUELINE AHUMADA, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, v. GIORGIO ARMANI CORPORATION, New York corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:24-cv-01175-RSH-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting ex parte application to strike putative class member and expert declarations or alternatively for an extension of time to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Giorgio designs, manufactures, distributes and retails fashion and lifestyle products. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qy523F at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Nicky Jatana, Esq. Paul J. Cohen, Esq. Maia Mdinaradze, Esq. Daniella J. Lee, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Telephone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 E-mail: Nicky.Jatana@jacksonlewis.com Paul.Cohen@jacksonlewis.com Maia.Mdinaradze@jacksonlewis.com Daniella.Lee@jacksonlewis.com GLEIBERMAN PROPERTIES: Sued Over Failure to Follow Tenant Laws -------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Smethurst, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. GLEIBERMAN PROPERTIES INC., MG SKYE APARTMENTS LLC, MG SKYE APARTMENTS HIL LLC, MG SKYE APARTMENTS CHF LLC, MG SKYE APARTMENTS BHN LLC, MG SKYE APARTMENTS VDF LLC, MG SKYE APARTMENTS MAD LLC, MG SKYE APARTMENTS SHA LLC, MG SKYE APARTMENTS HIL LLC, MG SKYE APARTMENTS MLR LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-02950-BTM-BJW (S.D. Cal., Oct. 31, 2025), is brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), Unlawful Retention of Residential Security Deposits, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices, Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Statutory Larceny, because of Defendants' intentional failure to follow landlord tenant laws, and Defendants' repeated scheme of larceny and defrauding tenants by demanding payment for bogus fees, charges, and expenses. The Defendants have not only continued the practice of retaining the full amount of security deposits, but Defendants continue with the demands that tenants pay unsubstantiated costs, i.e. costs arbitrarily decided by MG and unsupported with receipts for work done, associated with renovations rather than repairs. Such demands are accompanied by threats of reporting tenants to credit agencies or debt collectors to coerce these tenants to pay via Defendant's online portal. Not only are these actions taken in bad faith, but they are made with the intention to defraud unsuspecting tenants. While the recently settled Previous Class Action focused on security deposits, fraudulent debt reporting, and late fees, Defendants' disregard of landlord tenant laws goes further. The Defendants improperly delegated their financial responsibilities to keep and maintain the apartments in a habitable condition to the tenants. Such delegations include billing tenants for routine pest control fees incurred, where the maintenance and obligation to pay such associated fees are part of a landlord's obligations under the long-standing Implied Warranty of Habitability in California law. The Defendants' conduct was not done in isolation, Defendants made a calculated business decision to continue to defraud their tenants, with the intention to organize their efforts in a pattern of systemic larceny and wire fraud. As a result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff and Class Members have been harmed and damaged in several ways. The Plaintiff cannot in good conscience allow Defendants to continue to steal from, defraud, and threaten unsuspecting and vulnerable tenants with illegal bullying tactics Defendant knows it should not be using, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was a tenant at an apartment complex in San Diego commonly referred to as Skye Apartments. MG manages many apartment complexes throughout California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Swigart, Esq. SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (866) 219-3343 Email: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com - and - Daniel Shay, Esq. SHAY LEGAL, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: 619-222-7429 Email: Dan@ShayLegal.com GOLD COIN GROUP: Kelsch Sues Over Sues Over Illegal Gambling ------------------------------------------------------------ Jerry Kelsch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GOLD COIN GROUP LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00995 (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 Defendant advertises and promotes the Chanced 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 Chanced Gambling Platform is actually a dangerous and plainly unlawful gambling enterprise. The Defendant sells digital "coins" to consumers on the Chanced 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 Chanced Gambling Platform. Consumers who purchase and then wager "coins" on the Chanced 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 Chanced 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 Chanced 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 Chanced Gambling Platform. Gold Coin Group LLC owns, operates, and receives significant revenue from its online "sweepstakes" casinos available at www.chanced.com and www.punt.com.[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 GREYHOUND LINES INC: Underwood Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Greyhound Lines, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Matthew Underwood, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., Case No. 25STCV32186 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 31, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Greyhound Lines, Inc. -- https://www.greyhound.com/ -- is an American operator of intercity bus services.[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 HALLKEEN MANAGEMENT: Settlement Class in Cassamas Suit Wins Cert ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL CASSAMAS, MICHAEL FORBES, and JOHN MACMASTER, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated persons, v. HALLKEEN MANAGEMENT, INC., HALLKEEN ASSISTED LIVING COMMUNITIES LLC, PROSPECT HOUSE GROUP LLC, HALLKEEN ASSISTED LIVING LLC, and PROSPECT HOUSE ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Case No. 1:24-cv-12574-ADB (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Allison D. Burroughs entered as follows: 1. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and consistent with due process, the Court approves the settlement agreement and finds that the settlement is, in all respects, fair, just, reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement Class Members, and the Parties are directed to perform its terms. 2. The Court certifies the "Settlement Class" defined as follows: "All LIHTC-PACE residents of Prospect House (past and present), alive as of the date of the Agreement, who pay or have paid Ancillary Fees between the date that is four years prior to the filing of the Complaint and the Effective Date. Included within the Settlement Class are the legal representatives, heirs, successors-in- interest, transferees, and assignees of Class Members, provided, however, that the Class Member was living as of the date of the Agreement." 3. The Court approves an award to Class Counsel in the amount of $130,000 in attorneys' fees and costs, to be paid by the Defendants within 30 calendar days after the Effective Date. The Court approves service awards of $2,000 to be paid by the Defendants to each of the Class Representatives, including to the estate of a deceased Plaintiff, Mr. John Macmaster, within 30 calendar days after the Effective Date. HallKeen provides real estate services. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=a7HIhu at no extra charge.[CC] HEALTH CARE SERVICE: Afanador Sues Over Failure to Protect Data --------------------------------------------------------------- Nelson Afanador, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION, A MUTUAL LEGAL RESERVE COMPANY d/b/a BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF MONTANA, Case No. 6:25-cv-00079-TJC (D. Mont., Oct. 31, 2025), is brought arising from Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. The Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI")--together "PII/PHI"--about its current and former patients (the "Class" or "Class Members"). Thereafter, Defendant disclosed the PII/PHI of Class Members to a third-party vendor "Conduent" that experienced a data breach (the "Data Breach"). He brings this class action on behalf of himself, and all others harmed by Defendant's misconduct. The exposure of one's PII/PHI to cybercriminals is a bell that cannot be unrung. Before this data breach, its current and former patients' private information was exactly that--private. Not anymore. Now, their private information is forever exposed and unsecure, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim. The Defendant is the largest health insurer in Montana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Heenan, Esq. HEENAN & COOK 1631 Zimmerman Trail Billings, MT 59101 Phone: (406)839-9091 Email: John@lawmontana.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com HERTZ LOCAL: Warren Class Cert Hearing Modified to July 15, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXANDRA WARREN, v. HERTZ LOCAL EDITION CORP., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-08516-FLA-BFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando Aenlle-Rocha entered an order approving stipulation to modify scheduling order: On Oct. 27, 2025, the parties filed a stipulation to modify the Scheduling Order. The parties stipulated to continue the last date to hear a class certification motion from January 16, 2026, to July 15, 2026. Hertz is a corporate entity of the Hertz rental car company that operates its off-airport, neighborhood locations. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mHGx0f at no extra charge.[CC] HEYWOOD MEDICAL GROUP: Hoey Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Heywood Medical Group, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Leah Hoey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Heywood Medical Group, Inc., Heywood Hospital, Case No. 2585CV01494 (Mass. Super. Ct., Worcester Cty., Oct. 31, 2025). The case type is stated as " Torts." Heywood Healthcare -- https://www.heywood.org/ -- is an independent community healthcare system serving north central Massachusetts and southern New Hampshire.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Randi A. Kassan, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 741-5600 Fax: (516) 741-0128 Email: rkassan@milberg.com HILLSBOROUGH, FL: Case Management & Sched Order Entered in Mariotti ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALAN MARIOTTI, v. HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, Case No. 8:25-cv-02170-JLB-SPF (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge John Badalamenti entered a case management and scheduling order as follows: Deadline Date Motions to add or join parties or amend Jan. 18, 2026 pleadings: Discovery and motions to compel discovery: Nov. 6, 2026 Mediation: Sept. 25, 2026 Dispositive and Daubert motions: Dec. 4, 2026 Motions in limine: Apr. 14, 2027 Final pretrial conference: Apr. 30, 2027 A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4dekP4 at no extra charge.[CC] HOME DEPOT: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Sell Due Feb. 9, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DUANE SELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HOME DEPOT, INC. et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01297-LK (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Lauren King entered a Rule 16(b) and Rule 23(d)(2) scheduling order regarding class certification motion: Deadline for joining additional parties: Nov. 10, 2025 Deadline for filing amended pleadings: Dec. 8, 2025 Deadline for motions relating to discovery Dec. 10, 2025 on class certification: Deadline to complete discovery on class Jan. 9, 2026 certification (not to be construed as a bifurcation of discovery): Deadline for Plaintiff to file motion for Feb. 9, 2026 class certification: Home is an American multinational home improvement retail corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=29GzgJ at no extra charge.[CC] HOME DESIGN: Bermudez Bid for Class Certification Tossed -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Martin Bermudez v. Home Design Inc., Case No. 5:24-cv-02376-SSS-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sunshine Sykes entered an order denying without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Plaintiff may either (1) seek default judgment on behalf of himself, but not the class, given the factual allegations, or (2) request to set aside the default entered against W A Cushion and engage in discovery following another attempt to contact the Defendant. Furthermore, the hearing scheduled for Nov. 14, 2025 is vacated. Because the Court has no way of confirming whether each class contains enough people similarly situated to the Plaintiff, the Court cannot conduct a "rigorous analysis" to be "satisfied" that Rule 23’s requirements have been met. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied without prejudice. The Plaintiff filed this products liability suit against the Defendants on Nov. 7, 2024. The Complaint alleges violations of California Unfair Competition Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, and additionally includes a breach of contract and unjust enrichment claim. Home is a kitchen and bathroom remodeling company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=F6lhHg at no extra charge.[CC] HOTEL HOLDINGS: Azzou Sues Over Accommodation Barriers ------------------------------------------------------ Lisa Azzou, as guardian and natural parent on behalf of her minor daughter S.A., and others similarly situated v. HOTEL HOLDINGS CINEMA, L.L.C., a Michigan limited liability company, Case No. 1:25-cv-13489-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich., Nov. 3, 2025), is brought against Defendant pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") due to the Defendant's place of public accommodation which contains barriers for people with disabilities. The Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendant's non-compliance with the ADA with respect to this property as described but not necessarily limited to the allegations contained in this complaint. Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination in violation of the ADA by the Defendant. The Plaintiff desires to visit the Defendant's place of business again on future occasions, not only to avail himself of the goods and services available at the property but to assure himself that this property is in compliance with the ADA so that he and others similarly situated will have full and equal enjoyment of the hotel and its amenities without fear of discrimination. The Defendant has discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the buildings, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff, Lisa Azzou is the guardian and natural parent of her minor daughter S.A. who qualifies as an individual with disability. Hotel Holdings Cinema, L.L.C., owns or operates the hotel property located in Midland County, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is are represented by: Owen B. Dunn, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFCIES OF OWEN B. DUNN, JR. The Offices of Unit C 6800 W. Central Ave., Suite C-1 Toledo, OH 43617 Phone: (419) 241-9661 Facsimile: (419) 241-9737 Email: obdjr@owendunnlaw.com HUEL INC: Protein Powder Contains Heavy Metals, Prokup Says ----------------------------------------------------------- KEITH PROKUP, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. HUEL INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06091 (E.D.N.Y., October 31, 2025) arises from the Defendant's deceptive business practice of marketing and selling Huel Black Edition Protein Powders in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The complaint notes that prior to marketing and selling the Products, the Defendant knew the Products contained or risked containing significant levels of lead and cadmium. Yet Defendant omitted this information on packaging and failed to warn about the significant presence or risk of presence of lead and cadmium, despite advertising the Products to the contrary, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members reasonably relied on Defendant's representations and partial omissions which led them to believe the Products were without detectable levels of heavy metals, let alone significant or unsafe levels, the suit asserts. Huel Inc. is a manufacturer and seller of premium protein powder supplements.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vicki J. Maniatis, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 405 East 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (516) 491-4665 E-mail: vmaniatis@milberg.com - and - Alexander E. Wolf, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 South Beverly Drive, Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (872) 365-7060 E-mail: awolf@milberg.com - and - William J. Edelman, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Ste 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: wedelman@milberg.com HUEL INC: Tlaib Sues Over False and Misleading Representations -------------------------------------------------------------- Mohamad Tlaib and Amy Kardel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HUEL INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-06103 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2025), is brought on behalf of individuals who purchased Huel Black Edition ("the Product"), against Defendant for violation of statutory consumer protection laws, unjust enrichment, and breach of implied warranty, requiring the Defendants to, among other things: cease its false and misleading representations about the safety and fitness for consumption of its products; and pay damages, restitution, and/or disgorgement to Plaintiffs and Class members. The Defendant manufactures and sells high-end powdered beverages that it markets as "fast, nutritious, complete food" and sells at a premium price. The Defendant's "bestseller" is the Product, which it touts as a "high protein complete meal" that is a healthy, rigorously tested, and nutritionally complete "food" that is safe and appropriate for frequent consumption as a person's exclusive source of nutrition. Recent independent testing revealed, however, that a single serving of the Product contains so much lead (a staggering 6.31 micrograms) that it exceeds a safe weekly threshold. The testing also revealed that the Product contains 9.2 micrograms of cadmium, more than double the level that public health authorities say "may be harmful to have daily. Based on these testing results, nutrition experts cautioned against consuming the Product at all, let alone daily or as an exclusive source of nutrition. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and a Class (and Subclasses) of similarly situated individuals who purchased the Product, thereby paying premium prices for a product that is marketed as healthy and safe for daily consumption but contains more than twelve times the State of California's "maximum allowable dose level," says the complaint. The Plaintiff most recently purchased the Product in the summer of 2025. Huel (a portmanteau of "Human Fuel"), manufactures and sells a range of nutrition products like protein powders and ready-to-drink meals that are advertised as plant based and nutritionally complete.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq. COULSON P.C. 300 River Place Drive, Suite 1700 Detroit, MI 48207 Phone: (313) 644-2685 Email: Nick@CoulsonPC.com INLAND FRESH: 11th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Bolton ERISA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled RANI BOLTON, ALISON MERCKER, JAMES ARMSTRONG, BENJAMIN LYMAN, individually and as representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the Inland Fresh Seafood Corporation of America, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, MELISSA SUTER, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. INLAND FRESH SEAFOOD CORPORATION OF AMERICA, INC., JOEL KNOX, BILL DEMMOND, CHRIS ROSENBERGER, LES SCHNEIDER, et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 24-10084 (11th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirms the dismissal of the class action lawsuit. The matter is an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cv-04602-LMM. The 11th Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judges Adalberto Jordan and Jill A. Pryor, and Judge Federico A. Moreno, U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, sitting by designation. Judge Moreno wrote the Opinion of the Court. Inland Fresh Seafood Corporation of America, Inc., established a pension plan to help its employees save for retirement. The plan has two key features. It is a defined-contribution plan, which means that the value of the participants' retirement benefits hinges on the market performance of the investments in their individual retirement accounts. It is also an employee stock ownership plan, a pension plan that invests primarily in the company's own stock. Over time, Inland Fresh contributes shares to participants' individual accounts. The longer a participant is employed with Inland Fresh, the more shares he receives. In the end, how much each participant earns in retirement depends on how well Inland Fresh's stock performs on the market. The initial transaction that created the Inland Fresh employee stock ownership plan took place on Nov. 26, 2016. The plan used the proceeds from a $92 million loan to purchase all 100,000 outstanding shares of Inland Fresh common stock from four of the company's directors and officers. On behalf of the plan itself and a proposed class of the plan's 578 participants, five former Inland Fresh employees brought claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") Section 502(a)(2) and (a)(3) against Inland Fresh, the four officers and directors, the plan's trustee, and the plan's committee. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by causing the plan--and therefore, its participants--to overpay by tens of millions of dollars for the Inland Fresh common stock. Specifically, the Plaintiffs claimed that the four directors and officers instructed Inland Fresh executives to misrepresent the company's sales projections and inventory so that they could obtain a higher valuation and ultimately receive more money for their stock. As a result, the participants' benefits were allegedly worth less than they would have been had the plan purchased the shares at a price commensurate with their fair market value. The Plaintiffs also alleged that the trustee failed to conduct proper due diligence before settling on the purchase price. The Plaintiffs sought restoration of the plan's losses, disgorgement of the director and officers' ill-gotten gains, and other forms of equitable relief. The Plaintiffs acknowledged that the plan lays out administrative claims procedures. At the same time, the Plaintiffs did not allege that they exhausted these procedures before filing suit. Instead, they pleaded that ERISA plaintiffs are under no obligation to affirmatively plead exhaustion, and they asked the district court for leave to remove these allegations if it agreed. In any event, they argued that they were excused from ever exhausting the plan's internal procedures at all. The Defendants moved to dismiss. On exhaustion grounds, the district court granted the Defendants' motions. The court concluded that this Circuit mandates exhaustion before proceeding to court, and the United States Supreme Court has not abrogated this requirement. Since the Plaintiffs failed to plead exhaustion and because the district court rejected each of the plaintiffs' excuses for not exhausting, it dismissed the case. The court also denied the Plaintiffs' request for a stay in lieu of dismissal so that they could pursue an administrative claim. Importantly, though, the district court did not clarify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice. On appeal, the Plaintiffs challenge each of these decisions. According to the Opinion, the 11th Circuit has repeatedly affirmed that exhaustion is a prerequisite for ERISA plaintiffs, who wish to seek judicial review in federal court. The Plaintiffs here filed a lawsuit without first exhausting their administrative remedies. After reviewing the parties' briefs and the record, and with the benefit of oral argument, the Panel agrees with the district court that dismissal was warranted because no valid excuse relieves the Plaintiffs of that obligation. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirms the dismissal and remands so that the district court can indicate whether the dismissal is without prejudice to allow the Plaintiffs another opportunity to exhaust. Judge Moreno opines that the district court did not abuse its discretion (i) in dismissing the Plaintiffs' claims for failure to plead exhaustion; (ii) by declining to excuse the Plaintiffs' failure to exhaust before filing suit; and (iii) in denying the Plaintiffs' request for a stay. The Panel declines to rule on the effect of the district court's order and instead remands so that the court can specify whether prejudice attaches. In so doing, the Panel also avoids any conjecture about what the district court might have intended to do. Whether the Plaintiffs may return to federal court after exhausting the plan's claims procedures should be decided by the district court, at least in the first instance. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/53nzs59r from GovInfo.gov. INOTIV INC: $8.75MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Jan. 27 ----------------------------------------------------------- If you (A) purchased or otherwise acquired Inotiv, Inc. common stock during the period between September 21, 2021 and May 20, 2022, inclusive, or (B) held Inotiv common stock as of October 4, 2021 and were entitled to vote on matters necessary to effectuate Inotiv's acquisition of Envigo RMS at a special meeting of Inotiv shareholders on November 4, 2021, you should read this Notice of Class Action Settlement as it may impact your legal rights. A federal court authorized this Notice. It is not a solicitation from a lawyer. You must file a Claim Form by March 2, 2026 to receive cash benefits from this Settlement. To file a Claim, or for more information about the Settlement, please visit www.InotivSecuritiesSettlement.com. A Settlement has been reached with Inotiv, Inc. and certain of its officers (collectively, "Inotiv") to resolve the claims asserted in the federal securities class action In re Inotiv, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 4:22-cv-00045-PPS-JEM (N.D. Ind.) (the "Action") for $8,750,000. If the Settlement is approved, it will resolve all claims in the Litigation. This Summary Notice provides only a summary of matters, and a detailed Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement describing the Litigation, the Proposed Settlement, and the rights of the Settlement Class Members is available at www.InotivSecuritiesSettlement.com. If you would like to receive a copy of the Long Form Notice or the Proof of Claim and Release form, you may obtain copies by writing to Inotiv, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o Claims Administrator, 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210, Philadelphia, PA 19103. Your options are to: (1) stay in the Settlement Class and submit a claim; (2) ask to be excluded from the Settlement Class (opt out); or (3) object to the Settlement. The Court has appointed Lead Counsel to represent you and will decide whether to approve the Settlement at a Final Approval Hearing currently scheduled for January 27, 2026. That date is subject to change without further notice. If there is any change to the Final Approval Hearing date, it will be noted on the Settlement Website. Lead Counsel intends to ask the Court for an award of attorneys' fees of up to 25% of the $8,750,000 settlement amount, and costs not to exceed $127,500. The Court will determine the amounts to be paid, which will come from the Settlement Amount. If you are a Settlement Class Member, you have the right to appear in Court at the Final Approval Hearing to object to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses, and/or the application by Lead Plaintiff for any costs or expenses. You must submit a written objection in accordance with the procedures described in the Notice, which must be filed and served so that it is received no later than January 6, 2026. To learn more about your options, please visit the Settlement Website: www.InotivSecuritiesSettlement.com or call the Claims Administrator at (888) 788-4204. The deadline to file a claim is March 2, 2026, and the deadline to object or to opt out of the Settlement is January 6, 2026. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE COURT CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE, THE SETTLEMENT, OR THE CLAIMS PROCESS. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Arechiga Sues Over Fiduciary Duties Breach ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kathleen Arechiga, Katherine M. Martinez, Melanie Matthews, and Edvin Rusis, individually, on behalf of the IBM 401 (K) Plan f/k/a the IBM 401(k) Plus Plan v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, the Board of Directors of INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, and its members, the RETIREMENT PLANS COMMITTEE, and its members, and the IBM RETIREMENT FUNDS, Case No. 7:25-cv-09067 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2025), is brought for breach of fiduciary duties and other violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") against defendants International Business Machines Corporation ("IBM"), the Board of Directors of IBM and its members (the "IBM Board"), the Retirement Plans Committee and its members (the "Investment Committee"), and the IBM Retirement Funds (the "IBM Manager") (collectively, the "Defendants"). ERISA requires fiduciaries of retirement plans to closely monitor investments, remove imprudent investments, and make investment decisions based solely in the interests of participants in retirement plans, and to refrain from prohibited transactions. Here, Plaintiffs bring this action under the ERISA alleging that Defendants--the Plan's fiduciaries--breached their duties by: retaining underperforming investment options--the IBM Target Retirement Fund Series (the "IBM TDF Series"), the IBM Target Risk Fund Series (the "IBM Risk Series") and the Vanguard Funds (collectively, the "Subject Funds")--for the Plan between 2019 and 2025, despite more suitable target date funds ("TDFs"), target risk funds, mid-cap, large blend, and dividend growth funds having been readily available; engaging in transactions prohibited by ERISA; and failing to monitor the fiduciaries responsible for administration and management of the Plan's actions in retaining the imprudent IBM TDF Series, IBM Risk Series, and Vanguard Funds as investments for the Plan. The Defendants' breaches and imprudent investment decisions have resulted in the loss of over $1.9 billion dollars of assets for the Plan and its participants. Rather than acting diligently and prudently, Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by retaining the IBM TDF Series, IBM Risk Series, and Vanguard Funds as investment options for the Plan at the beginning of the "Class Period" (October 31, 2019 to the date of judgment) despite the IBM TDF Series, IBM Risk Series, and Vanguard Funds having underperformed their peer benchmarks on a trailing-three-years basis for up to nine consecutive years (2016-2024), a trailing-five-years basis for up to seven consecutive years (2018-2024), and a trailing-ten-years basis for at least two years (2023-2024), and on a cumulative basis. Based on Defendants' conduct, Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of the Plan, and as representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries of the Plan, asserting claims for a breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence (Count One), for engaging in prohibited transactions and unlawful self-dealing with respect to the Plan in violation of ERISA (Count Two), and for failure to monitor fiduciaries (Count Three). In connection with these claims, Plaintiffs seek to recover all losses to the Plan resulting from Defendants' fiduciary breaches, all profits earned by Defendants in connection with Defendants' breaches, and other appropriate relief, says the complaint. Plaintiffs are participants and beneficiaries of the Plan. IBM Company, a Delaware corporation headquartered in Armonk, New York, is a multinational technology and consulting company, and has been a pioneer in various technological advancements, including mainframe computers, cloud computing, and artificial intelligence.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melinda A. Nicholson, Esq. Nicolas Kravitz, Esq. John A. Carriel, Esq. Alexander L. Burns, Esq. KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC 1100 Poydras Street, Suite 960 New Orleans, LA 70163 Phone: (504) 648-1842 Facsimile: (504) 455-1498 Email: melinda.nicholson@ksfcounsel.com nicolas.kravitz@ksfcounsel.com john.carriel@ksfcounsel.com alexander.burns@ksfcounsel.com INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due April 13, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROSE EPPERSON, V. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, ET AL. Case No. 2:20-cv-00053-JDC-CBW (W.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Carol Whitehurst entered a second amended scheduling order for class certification hearing. Phase I motions to compel discovery shall be filed no later than Feb. 4, 2026. The Plaintiff's Motion for class certification shall be filed no later than April 13, 2026. Motions to amend the pleadings must be filed no later than April 13, 2026. Consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) and 26(a)(2), the Plaintiff shall serve disclosures related to class certification on or before April 13, 2026. International is an American pulp and paper company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jHF5Nb at no extra charge.[CC] INTREPID POTASH: Continues to Defend Wage Suit ---------------------------------------------- Intrepid Potash, 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 class action lawsuit alleging wage law violations. "On November 6, 2024, we were served with a class action lawsuit filed in federal district court in New Mexico. The suit alleges that Intrepid and Intrepid Potash-New Mexico, LLC violated the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act by failing to properly compensate certain New Mexico underground mine and surface mine workers overtime for specific activities, including putting on and removing personal protective equipment from 2009 to the present. The complaint seeks all unpaid wages for these activities for all class members, which is alleged to exceed $5.0 million. The lawsuit is still in the early stages, and classes have yet to be certified. "We are vigorously defending against class certification and the underlying claims. We have not recorded a loss contingency related to this matter," the Company stated. IROBOT CORP: Awaits Ruling on Appeal from Securities Suit Dismissal ------------------------------------------------------------------- iRobot Corporation disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is awaiting ruling on the appeal from the dismissal of the securities class suit. On March 8, 2024, purported Company shareholder Dylan Das filed a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain of its former officers, captioned Dylan Das v. iRobot Corporation, et al., No. 2:24-cv-02138. The parties agreed to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, where the case is captioned In re iRobot Corporation Securities Litigation, No. 1:24-cv-11158. Following the appointment of a lead plaintiff, an amended complaint was filed on July 19, 2024. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder based on allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions concerning the likelihood of regulatory approval of the Amazon Merger and its impact on the Company's financial performance. The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages, including interest, in connection with the Company's allegedly inflated stock price, attorneys' fees and costs, and unspecified equitable/injunctive relief. On September 3, 2024, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss with the Court. On January 27, 2025, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and therefore dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice. On February 24, 2025, the plaintiff in this matter appealed the Court's dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, where the case is captioned Premca Extra Income Fund LP v. iRobot Corporation, et al., No. 25-1192. On April 21, 2025, the plaintiff filed its opening appeal brief. On June 2, 2025, the defendants filed their response brief, and on July 3, 2025, the plaintiff filed its reply brief. Oral arguments were held on September 8, 2025. IROBOT CORP: Continues to Defend "Savant" in New York ----------------------------------------------------- iRobot Corporation disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against a putative class action filed by shareholder Vinayak Savant in a New York court. On July 7, 2025, purported Company shareholder Vinayak Savant filed a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its current and former officers, captioned Vinayak Savant v. iRobot Corporation, et al., No. 1:25-cv-05563. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder based on allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions concerning the Company's financial performance and ability to operate on a standalone basis following the termination of the Amazon Merger in January 2024. The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages, including interest, in connection with the Company's allegedly inflated stock price, attorneys' fees and costs, and unspecified other further relief. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the case, and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from this action. J A ALEXANDER: FLSA Collective in Montero Wins Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRISTIAN ROMERO MONTERO, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by J A ALEXANDER, INC WEST ESSEX CONSTRUCTION, INC. MARIA REBIMBAS, individually, and JOSEPH DOMINICK REBIMBAS, individually, v. J A ALEXANDER, INC., WEST ESSEX CONSTRUCTION, INC., MARIA REBIMBAS, individually, and JOSEPH DOMINICK REBIMBAS, individually, Case No. 2:23-cv-21679-JRA (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Jose R. Almonte entered an order that: Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), the Court certifies an FLSA Collective for settlement purposes of: "All individuals who worked for the Defendants as non-union asphalt and concrete laborers, at any time between Oct. 31, 2020 and June 6, 2025." Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and for settlement purposes only, the Court certifies a settlement class consisting of: "All individuals who worked for Defendants as non union asphalt and concrete laborers, at any time between Oct. 31, 2017 and June 6, 2025." The Court finds, for settlement purposes only, that the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) are satisfied, except for the manageability requirement of Rule 23(b)(2), which the Court need not address for purposes of settlement. This Order, which preliminarily certifies a class action for settlement purposes only, shall not be cited in this or any matter for the purpose of seeking class or collective certification, opposing decertification, or for any other purpose, other than enforcing the terms of the Settlement. The Court appoints, for settlement purposes only, Cristian Romero Montero, as Class Representative. The Court appoints, for settlement purposes only, Jaffe Glenn Law Group, P.A as Class Counsel. The Court grants preliminary approval of the settlement memorialized in the Settlement Agreement, attached the parties’ Motion for Preliminary Approval. No later than February 24, 2026, the parties shall submit their motion for final approval of the class settlement. The Court finds, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), that there is no just reason for delay, and directs the Clerk to enter this Order and terminate the motion at ECF No. 89. The Defendant is a construction company based in Bloomfield, NJ and specializes in Concrete, Earthwork. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZaTS1O at no extra charge.[CC] JAMES LEBLANC: Must File Status Report in Betz Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RODRICK S. BETZ, V. JAMES LEBLANC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00162-BAJ-SDJ (M.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Jackson entered an order that the Defendants shall file a Status Report within seven days of the issuance of this Order regarding the status of the class certification motions, and every 45 days thereafter until their resolution. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1AXmgv at no extra charge.[CC] JOHN PAUL: Initial Case Management Conference Order Entered ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. JOHN PAUL MITCHELL SYSTEMS, Case No. 1:25-cv-06544-JMF-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Moses entered a scheduling initial case management conference order: The initial conference in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 will be held on Nov. 25, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 20A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York. The counsel must meet and confer in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) no later than 21 days prior to the initial case management conference. No later than Nov. 18, 2025, the parties must file a Pre-Conference Statement. The date of the conference and appearances for the parties, including the names of the individual attorneys who will attend, their law firms, addresses, and telephone numbers, and the party or parties represented. John is an American manufacturer of hair care products and styling tools. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Zg03tP at no extra charge.[CC] JOHNSON CONTROLS: Class Certification Order Entered in Kaufman -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW KAUFMAN, v. JOHNSON CONTROLS FIRE PROTECTION LP, et al. Case No. 2:25-cv-09426-FMO-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando Olguin entered an order re: motions for class certification. The parties shall work cooperatively to create a single, fully integrated joint brief covering each party's position, in which each issue (or sub-issue) raised by a party is immediately followed by the opposing party's/parties' response. All citation to evidence in the joint brief shall be directly to the exhibit and page number(s) of the evidentiary appendix, or page and line number(s) of a deposition. In order for a motion for class certification to be filed in a timely manner, the meet and confer must take place no later than 35 days before the deadline for class certification motions set forth in the Court's Case Management and Scheduling Order. Johnson is a company that provides a wide range of fire detection, suppression, and life safety solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kezFOc at no extra charge.[CC] KENT MARTIN: Burch Seeks Leave to File Reply to Class Opposition ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIJAH BURCH, NICHOLAS STORY, JASMINE MINCE and NATHAN SHEAR, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated former and current pre-trial detainees housed at the Coles County Jail, v. KENT MARTIN, in his individual and official capacity as the COLES COUNTY SHERIFF, et. al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01068-SLD-RLH (C.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for leave to file reply to the Defendants' response in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification pursuant to CDIL Local Rule 7.1. On Sept. 19, 2025, the Plaintiff Elijah Burch filed a Motion for Class Certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3), seeking to maintain this litigation as a class action on behalf of current and former pre-trial detainees of the Coles County Jail who are alleged to be similarly situated to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs allege that Sheriff Martin created and perpetuated a custom and practice of housing pre-trial detainees in so-called "medical observation rooms" and other toilet less detention rooms/cells. These are detention cells without plumbing, running water, a toilet, a sink, or a bunk. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jZYg1Q at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Devlin Joseph Schoop, Esq. LADUZINSKY & SCHOOP, P.C. 1327 W. Washington, Suite 5G-H Chicago, Illinois 60607 Telephone: (312) 424-0700 E-mail: dschoop@laduzinsky.com - and - Judith Marie Redwood, Esq. REDWOOD LAW OFFICE St. Joseph, IL 61873 Telephone: (217) 469-9194 Facsimile: (217) 469-8094 E-mail: redwoodlaw42@hotmail.com KHK GAMES INC: Walker Sues Over Sues Over Illegal Gambling ---------------------------------------------------------- Nathan Walker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KHK GAMES, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00990 (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 Defendant advertises and promotes the Clubs Poker 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 Clubs Poker Gambling Platform is actually a dangerous and plainly unlawful gambling enterprise. The Defendant sells digital "coins" to consumers on the Clubs Poker 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 Clubs Poker Gambling Platform. Consumers who purchase and then wager "coins" on the Clubs Poker 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 Clubs Poker 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 Clubs Poker 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 Clubs Poker Gambling Platform. KHK Games, Inc. owns, operates, and receives significant revenue from its online "sweepstakes" casinos available at www.clubspoker.com and www.clubscasino.com.[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 KICKR GAMES PTY: Ruiz Sues Over Sues Over Illegal Gambling ---------------------------------------------------------- Victor Ruiz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KICKR GAMES PTY LTD; and PIXEL PIONEERS PTY LTD., Case No. 2:25-cv-00998 (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 advertise and promote the Kickr 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 Kickr Gambling Platform is actually a dangerous and plainly unlawful gambling enterprise. The Defendants sell digital "coins" to consumers on the Kickr Gambling Platform – including consumers in Utah – and then immediately accept those coins back (from the consumers who purchased them) as wagers on the outcomes of the various casino-style games of chance offered on the Kickr Gambling Platform. Consumers who purchase and then wager "coins" on the Kickr 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 Kickr Gambling Platform, and Defendants have 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 Kickr Gambling Platform constitute all three of these things, and Defendants have amassed significant revenue from Plaintiff and numerous others in Utah who have played them, says the complaint. The Plaintiff created an account on the Clubs Poker Gambling Platform. Kickr Games Pty Ltd and Pixel Pioneers Pty Ltd. own, operate, and receive significant revenue from their online "sweepstakes" casino available at www.kickr.com.[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 KIND PATCHES: Alaimo Sues Over False and Misleading Advertising --------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Alaimo, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. KIND PATCHES LIMITED, Case No. 1:25-cv-06092-FB-CHK (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2025), is brought against the Defendant's false and misleading advertising about one of Defendant's patches, which, until recently, were called "GLP-1 Patches," and now are called "Berberine Patches (Formerly GLP-1)," although sometimes are still referred to as simply "GLP-1 Patches" in marketing. The Defendant falsely and misleadingly advertises the GLP-1 Patches as providing a meaningful increase to natural GLP-1 levels comparable to actual GLP-1 agonist medications like Ozempic. Defendant claims that "750k People Are Obsessed with the GLP-1 Patches." While naturally occurring GLP-1 is quickly processed by enzymes in the body, giving it a half-life of only 1-2 minutes, GLP-1 agonists are designed to resist enzymes, giving them half-lives as long as 7 days. This longer half-life is what makes GLP-1 agonists an extremely effective weight loss tool, giving users the benefits of the GLP-1 hormone--such as slower digestion and feelings of satiety--for days rather than minutes. As a result, increasing naturally produced GLP-1 by modest amounts cannot create nearly the same weight loss effects provided by long-lasting GLP-1 agonists like Ozempic. Despite this, Defendant, like other companies, have been capitalizing off the popularity of GLP-1 medicines to hawk supposed natural supplements and patches that boost GLP-1. The patches do not contain a GLP-1 agonist. Instead, the patches contain berberine extract, pomegranate extract, cinnamon extract, L glutamine, and B vitamins. The Defendant nonetheless claims that the patches contain "Clinically proven ingredients that deliver real results," touting a clinical study based on berberine intake. As a result of Defendant's false and misleading statements, users of the GLP-1 Patches pay a premium for what they believe is a product that has a meaningful and sustained impact on hunger and satiety, similar to actual GLP-1 agonist medications. The Defendant's false and misleading statements caused Plaintiff and members of the proposed classes to pay a price premium for the GLP-1 Patches. Had Plaintiff known the truth, Plaintiff would not have purchased the GLP-1 Patches or would have paid significantly less, says the complaint. The Plaintiff reasonably relied on Defendant's false and misleading advertisements when she purchased the GLP-1 Patches, which were ineffective Kind sells a variety of health supplement "patches."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Janove, Esq. JANOVE PLLC 500 7th Ave., 8th Floor New York, NY 10018 Phone: (646) 347-3940 Email: raphael@janove.law - and - Ryan J. Ellersick, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 6420 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1080 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Phone: (877) 500-8780 Email: ryan.ellersick@zimmreed.com KRISTI NOEM: ICWC Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Immigration Center for Women and Children, et. al., v. Kristi Noem, et. al, Case No. 2:25-cv-09848-AB-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Dec. 12, 2025, will move the Court for an order certifying a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b (2) on behalf of the following classes of similarly situated persons: Pending Petition Class: "All individuals with pending principal or derivative U visa petitions, T visa petitions, or VAWA self-petitions who ICE detains or seeks to detain for civil immigration enforcement"; Deferred Action Class: "All individuals to whom USCIS has granted deferred action based on a pending U or T visa petition and who, during the authorized period of deferred action, ICE detains, seeks to detain, or removed without providing notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding potential revocation of their deferred action status"; and Stay of Removal Class: "All individuals with a pending U or T visa petition who, since Jan. 30, 2025, have been, are, or will be detained by ICE and who request or requested a stay of a final removal order prior to enforcement of that removal order." The proposed Pending Petition Class representatives are Lupe A., Camila B., Paulo C., Kenia Jackeline Merlos, Luna E., Carmen F., Yessenia Ruano, and Daniel H. (Individual Plaintiffs). The proposed Deferred Action Class representatives are Lupe A., Camila B., Paulo C., and Ms. Merlos (Deferred Action Plaintiffs). The proposed Stay of Removal Class representatives are Carmen F. and Ms. Ruano (Stay of Removal Plaintiffs). The Plaintiffs are survivors of crime, trafficking, and domestic abuse, who have pending petitions for U visa or T visas, and who were or likely will be detained or deported without consideration of their status as survivors or their pending petitions. They challenge the rescission by Defendant U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") of longstanding policies protecting immigrant survivors, as well as policies and practices by ICE and Defendant United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) stemming from such rescission. Kristi Noem is an American politician. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aLYdWj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bardis Vakili, Esq. Sarah E. Kahn, Esq. Erika Cervantes, Esq. CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS & CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1505 E 17th St. Ste. 117 Santa Ana, CA 92705 Telephone: (909) 274-9057 E-mail: bardis@centerforhumanrights.org sarah@centerforhumanrights.org erika@centerforhumanrights.org - and - Stephen A. Rosenbaum, Esq. Jordan Weiner, Esq. LA RAZA CENTRO LEGAL 474 Valencia Street, Suite 295 San Francisco, CA 94103 Telephone: (415) 575-3500 E-mail: srosenbaum@law.berkeley.edu jordan@lrcl.org - and - Rebecca Brown, Esq. Kathleen Rivas, Esq. PUBLIC COUNSEL 610 South Ardmore Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90005 Telephone: (213) 385-2977 E-mail: rbrown@publiccounsel.org krivas@publiccounsel.org - and - Carl Bergquist, Esq. Adam Reese, Esq. COALITION FOR HUMANE IMMIGRANT RIGHTS 2351 Hempstead Road Ottawa Hills, OH 43606 Telephone: (310) 279-6025 E-mail: cbergquist@chirla.org areese@chirla.org KTC HOLDING: Class Settlement in Meagher Suit Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kevin Meagher and Rebecca Dawson on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, v. KTC Holding Company f/k/a The Kingdom Trust Company, Case No. 2:24-cv-01630-CDS-MDC (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge Silva entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The Settlement Agreement provides for a Settlement Class defined as follows: "All individuals who were sent a notice of data breach letter from the Defendant concerning the Data Incident discovered by the Defendant on or around March 1, 2024." The Settlement Class specifically excludes: Defendant KTC, any entity in which Defendant has a controlling interest, and the Defendant's officers, directors, legal representatives, successors, subsidiaries, and assigns. Also excluded from the Settlement Class is any judge, justice, or judicial officer presiding over this matter and members of their immediate families and their judicial staff. The court finds that the plaintiffs will likely satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(e)(2)(A) and should be appointed as the Class Representatives. Additionally, the court finds that William B. Federman of Federman & Sherwood will likely satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(e)(2)(A) and should be appointed as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g)(1). A Final Fairness Hearing will be held on March 17, 2026, at 10:00 AM Pacific Time, KTC operates as an insurance agency. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TAEyu4 at no extra charge.[CC] LAS VEGAS, NV: Discovery Deadlines in Myers Suit Stayed ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEREK MYERS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. CITY OF LAS VEGAS, a political subdivision of the state of Nevada; JASON BROOKS, individually; SERGIO GUZMAN, individually; and JASON POTTS, individually, Case No. 2:25-cv-00562-GMN-DJA (D. Nev.), the Court entered an order granting the parties' stipulation that all current discovery deadlines in this matter are stayed pending the adjudication of the Motion for Class Action Certification. The parties agree to complete any currently outstanding written discovery during the stay, but will not initiate any new written discovery or take depositions. The Court further entered an order that the parties must submit a new discovery plan and scheduling order within thirty days of the Court's order on the motion to certify class. The Court finds that the Parties have demonstrated good cause to stay discovery pending the outcome of the motion to certify class. On June 27, 2025, the Court granted the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order setting forth the deadlines for this matter. On Aug. 18, 2025, the Plaintiff filed his Motion for Class Action Certification. Las Vegas is a major resort city, known primarily for its gambling, shopping, fine dining, entertainment, and nightlife. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=A0nb69 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Breeden, Esq. BREEDEN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 7432 W. Sahara Ave., Suite 101 Las Vegas, NV 89117 Telephone: (702) 819-7770 Facsimile: (702) 819-7771 E-mail: Adam@Breedenandassociates.com The Defendants are represented by: Nechole Garcia, Esq. Paul Mata, Esq. CITY ATTORNEY 495 S. Main Street, Sixth Floor Las Vegas, NV 89101 LAWRENCE LIVERMORE: Jones Suit Removed to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jonas Jones, and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL SECURITY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company doing business in California; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25CV143852 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on Oct. 31, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-09433. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges claims on behalf of himself and all past and present non-exempt, employees of Defendant for: failure to pay wages due and owing; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to provide meal and rest periods; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failure to pay all wages twice each calendar month; failure to reimburse necessary business expenses; failure to pay unpaid off-the-clock work; and unfair business practices under Business and Professions Code section 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Brooke S. Purcell, Esq. Rachel J. Moroski, Esq. Shayla M. Griffin, Esq. Alexis S. Cherry, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4109 Phone: 415.434.9100 Facsimile: 415.434.3947 Email: bpurcell@sheppardmullin.com rmoroski@sheppardmullin.com smgriffin@sheppardmullin.com acherry@sheppardmullin.com LEAFFILTER NORTH: Wright Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Lawrence Wright, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Leaffilter North, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-01080 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on Oct. 31, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-02354-JRA to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment.[BN] LeafFilter North, LLC -- https://www.leaffilter.com/ -- provides gutter protection solutions, manufacturing, selling, and installing gutter guards for homeowners in North America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Max S. Morgan, Esq. WEITZ FIRM LLC 1515 Market St., Ste. 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: (267) 587-6240 Fax: (215) 689-0875 Email: max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Mark S. Eisen, Esq. BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARONOFF 71 South Wacker, Ste. 1600 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 212-4956 Fax: (312) 767-9192 Email: meisen@beneschlaw.com - and - Nora K. Cook, Esq. BENESCH FRIEDLANDER COPLAN & ARONOFF-CLEVELAND 127 Public Square, Ste. 4900 Cleveland, OH 44114-1284 Phone: (440) 223-3117 Fax: (216) 363-4588 Email: ncook@beneschlaw.com - and - Noelle B. Torrice, Esq. BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP 1650 Market Street, Suite 3628 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (267) 207-2947 LEN-CG SOUTH: Seeks Extension of Class Cert Bid Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN HEYMANN and STEVE SCHWARZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. LEN-CG SOUTH, LLC, Case No. 6:25-cv-00466-PGB-NWH (M.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting: (1) an extension of the deadline for class action discovery up to and including Nov. 25, 2025; (2) an extension of the motion for class certification deadline up to and including Jan. 2, 2026; (3) an extension of the response to motion for class certification deadline up to and including Jan. 16, 2026; and (4) for such further relief as this Court deems just and proper. The Defendant, pursuant to Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, moves for an extension of the Nov. 2, 2025, class action discovery deadline, the Nov. 30, 2025, Motion for Class Certification deadline, and the Dec. 14, 2025, Response to Motion for Class Certification deadline, as set forth in the Case Management and Scheduling Order. The Plaintiffs do not oppose the requested extension of the class action discovery deadline and agree that the granting of such an extension necessitates corresponding extensions of the deadlines for briefing class certification. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eXyBhB at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Kevin P. McCoy, Esq. D. Matthew Allen, Esq. Alicia Whiting Bozich, Esq. Kai Donner, Esq. Mac R. McCoy, Esq. CARLTON FIELDS, P.A. 4221 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Ste. 1000 Tampa, FL 33607 Telephone: (813) 223-7000 Facsimile: (813) 229-4133 E-mail: kmccoy@carltonfields.com mallen@carltonfields.com awhiting@carltonfields.com kdonner@carltonfields.com mmccoy@carltonfields.com LENNAR HOMES: Filing for Class Certification Due Jan. 5, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE SCHWARZ and BRIAN HEYMANN, v. LENNAR HOMES LLC, LEN-CG SOUTH, LLC, LEN OT HOLDINGS, LLC and LENNAR CORPORATION, Case No. 6:25-cv-00466-PGB-NWH (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Paul Byron entered an amended case management and scheduling order as follows: Discovery – class action: Nov. 25, 2025 Motion for class certification: Jan. 5, 2026 Response to motion for class certification: Jan. 26, 2026 Reply to response to motion for class Feb. 9, 2026 certification: Discovery deadline: July 1, 2026 Meeting in person to prepare joint final Nov. 2, 2026 pretrial statement: Final pretrial conference: Dec. 15, 2026 Lennar provides real estate services. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=piW9zC at no extra charge.[CC] LENS.COM: Bid for Leave to File Class Cert Tossed w/o Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICKEY MARTIN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. LENS.COM, INC., Case No. 0:24-cv-60489-DSL (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Leibowitz entered an order denying without prejudice the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for leave to file motion for class certification under seal. 1. The Court directs the parties to meet and confer so they can file a joint motion no later than Nov. 7, 2025, requesting permission to redact or seal portions of the Plaintiff's submission, citing legal authority by which the information is protected from public view and explaining why redacting the information rather than sealing it will not suffice. 2. The Court amends the Plaintiff's deadline to file his motion for class certification from Nov. 5, 2025, to Nov. 14, 2025, to give the parties and the Court time to address this issue. In support of sealing the entire record related to Plaintiff's motion for class certification, the Plaintiff states only generally that the motion and supporting documents are based "heavily" on documents and testimony "marked by Defendant" as "Confidential." With such a sparse representation before it, the Court lacks sufficient information to weigh any of the factors cited above. Additionally, the Plaintiff asks that the information remain under seal "indefinitely." So, at bottom, Plaintiff asks the Court to keep from public view all information that will affect the rights of thousands of Floridians, which will preclude the public from understanding the Court’s ruling on the motion, forever. Lens.com operates as a specialty online retailer. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eJFFvf at no extra charge.[CC] LIFEMD INC: Johnston Suit Transferred to S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Tyler Johnston, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LifeMD, Inc., Justin Schreiber, Marc Benathen, Case No. 2:25-cv-04761 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Nov. 3, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-09153-NRB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Account Receivable. LifeMD, Inc. -- https://lifemd.com/ -- is a publicly traded American telehealth company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 686-1060 Fax: (212) 202-3827 The Defendants are represented by: Michael G. Bongiorno, Esq. Tamar Batya Kaplan-Marans, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 7 World Trade Center New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 937-7220 Email: michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com tamar.kaplan-marans@wilmerhale.com LIT FINANCIAL: Class Cert Filing in Kirstein Due June 22, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICOLETTE KIRSTEIN, v. LIT FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Case No. 5:25-cv-03660-JLS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl entered an order as follows: 1. A telephone status conference shall be held on Friday, Feb. 6, 2026, at 1:30 PM. Counsel shall dial into the conference at 1-855-244-8681; meeting access code 2318 613 3292; 2. All fact discovery in this matter shall be completed by Friday, Feb. 20, 2026; 3. All expert discovery in this matter shall be completed by Thursday, May 21, 2026; and 4. The Plaintiff shall file her motion for class certification by Monday, June 22, 2026. LitFinancial provides expert mortgage solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=r1ykBg at no extra charge.[CC] LOS ANGELES AIR: Echeverria Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Los Angeles Air Conditioning, Inc. The case is styled as Luis Echeverria, Jr., on behalf of himself and all other aggrieved and similarly situated v. Los Angeles Air Conditioning, Inc., Case No. 25STCV32166 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 31, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Los Angeles Air Conditioning Inc. -- https://www.laair.net/ -- provides HVAC services. The Company offers installation, specialty, maintenance, and repair services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory P. Wong, Esq. LYFE LAW, LLP 864 S Robertson Blvd., 3rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90035 Phone: 888-203-1422 Email: gregw@lyfe.com LUCAS COUNTY, OHIO : Class Cert Bid Filing Due Feb. 2, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as COLOMBARO v. Lucas County Board of Commissioners, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-02564 (N.D. Ohio, Filed Nov. 14, 2020), the Hon. Judge James R. Knepp II entered an order as follows: -- Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification by Feb. 2, 2026 -- Response by March 2, 2026 -- Reply by March 23, 2026. The nature of suit states Employment -- Job Discrimination (Sex). The Board of Lucas County Commissioners provides public safety and public service programs and operations.[CC] LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 26, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Passion Gabourel v. Luxottica of America Inc. et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00471-FWS-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fred Slaughter entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for enlargement of time to file renewed motion for class certification and granting the Defendant's motion for order to compel the Plaintiff to file proposed trial plan: Jury Trial (first day): Feb. 24, 2026 Final pretrial conference & hearing on Feb. 5, 2026 motions in limine: Last date to hear motion to amend Sept. 8, 2022 pleadings/add parties: Deadline for the Plaintiff to file motion Mar. 26, 2025 for class certification ("MFCC") Deadline for the Defendants' opposition to June 3, 2025 MFCC Deadline for the Plaintiff's reply in June 30, 2025 support of MFCC: Oppositions to Motions in Limine: Jan. 15, 2026 On August 26, 2025, the court denied Plaintiff’s motion for class certification. Luxottica offers prescription glasses and sunglasses. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1iQMOm at no extra charge.[CC] MADAME ROUGE: Norris Sues Over Discriminative Property ------------------------------------------------------ Namel Norris, and other similar situated v. MADAME ROUGE CORPORATION, a New York corporation, d/b/a MADAME ROUGE NY BISTRO BAR, and STEVEN J. SHORE, an individual, and SANDRA JACOBUS SHORE, an individual, Case No. 1:25-cv-09093 (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 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. MADAME ROUGE CORPORATION 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 MALIBU BOATS: $7.8MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Jan. 27 ------------------------------------------------------------ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK RETIREE BENEFIT TRUST OF THE CITY OF BALTIMORE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. MALIBU BOATS, INC., JACK SPRINGER, BRUCE BECKMAN, DAVID BLACK, and WAYNE WILSON, Defendants. Case No. 1:24-cv-03254-LGS CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Malibu Boats, Inc. ("MBI" or the "Company") Securities, including MBI common stock and MBI call and put options, between November 4, 2022 and May 1, 2024, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class "): PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, that the litigation has been certified as a class action for settlement purposes only on behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition as set forth in the full Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement and Plan of Allocation; (II) Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses. YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs in the Action have reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $7,800,000 in cash, that, if approved by the Court, will resolve all claims in the Action. A hearing will be held on January 27, 2026, at 3:00 p.m., at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, Courtroom 1106, 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007, to determine, among other things, whether (i) the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against the Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii) the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should be approved. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. The Notice and Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form"), can be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator, www.MalibuBoatsSecuritiesLitigation.com. You may also obtain copies of the Notice and Claim Form by contacting the Claims Administrator at Malibu Boats Securities Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173139, Milwaukee, WI 53217, toll free 1-866-830-2422. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, to potentially be eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form online or postmarked no later than February 14, 2026. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than January 6, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses, must be in writing, signed, and filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than January 6, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, the Defendants, or their counsel regarding this notice, the proposed Settlement, or the claims process. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Claims Administrator or Lead Counsel. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, or for information about the status of a claim, may be made to Lead Counsel: SAXENA WHITE P.A. Joshua H. Saltzman, Esq. 10 Bank Street, Suite 882 White Plains, NY 10606 jsaltzman@saxenawhite.com Requests for the Notice and Claim Form and for information about the status of a claim should be made to: Malibu Boats Securities Litigation c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 173139 Milwaukee, WI 53217 866-830-2422 info@MalibuBoatsSecuritiesLitigation.com By Order of the Court MARTHA BOERSCH: Samad Class Cert Bid Tossed ------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALAMIN SAMAD, et al., v. MARTHA BOERSCH, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-02169-DC-CKD (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Carolyn Delaney entered an order that: 1. The Plaintiffs Derrick White and Johnny Rice's motions to proceed in forma pauperis are denied as moot; 2. The Plaintiffs' motion to appoint counsel is denied; 3. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied; 4. The Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is granted; and 5. The Plaintiffs Derrick White and Johnny Rice shall inform the Court whether their notices of voluntary dismissal are intended to dismiss the parties from the case, or if they are intended to dismiss the motions to proceed in forma pauperis. The Plaintiffs Alamin Samad, Derrick White, and Johnny Rice initiated this action with a complaint filed on August 4, 2025. The Plaintiffs all filed motions to proceed in forma pauperis. The Plaintiffs also filed a motion to appoint counsel and a motion for class certification. On Aug. 21, 2025, the Court found that Plaintiffs had not made the requisite showing to proceed in forma pauperis, and ordered them to pay the filing fee. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DGJ0sh at no extra charge.[CC] MAXLINEAR INC: Dismissed Shareholder Suit Under Appeal ------------------------------------------------------ MaxLinear, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2025, that on August 31, 2023, a stockholder filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California captioned "Water Island Event-Driven Fund v. MaxLinear, Inc.," No. 23-cv-01607 (S.D. Cal.), against MaxLinear and certain of its current officers, alleging two claims: (1) an alleged violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder; and (2) an alleged violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The case was dismissed without prejudice. On August 8, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On December 20, 2023, the court appointed the lead plaintiffs, who filed the consolidated complaint on February 15, 2024. The consolidated complaint alleged that the defendants made false and misleading statements and/or omitted material facts that MaxLinear had a duty to disclose, concerning the company's intention to close the merger with Silicon Motion. On August 28, 2024, the court granted the defendants a motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue MaxLinear and its officers. MaxLinear, Inc. is a provider of communications systems-on-chip, or SoC, solutions used in broadband, mobile and wireline infrastructure, data center, and industrial and multi-market applications. MDL 2724: Indirect Reseller Plaintiffs Seeks Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as IN RE: GENERIC PHARMACEUTICALS PRICING ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 2:16-md-02724-CMR (E.D. Pa.), the Indirect Reseller Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order : -- certifying two classes pursuant to the Sherman Act and certain state and territory (1) antitrust laws, (2) consumer protection laws, and (3) common laws of unjust enrichment, -- appointing Christian Hudson and Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP as Lead Counsel, and Barrett Law Group, P.A., Tostrud Law Group, P.C., and Larson King, LLP to the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee, and -- substituting Reliable Pharmacy, Inc. for West Val Pharmacy, Inc. as class representative. IRPs request certification of the proposed classes under the following class definitions: The Nationwide Class: "All privately held pharmacies in the United States and its territories that indirectly purchased the Defendants' generic Pravastatin products (including 10, 20, 40, and 80 mg tablets) from May 1, 2013 through Dec. 31, 2018." This class excludes: (a) defendants, their officers, directors, management, employees, subsidiaries and affiliates; (b) all persons or entities who purchased Pravastatin products directly from defendants; (c) any pharmacies owned in part by judges or justices involved in this action or any members of their immediate families; (d) all pharmacies owned or operated by publicly traded companies. The Damages Class: "All privately held pharmacies in the IRP Damages Jurisdictions that indirectly purchased the Defendants' generic Pravastatin products (including 10, 20, 40, and 80 mg tablets) from May 1, 2013 through Dec. 31, 2018." This class excludes: (a) defendants, their officers, directors, management, employees, subsidiaries and affiliates; (b) all persons or entities who purchased Pravastatin products directly from defendants; (c) any pharmacies owned in part by judges or justices involved in this action or any members of their immediate families; (d) all pharmacies owned or operated by publicly traded companies. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EwjsgC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christian Hudson, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West 12th Floor, Suite 12060 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 789-1819 E-mail: christian@cuneolaw.com MDL 2724: Plaintiffs Seeks to File Class Cert Memo Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GENERIC PHARMACEUTICALS PRICING ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 2:16-md-02724-CMR (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting unopposed motion to file under seal their memorandum of law in support of Indirect Reseller Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, for appointment of lead counsel and Plaintiffs' steering committee, and for substitution of class representative. IRPs have conferred with counsel for Defendants who affirmed that this motion is unopposed. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ryvz8u at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christian Hudson, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West 12th Floor, Suite 12060 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 789-1819 E-mail: christian@cuneolaw.com MDL 2724: Reseller Plaintiffs Seeks to File Memo Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE: GENERIC PHARMACEUTICALS PRICING ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 2:16-md-02724 (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Cynthia M. Rufe entered an order granting the Indirect Reseller Class Plaintiffs' Motion to File Under Seal their Memorandum of Law in Support of Indirect Reseller Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, for Appointment of Lead Counsel and Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee, and for Substitution of Class Representative and Accompanying Exhibits. The Court further entered an order that Indirect Reseller Class Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law and accompanying Exhibits Nos. 3-21 and 28-89 shall be PLACED UNDER SEAL by the Clerk of Court, until further order. These actions share factual questions arising from allegations that defendants, all of which are manufacturers of generic pharmaceuticals, conspired to fix the prices of two such products: digoxin, which is used to treat irregular heartbeats and mild to moderate heart failure, and doxycycline, an antibiotic used to treat both humans and animals for a variety of illnesses. Plaintiffs allege that, between 2012 and 2014, the average market price for digoxin and doxycycline increased by 884% and 8,281%, respectively. The Plaintiffs uniformly allege that defendants effectuated this conspiracy through direct company-to-company contacts and through joint activities undertaken through trade associations. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=a2NPjr at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3035: Court Consolidates Cases in AME Church Fund Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARMICHAEL, JR. et al v. HARRIS et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01127 (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge S. Thomas Anderson entered an order granting Symetra Life Insurance Company's unopposed motion to exceed the page limit for its opposition to the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification. Symetra may exceed the page limit for its response in opposition to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel, which shall not exceed 45 pages, the Court says. The Carmichael suit is consolidated in MDL 3035, AME CHURCH EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND LITIGATION MDL 1:22-md-03035-STA-jay. These putative class actions present common factual questions arising from the allegation that the AME Church, senior Church officials, and financial companies contracted to administer the Church retirement plan were negligent in managing the plan and breached their fiduciary duties to plan participants, resulting in substantial losses to the plan that were discovered in 2021. All actions involve overlapping putative classes of participating employees, and investigations that will affect all actions reportedly are ongoing. Newport operates as retirement services firm. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PGV3Fw at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Markham R. Leventhal, Esq. Benjamin M. Stoll, Esq. Scott M. Abeles, Esq. Rachel A. Oostendorp, Esq. CARLTON FIELDS, P.A. 1625 Eye Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 965-8189 E-mail: mleventhal@carltonfields.com bstoll@carltonfields.com sabeles@carltonfields.com roostendorp@carltonfields.com MEDVI LLC: Kirshner Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medvi LLC. The case is styled as Edward Kirshner, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Medvi LLC, Case No. 30-2025-01523407 (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty., Nov. 3, 2025). MEDVi -- https://medvi.org/ -- is a virtual healthcare platform that provides prescription weight loss drugs and counseling to patients in 49 states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC 4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com MELTY WAY INC: Faldonie Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Sophia Faldonie, and all others similarly situated v. MELTY WAY, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-13240 (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 gourmet grilled-cheese melts and curated sandwich creations, offering a diverse menu featuring signature melts, sandwiches, soups, salads, sides, and desserts, along with restaurant services such as online ordering and dine-in.[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 MERCY HOSPITAL: Bid to Certify Class Tossed w/o Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMY SHEPARD, et al., v. MERCY HOSPITAL SPRINGFIELD, Case No. 6:25-cv-03163-RK (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Roseann Ketchmark entered an order that on or before Nov. 18, 2025, the Plaintiffs: (1) show cause why Mercy Hospital Springfield was not served within 90 days after the complaint was filed, and (2) file proof of service as to Mercy Hospital Springfield. The Court further entered an order that the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class is denied without prejudice. Any subsequent motion to certify class should strictly adhere to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court's Local Rules. The Plaintiffs filed their complaint on June 20, 2025. The Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class on June 23, 2025. The Plaintiffs move to certify a class under Missouri Rule 52.08, rather than under the appropriate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. The Defendant is a full-service hospital. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QKXPhB at no extra charge.[CC] META PLATFORMS: Filing of Class Cert Opposition Due Dec. 9 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Doe v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (RE META PIXEL HEALTHCARE LITIGATION), Case No. 3:22-cv-03580-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick entered an order extending class certification deadlines hearing to April 22, 2026. 1. Meta shall file its Class Cert. Opposition and supporting expert reports no later than Dec. 9, 2025; 2. Meta shall file any motion(s) pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 related to the Plaintiffs' Class Cert. Motion no later than Dec. 19, 2025; 3. The Plaintiffs shall file any Rule 702 Motions related to Meta's Class Cert. Opposition no later than Jan. 28, 2026; 4. The Plaintiffs shall file their reply in support of their Class Cert. Motion, any reply expert reports, and any opposition(s) to Meta's Rule 702 Motions no later than Feb. 11, 2026; 5. Meta shall file any replies in support of its Rule 702 Motions no later than March 4, 2026; 6. Meta shall file any opposition(s) to the Plaintiffs' Rule 702 motions no later than March 5, 2026; and 7. The Plaintiffs shall file any replies in support of their Rule 702 Motions no later than March 19, 2026. Meta is an American multinational technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CYXkTT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason 'Jay' Barnes, Esq. Jennifer M Paulson, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC 112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 784-6400 Facsimile: (212) 213-5949 E-mail: jaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com jpaulson@simmonsfirm.com - and - Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq. KIESEL LAW LLP 8648 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 854-4444 Facsimile: (310) 854-0812 E-mail: koncius@kiesel.law - and - Geoffrey Graber, Esq. Eric Kafka, Esq. Mark Vandenberg, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: ggraber@cohenmilstein.com ekafka@cohenmilstein.com mvandenberg@cohenmilstein.com - and - Beth E. Terrell, Esq. Amanda M. Steiner, Esq. Benjamin M. Drachler, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 319-5450 E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com asteiner@terrellmarshall.com bdrachler@terrellmarshall.com - and - Andre M. Mura, Esq. Hanne Jensen, Esq. Delaney Brooks, Esq. GIBBS MURA LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 E-mail: amm@classlawgroup.com hj@classlawgroup.com db@classlawgroup.com The Defendant is represented by: Lauren Goldman, Esq. Darcy C. Harris, Esq. Elizabeth K. Mccloskey, Esq. Abigail A. Barrera, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 351-4000 Facsimile: (212) 351-4035 E-mail: lgoldman@gibsondunn.com dharris@gibsondunn.com emccloskey@gibsondunn.com abarrera@gibsondunn.com - and - Andrew B. Clubok, Esq. Gary S. Feinerman, Esq. Melanie M. Blunschi, Esq. Kristin Sheffield-Whitehead, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 555 Eleventh St., NW, Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20004-1304 Telephone: (202) 637-2200 E-mail: andrew.clubok@lw.com gary.feinerman@lw.com melanie.blunschi@lw.com kristin.whitehead@lw.com META PLATFORMS: Plaintiffs Seeks Sealing of Class Cert Docs ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Doe v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (RE: META PIXEL HEALTHCARE LITIGATION), Case No. 3:22-cv-03580-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for consideration of whether Defendant Meta Platforms, materials should be sealed, in connection with the Opposition to Defendant's Notice of Motion and Motion to Seal Documents in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiffs seek consideration of the following documents that were designated as confidential by Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc.: Document Portion(s) to Seal The Plaintiffs' opposition to the Highlighted portions at Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc.'s 2:10-12, 2:18-19, 2:22- motion to seal documents in support 28, 3:1, 3:4, 3:7-13, of the Plaintiffs' motion for class 3:17-21, 3:23, 4:5-7, certification: 4:10-16, 4:19, fn. 3. Meta is an American multinational technology company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PzXLe7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs is represented by: Jason 'Jay' Barnes, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC 112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 784-6400 Facsimile: (212) 213-5949 E-mail: jaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com - and - Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq. KIESEL LAW LLP 8648 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 854-4444 Facsimile: (310) 854-0812 E-mail: koncius@kiesel.law - and - Geoffrey Graber, Esq. Eric Kafka, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: ggraber@cohenmilstein.com ekafka@cohenmilstein.com - and - Beth E. Terrell, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 319-5450 E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com - and - Andre M. Mura, Esq. GIBBS MURA LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 E-mail: amm@classlawgroup.com METLIFE GROUP: Faces Tracy Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------- SUSAN TRACY, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. METLIFE GROUP, INC., a New York Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09104 (S.D.N.Y., November 3, 2025) is a collective and class action arising from Defendant's alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. To service some of its life insurance customers, the Defendant employs hourly, remote customer service representatives throughout the country. The Defendant requires its CSRs to work a full-time schedule, plus overtime, however, Defendant does not compensate CSRs for all work performed, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to represent in this action all current and former CSRs who are similarly situated to each other in terms of their positions, job duties, pay structure and Defendant's violations of federal and state law. Plaintiff Tracy is a New York resident who worked for Defendant as a remote CSR in New York within the last two years. Metlife Group, Inc. provides insurance, annuities and employee benefit programs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq. ASH LAW, PLLC 43000 W. 9 Mile Rd., Ste. 301 Novi, MI 48375 Telephone: (734) 234-5583 E-mail: cash@nationalwagelaw.com MICHAEL QUANE: Faces Perez Suit Over Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- MERITES PEREZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MICHAEL QUANE, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-06090 (E.D.N.Y., October 31, 2025) is an action for unpaid minimum wage and overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and for violations of the New York Labor Law and the Domestic Workers' Bill of Rights, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. According to the complaint, Plaintiff Perez worked for Defendant in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that she worked. Rather, the Defendant failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff Perez appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Furthermore, Defendant repeatedly failed to pay Plaintiff Perez wages on a timely basis, says the suit. Plaintiff Perez was employed as a home attendant at Defendant's residence in South Hempstead, New York. Michael Quane, an individual, served as the employer of Plaintiff Perez, exercising control over her employment, including setting work schedules, determining wages, and maintaining employment records.[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 MOBILEYE GLOBAL: Dismissal of McAuliffe Suit Under Appeal --------------------------------------------------------- Mobileye Global Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2025, that on April 16, 2025 the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the defendants' motion and dismissed a second amended complaint in full without leave to amend, closing the case. On May 16, 2025, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On July 11, 2025, the lead plaintiff filed a brief in support of their appeal. On August 15, 2025, Mobileye and the named defendants filed their opposition brief, and on September 5, 2025, the appellants filed their reply brief in further support of the appeal. On January 16, 2024, the orginal putative class action captioned "McAuliffe v. Mobileye Global Inc., et al.," 1:24-CV-00310, was filed in said court against Mobileye and certain of its current and former officers, asserting violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with defendants' alleged misstatements and omissions concerning the build-up of excess inventory by certain Tier 1 Mobileye customers. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Mobileye securities between January 26, 2023 and January 3, 2024. The second amended complaint also includes claims asserted by an additional plaintiff under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Mobileye Class A common stock offered in Mobileye's June 5, 2023 secondary public offering. Mobileye and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on December 20, 2024. On January 24, 2025, the lead plaintiff filed a brief in opposition to Mobileye's and the other named defendants' motion to dismiss. On February 21, 2025, Mobileye and the other named defendants jointly filed a brief in reply to the lead plaintiff’s opposition brief. Mobileye is into the development and deployment of advanced driver assistance systems and autonomous driving technologies and solutions. MOBIUSPAY INC: Seeks to Stay Proceedings Pending Cordiota Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FLEXSENAL INC. and MASTER FACTOR MARKETING INC., v. MOBIUSPAY INC., NAB-CW LLC d/b/a CWA MERCHANT SERVICES, MERRICK BANK CORPORATION, and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 5:24-cv-02582-DTB (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order to stay all proceedings regarding all claims filed against CWA and Merrick by the Plaintiffs until a determination of class certification is made in the related action pending in the United States District Court for the District of Utah styled as: "Cordiota, Inc. v. NAB-CW LLC d/b/a CWA Merchant Services, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00209-TS-JCB (D. Utah)" Pursuant to Local Rule 7-3, counsel for the Defendants has met with Plaintiffs’ counsel and conferred regarding the basis of this Motion (and the relief sought herein) on October 31, 2025, but were unable to resolve the issues set forth therein. The parties agree that the meet and confer requirements set forth in the Local Rules have been fully satisfied. MobiusPay is an online merchant processing company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2Ish0z at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Barbara Croutch, Esq. Lawren A. Zann, Esq. GREENSPOON MARDER LLP 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (323) 776-3130 Facsimile: (954) 771-9264 E-mail: barbara.croutch@gmlaw.com lawren.zann@gmlaw.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Tanner Suit Transferred to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Ruth Tanner, individually and on behalf of Eley Tanner, and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-00287 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Nov. 3, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-09367-VC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Product Liability. The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Enochs, Esq. MORRIS BART, P.L.C. 601 Poydras Street, 24th Floor New Orleans, LA 70130 Phone: (504) 526-1087 Fax: (833) 277-4214 Email: jenochs@morrisbart.com MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO: SSI Sun Seeks to Certify Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUMMIT SUN INVESTMENTS, LLC, v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, Case No. 3:24-cv-00031-MJN (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class action, naming Summit Sun as representative of the following Classes, defined as follows: Injunctive Class "All persons who, during the maximum period of time permitted by law, who may purchase or rent or have purchased or are renting properties connected to water provided by Montgomery County Environmental Services, and have paid, are currently paying, or will pay debts or money owed by previous owners or tenants of the properties to Montgomery County Environmental Services in order to obtain full and unfettered access to their properties." Compensation Class "All persons who, during the maximum period of time permitted by law, purchased or rented properties connected to water provided by Montgomery County Environmental Services, and have paid debts or money owed by previous owners or tenants of the properties to Montgomery County Environmental Services in order to obtain full and unfettered access to their properties." The Defendant are responsible for overseeing county administration, finances, and planning. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=puqOAp at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary C. Schaengold, Esq. Michael A. Galasso, Esq. ROBBINS, KELLY, PATTERSON & TUCKER, LPA 312 Elm Street, Suite 2200 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 721-3330 Facsimile: (513) 721-5001 E-mail: zschaengold@rkpt.com mgalasso@rkpt.com MORRISON INDUSTRIAL: Smith Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------- Robert Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MORRISON INDUSTRIAL, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01360 (W.D. Mich., Nov. 4, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and unpaid compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA") (the IMWL and IWPCA are collectively referred to as the "Illinois Acts"), the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act ("MFLSA"), the Minnesota Payment of Wages Act ("MPWA"), and the Minnesota Code of Regulations on Wages and Labor ("MCRW") (collectively the "Minnesota Wage Statutes"), the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("Ohio Wage Act"), and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act ("OPPA") (the Ohio Wage Act and the OPPA will be collectively referred to as the "Ohio Acts"). Although Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members have routinely worked (and continue to work) in excess of 40 hours per workweek, Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members were not paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Likewise, Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members worked under 40 hours per workweek on occasion and were not fully compensated at their regular rate of pay for all hours worked. The Defendant knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members for all hours worked each workweek and the proper amount of overtime on a routine and regular basis, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Morrison as a Service Technician in Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota, and Ohio from November 2023 until December 2024. Morrison is a business-to-business material-handling equipment dealer for its clients throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer L. McManus, Esq. FAGAN MCMANUS, P.C. 25892 Woodward Avenue Royal Oak, MI 48067-0910 Phone: (248) 542-6300 Email: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin Anderson, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Phone: 361-452-1279 Fax: 361-452-1284 Email: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com MOVE INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Apaydin Due Feb. 2, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICKI K. APAYDIN, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, v. MOVE, INC. d/b/a REALTOR.COM, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-07905-PA-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Percy Anderson entered an order granting stipulation to set a class certification briefing schedule. 1. The Plaintiff shall file any motion for class certification, designate any expert witnesses, and provide any reports as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) by Feb. 2, 2026. 2. The Defendant shall file any opposition to the motion for class certification, designate any rebuttal expert witnesses, and provide any reports as required by Fed. R.Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) by March 16, 2026. 3. The Plaintiff shall file any reply in support of the motion for class certification by March 30, 2026. 4. The Plaintiff shall request a hearing date of April 13, 2026 for any motion for class certification. The Defendant is a real estate listing company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=34GuF2 at no extra charge.[CC] MULTI MEDIA: Seeks to Dismiss Barber Class Action ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NEAL BARBER, an individual, v. MULTI MEDIA, LLC d/b/a CHATTRUBATE, a California limited liability company, BAYSIDE SUPPORT SERVICES LLC, a Florida limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 8:25-cv-01602-JWH-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants, on Dec. 5, 2025, will move the Court to dismiss the Complaint. The case is a non-starter and should be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state any actionable claims for relief. The Plaintiff Neal Barber alleges that he suffered personal injuries (post-traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD")) directly flowing from the workplace conditions provided by the Defendants Multi Media, LLC and Bayside Support Services LLC. The Defendant is an adult oriented live streaming website with interactive capabilities. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hgsjO0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Jaime W. Marquart, Esq. Donald R. Pepperman, Esq. Sam S. Meehan, Esq. WAYMAKER LLP 515 S. Flower Street, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (424) 652-7800 Facsimile: (424) 652-7850 E-mail: jmarquart@waymakerlaw.com dpepperman@waymakerlaw.com smeehan@waymakerlaw.com NCAA: Johnson Seeks Conditional Certification of FLSA Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RALPH "TREY" JOHNSON, STEPHANIE KERKELES, NICHOLAS LABELLA, CLAUDIA RUIZ, JACOB WILLEBEEK-LEMAIR, ALEXA COOKE, RHESA FOSTER, ZACHARY HARRIS, MATTHEW SCHMIDT, TAMARA SCHOEN STATMAN, GINA SNYDER, ESTEBAN SUAREZ and LIAM WALSH, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, a/k/a the NCAA, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, FORDHAM UNIVERSITY, LAFAYETTE COLLEGE, SACRED HEART UNIVERSITY, VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY OF OREGON, TULANE UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME, UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA, PURDUE UNIVERSITY, DUKE UNIVERSITY, and MARIST COLLEGE, Case No. 2:19-cv-05230-JP (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs asks the Court to enter an order: (1) granting conditional certification of their 2 claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act; (2) approving Court-facilitated notice to similarly-situated persons; (3) expediting disclosure by the Defendants to the Plaintiffs of the identity and contact information of all similarly- situated persons; and (4) awarding the Plaintiffs such other and further relief that the Court seems just and proper. Pursuant to E.D. Pa. Local Rule 7.1(f), the Plaintiffs request an oral argument on this motion. NCAA is a nonprofit organization that regulates student athletics among about 1,100 schools in the United States, and 1 in Canada. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=H0f8Vl at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael J. Willemin, Esq. William R. Baker, Esq. WIGDOR LLP 85 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 257-6800 Facsimile: (212) 257-6845 E-mail: mwillemin@wigdorlaw.com wbaker@wigdorlaw.com - and - Paul L. McDonald, Esq. P L MCDONALD LAW LLC 1800 JFK Boulevard, Suite 300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 238-3835 Facsimile: (267) 238-3801 E-mail: paul@plmcdonaldlaw.com NEW DIRECTION: Theriault Seeks to Modify Scheduling Order --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH THERIAULT and WILLIAM WEIGEL, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. NEW DIRECTION IRA, INC., NEW DIRECTION TRUST COMPANY, and MAINSTAR TRUST, Case No. 2:23-cv-02477-JWB-ADM (D. Kan.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order modifying the scheduling order to extend the deadline for their class certification motion. The Plaintiffs file the unopposed motion for a 60 day extension of time to submit a motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs request to modify the scheduling order by extending the class certification motion deadline by sixty (60) days to Jan. 13, 2026. The Plaintiffs also request a discovery and scheduling conference with Judge Mitchell at a time convenient for the Court and the parties to discuss the status of discovery and the overall case schedule. On June 6, 2025, the Court entered a Scheduling Order. The Defendant is a provider of Individual Retirement Arrangements (IRAs) and Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QtEs2n at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott C. Nehrbass, Esq. Sara C. Otto, Esq. Jeff P. DeGraffenreid, Esq. FOULSTON SIEFKIN LLP 7500 College Boulevard, Suite 1400 Overland Park, KS 66210 Telephone: (913) 498.2144 Facsimile: (913) 498.2101 E-mail: snehrbass@foulston.com sotto@foulston.com jdegraffenreid@foulston.com - and - Daniel Pulgram, Esq. Willem F. Jonckheer, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE 2001 Union St., Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 NEW YORK, NY: Class Settlement in Piney Suit Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALBERT PINEY, et al., v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00671-DEH-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sarah Cave entered an order granting preliminary approval of class and collective action settlement. -- Pursuant to Rule 23(e), the Court certifies, for settlement purposes only, a Rule 23 class consisting of: "all current and former NYPD Officers, Detectives, Sergeants, Lieutenants, Captains, and Inspectors who performed services at Primark locations in New York State, through the Paid Detail Program (the "PDP"), at any time from Jan. 23, 2019 through April 17, 2025." -- For settlement purposes only, the Court also grants final certification of the FLSA collective action consisting of: "All current and former NYPD Officers, Detectives, Sergeants, Lieutenants, Captains, and Inspectors who performed services at Primark locations in New York State, through the PDP, at any time from Jan. 23, 2022 through April 17, 2025." -- The Court appoints the Plaintiffs Michael Kmiotek, Alexis Yanez, Devon Dawkins, and Dominique Eveillard to represent the Class. -- The Court will conduct a Fairness Hearing pursuant to Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on April 21, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. New York comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CjtRqS at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Innessa M. Huot, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: ihuot@faruqilaw.com NEW YORK: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Jan. 31, 2026 -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Disability Rights New York v. The State of New York, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-06965 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Nov. 30, 2017), the Hon. Judge Frederic Block entered an order that Plaintiffs shall file their second Motion for Class Certification by Jan. 31, 2026, pursuant to the presiding district judge's individual rules. The Plaintiff shall provide Defendants with notice five days before serving their Motion for Class Certification. Defendant's response to the motion is due 60 days after the Court certifies the close of all discovery. Upon the conclusion of class certification briefing by both sides, the parties shall proceed with any summary judgment motions they deem appropriate pursuant to the presiding district judge's individual rules. The parties shall be permitted 60 days to respond to any summary judgment motion and 30 days to submit any reply. The suit alleges violation of American with Disabilities Act. New York is a state in the northeastern U.S., known for New York City and towering Niagara Falls.[CC] NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE: $19.375MM Class Settlement Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAMON X. MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-02043-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash entered a preliminary approval order as follows: (1) The Court provisionally certifies the following Settlement Class: The approximately 1,049,396 persons in the United States identified by NextGen Healthcare whose personally- identifying information ("PII") was impacted by the Data Breach, as reflected in the Class List." Excluded from the Settlement Class are (i) NextGen Healthcare, any entity in which NextGen Healthcare has a controlling interest, and NextGen Healthcare's officers, directors, legal representatives, successors, subsidiaries, and assigns; (ii) any judge, justice, or judicial officer presiding over the Action and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff; and (iii) any individual who timely and validly opts out of the Settlement. The Court also provisionally certifies the California Settlement Subclass which includes: "any Settlement Class Member that was a resident of the State of California on March 29, 2023." The Settlement Class referenced herein includes the California Settlement Subclass. (2) Damon Miller, Elizabeth Appleton, Abolanle Abikoye, Rosa Akhras, Srikanth Atluri, Corey Benn, Bellvinia Brickle, Shawna Kerr individually and on behalf of her of her minor child J.K., Carter Bundy individually and on behalf of his minor child A.B., and Scott Phillips individually and on behalf of his minor child H.P., are designated and appointed as the Settlement Class Representatives. (3) The following lawyers, who were previously appointed by the Court as interim Co-lead Counsel, are designated as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g): MaryBeth V. Gibson of Gibson Consumer Law Group, LLC; Norman E. Siegel of Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP; and J. Cameron Tribble of The Barnes Law Group, LLC. (4) A Final Approval Hearing shall take place before the Court on Feb. 17, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. The Settlement, as preliminarily approved in this Order, shall be administered according to its terms pending the Final Approval Hearing. Deadlines arising under the Settlement and this Order include but are not limited to the following: Defendant will cause to be deposited 30 days after Court’s $19,375,000 into the Settlement entry of the Fund Account Preliminary Approval Order NextGen is an American software and services company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bCVSCG at no extra charge.[CC] NIT NOI INVESTMENTS: Mackey Sues Over Physical Barriers ------------------------------------------------------- Kirk Mackey, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. NIT NOI INVESTMENTS L.L.C., Case No. 4:25-cv-05254 (D. Colo., Nov. 4, 2025), is brought based upon Defendant's failure to remove physical barriers to access the property and violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the ADA's Accessibility Guidelines ("ADAAG"). The Plaintiff has visited the Property twice before as a customer and advocate for the disabled. The Plaintiff intends to revisit the Property within six months 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 customer of Oishii, to determine if and when the Property is made accessible and for Advocacy Purposes. The Plaintiff intends on revisiting the Property to purchase goods and/or services as a return customer living in the near vicinity as well as for Advocacy Purposes but does not intend to re-expose himself to the ongoing barriers to access and engage in a futile gesture of visiting the public accommodation known to Plaintiff to have numerous continuing barriers to access, as such, Plaintiff is deterred from returning to the Property until the barriers to access are removed, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair for mobility purposes. NIT NOI INVESTMENTS L.L.C., is the owner or co-owner of the real property and improvements that Street Food Thai Market.[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 NOR-CAL VENTURE: Trujillo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nor-Cal Venture Grp., Inc., et al. The case is styled as Isabel Cristina Trujillo, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nor-Cal Venture Grp., Inc. doing business as JACK IN THE BOX, a California Corporation; Does 1-50, inclusive; Case No. 25CV152644 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 3, 2025). Nor-Cal Venture Group is a business consulting firm based in Elk Grove, California, specializing in providing strategic guidance and support to startups and established companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung L. Yang, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 355 S. Grand Ave., Suite 1450 Los Angeles, California 90071 Phone: (213) 985-1150 Fax: (213) 985-2155 Email: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com NORDSTROM INC: Faces Class Suit Over Falsely Advertised Discounts ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiffs Jewel Lee and Megan Trama filed a class action lawsuit against Nordstrom Inc. Why: Lee and Trama claim Nordstrom falsely advertised discounts in emails sent to consumers. Where: The Nordstrom class action lawsuit was filed in Washington state court. According to a new class action lawsuit, Nordstrom falsely advertised discounts in emails sent to consumers for its Nordstrom Rack brand. Plaintiffs Jewel Lee and Megan Trama filed the class action lawsuit against Nordstrom on Oct. 8 in Washington state court, alleging violations of the Consumer Protection Act and the Commercial Electronic Mail Act. Lee and Trama argue Nordstrom falsely advertised discounts in emails sent to consumers for its Nordstrom Rack brand, which includes a retail website and around 289 retail stores. Nordstrom Rack sells clothing, apparel and other items to consumers across the United States, including in Washington state where Nordstrom is headquartered. Lee and Trama argue Nordstrom engaged in a "massive and consistent" false discount advertising scheme for its Nordstrom Rack brand by advertising perpetual or near-perpetual discounts, typically 50% to 70% off, on all products offered for sale. "These discounts are taken from Nordstrom's inflated and self-created list prices for its Nordstrom Rack products," the Nordstrom class action lawsuit says. Nordstrom allegedly never offered products at their listed price Lee and Trama argue Nordstrom Rack's advertised discounts are false since the products were never or almost never offered or sold at their listed price. "Nordstrom also falsely advertises that the purported savings at Nordstrom Rack are for a limited time and indicates that the products will return to the full price after the sale ends, when in fact the advertised savings are perpetual and never-ending," the Nordstrom class action lawsuit says.[BN] NORDSTROM INC: Trama Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. ----------------------------------------------- The case styled as JEWEL LEE and MEGAN TRAMA, for themselves, as private attorneys general, and/or on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NORDSTROM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 25-2-29677-6 SEA, was removed from the Superior Court for the State of Washington for King County to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on November 3, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02180 to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs allege that the putative classes consist of thousands of individuals, seeking statutory damages for each and every email that violated the Commercial Electronic Mail Act that was transmitted to them as well as actual damages, treble damages, and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to RCW 19.86.090. Nordstrom, Inc. is an American upmarket department store chain headquartered in Seattle, Washington.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Austin Rainwater, Esq. Shannon Armstrong, Esq. Abigail Gore, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4700 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 505-4000 E-mail: Austin.Rainwater@hklaw.com Shannon.Armstrong@hklaw.com Abigail.Gore@hklaw.com NY COMMUNITY FINANCIAL: Brown Sues Over Discrimination on Premises ------------------------------------------------------------------ Altaune Brown, and other similarly situated disabled individuals v. NY COMMUNITY FINANCIAL, LLC d/b/a CFSC, Case No. 1:25-cv-09207 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 4, 2025), is brought seeking equitable, injunctive, and declaratory relief; monetary and nominal damages; along with attorney's fees, costs, and expenses pursuant to: Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"); the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"); and the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL") due to the Defendants' discrimination on their Premises. The Defendants' Premises is a commercial space as defined by the NYSHRL, and NYCHRL because, inter alia, a portion of the building and structure thereof used or intended to be used as a business, office, and commerce. On February 7, 2025, and other occasions, Plaintiff attempted to enter Defendants' Premises, which operates one of New York City's most unique and affordable indie store that is known for specializing in Eastern and Western spirituality, selling related items like crystals, candles, incense, sage, and even offers tarot card reading services. Defendants' Premises is less than 1.8 miles from Plaintiff's home. Because the existing barriers prevent access and restrict the paths of travel, such as 2 steps at the entrance, Plaintiff was unable to enter Defendants' Premises. Because the existing barriers prevent access and restrict the paths of travel, such as 2 steps at the entrance, Plaintiff was denied full and equal access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the commercial space and public accommodations within Defendants' Premises. The Defendants denying Plaintiff the opportunity to participate in and benefit from the services or accommodations offered within Defendants' Premises because of his disability has caused Plaintiff to suffer an injury in fact. The Plaintiff intends on immediately returning to Defendants' Premises once the barriers to access are removed and Defendants' Premises are ADA compliant. The Defendants' failure to comply with the ADA, NYSHRL, NYCHRL, et seq. impedes upon the rights of Plaintiff, and other similarly situated disabled individuals, to travel free of discrimination and independently access Defendants' Premises, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a paraplegic who uses a wheelchair for mobility. CFSC is a foreign limited liability corporation authorized to conduct business within the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly G. Marks, Esq. THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC 155 E 55th Street, Suite 4H New York, NY 1002 Phone:(646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: brad@markslawpc.com OCHSNER CLINIC: Fifth Circuit Reverses Remand Order in Taylor Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reverses the district court's remand order in the lawsuit titled Kelly Taylor, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ochsner Clinic Foundation, doing business as Ochsner Medical Center, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 24-30794 (5th Cir.). The matter is an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, USDC No. 2:24-CV-1872. The 5th Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judges Edith H. Jones, Stuart Kyle Duncan, and Dana M. Douglas. The Panel granted a motion for interlocutory appeal pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA") to review the district court's remand order in this putative class action case. Having reviewed the briefs and the record, the Panel reverses and remands for the district court to adjudicate the dispute. Plaintiff Taylor sued Ochsner Medical Foundation and Dr. Andrew Matthews in state court when it was discovered that Matthews, on the medical staff of Ochsner, had placed hidden cameras in numerous restrooms throughout the Ochsner campus on Jefferson Highway in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. The Plaintiff sought class action status, alleging that at least 50 to 100 plaintiffs among thousands, who work at or visit the facility daily had been exposed to invasions of privacy and various indignities. Her complaint sought damages comprising medical expenses, several types of noneconomic damages, and attorneys' fees. Ochsner was sued on the basis of vicarious liability and negligence. Upon exposure of his handiwork, Matthews faced multiple charges of video voyeurism in violation of state law. With state court permission, he moved to Texas. Ochsner removed the case to federal court pursuant to CAFA, which confers jurisdiction on district courts over class actions in which the matter in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 and at least one class member is a citizen of a state different from that of the defendant. In the district court, the Plaintiff did not challenge Ochsner's assertion that the amount in controversy had been met nor did the Plaintiff meaningfully dispute Ochsner's evidence that Matthews had become a domiciliary of Texas. The Plaintiff's objections to federal jurisdiction rested instead on two statutory exceptions to CAFA diversity jurisdiction, which the district court rejected and the Plaintiff failed to appeal. The district court, however, ruled against Ochsner on both jurisdictional elements, finding "no evidence" to support Matthews' having become a Texas citizen and that Ochsner's amount in controversy allegations, extrapolated from the Plaintiff's pleadings, were "implausible." The Panel holds that both conclusions are at odds with the record and reasonable inferences drawn from it. According to the Panel, in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 88–89 (2014), the Supreme Court made plain that a removing defendant's allegation as to amount in controversy need only be "plausible" and should be accepted when not challenged by the plaintiff or questioned by the court. Nothing in the Dart standard limits the opinion to the amount in controversy, and it, therefore, applies as well to proof of minimal diversity. Curiously, the Panel notes, the district court found "nothing" in the record regarding Matthews. In so doing, it apparently overlooked uncontroverted evidence supplied by Ochsner, including his address in Deer Park, Texas, where he was served with process; Texas voter registration; Texas driver's license; and his expressed desire to move to Texas and "stay with his family" to pursue "employment opportunities." These matters amount to a bevy of facts held relevant by this Court to establishing citizenship for diversity purposes. The Plaintiff failed to challenge this evidence in the district court and offers little substance on appeal, the Panel notes. The district court clearly erred in holding that Ochsner failed to prove by a preponderance that Matthews is a Texas citizen and minimal diversity was, thereby, satisfied. As to the amount in controversy, the Panel finds Ochsner "plausibly" calculated at least $5 million considering hidden cameras were found in numerous restrooms throughout the Ochsner campus; the Plaintiff's pleadings estimated at least 50 to 100 class members; over 40,000 employees and physicians worked at this Ochsner campus; and the inclusion of potential attorneys' fees and the likely nature of "video voyeurism" damages. The district court's focus on an "unknowable" class size more reasonably means "unknowably large" under all of these circumstances. Alternatively, the Panel explains, the district court may have misinterpreted "unknowable" as an adjective referencing class size rather than in regard to the ascertainment of class members' identities. For whatever reason, the Panel points out, the finding that Ochsner's extrapolation of potential damages was "implausible" was erroneous legally and factually. Finally, the Panel finds the Plaintiff has advanced no basis for further discovery where it had a complete opportunity in the trial court to present its facts and arguments for application of CAFA's exceptions. A second bite at the apple is unwarranted. For these reasons, the Court of Appeals rules that the district court's order of remand to state court is reversed, and the case is remanded to proceed in federal court. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc4nuuzc from GovInfo.gov. OFFICE DEPOT: Class Cert Bid in Yount Suit Due Jan. 13, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICOLE YOUNT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. OFFICE DEPOT LLC, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00392-RSL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Lasnik entered an amended order setting trial date and related dates as follows: Trial date: Oct. 5, 2026 Deadline for joining additional parties: Nov. 30, 2025 Motion for class certification due and Jan. 13, 2026 noted on the Court's calendar for the fifth Friday thereafter: Expert Disclosures Reports under April 8, 2026 FRCP 26(a)(2) due: Discovery completed by: June 7, 2026 Settlement conference held no later than: June 21, 2026 Office provides business products, services and supplies, and digital workplace technology solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vXAHko at no extra charge.[CC] ON TRAC: Vallarta Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Gregorio David Resendiz Vallarta and Gildardo Obed Barajas-Valdivia, individually, and on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ON TRAC - LOS ANGELES DELIVERY CORPORATION, an entity of unknown form; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV18884 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Nov. 4, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-10603. The Amended Complaint asserts ten causes of action under California law: Willful Misclassification as an Independent Contractor; Failure to Pay Premium Overtime/Double Time Wages Due; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Provide Timely Off Duty Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Timely Off Duty Rest Periods; Failure to Maintain Records and Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses; Failure to Allow Inspection of Employment Records; Unfair Competition and Damages Pursuant to Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Damian M. Moos, Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, LLP 2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 560 Pasadena, CA 91101 Phone: (949) 800-8601 Facsimile: (626) 795-4790 Email: dmoos@scopelitis.com OPTUMRX INC: Seeks Denial of LDS Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LACKIE DRUG STORE, INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. OPTUMRX, INC.; Case No. 4:20-cv-01515-JM (E.D. Ark.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order denying class certification, and for an order staying the case pending arbitration of the Plaintiff Lackie Drug Store, Inc's and the putative class member's claims. Optumrx operates as a pharmacy management company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lLJgOo at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Geoffrey M. Sigler, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1700 M Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20036-4504 Telephone: (202) 955-8500 E-mail: gsigler@gibsondunn.com - and - Megan D. Hargraves, Esq. Graham Talley, Esq. MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES & WOODYARD, PLLC 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 688-8800 Facsimile: (501) 688-8807 E-mail: mhargraves@mwlaw.com gtalley@mwlaw.com ORLANDO HEALTH: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid Response --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as W.W., v. Orlando Health, Inc., Case No. 6:24-cv-01068-JSS-RMN (M.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order extending its Dec. 1, 2025 deadline to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, appointment of class representative, appointment of class counsel, and supporting memorandum of law and disclose class certification rebuttal experts up to and including Jan. 16, 2026. Indeed, even if W.W. were available prior to Dec. 1, 2025 to sit for a deposition, due to these circumstances outside Orlando Health's control, there is insufficient time left in the schedule now to allow Orlando Health to (1) take W.W.'s deposition; (2) take two expert depositions; (3) work with its rebuttal experts to finalize their reports and opinions based on the depositions; and (4) brief a response to the Motion for Class Certification based on the depositions and rebuttal expert reports. Without the requested extension, Orlando Health will be significantly prejudiced in its ability to defend this action through no actions or fault of its own. The requested extension would not affect other filing deadlines in the scheduling order, the next of which is on June 1, 2026. The requested extension up to January 16, 2026, is sought in good faith and because it is necessary to allow sufficient time for Orlando Health to take all the steps outlined above over the month of December and January where pre-planned events, the holiday period, and W.W.’s unavailability until December significantly impacts scheduling of depositions and expert availability. On Oct. 1, 2025, W.W. filed her Motion for class certification. On Oct. 23, 2025, at Orlando Health's counsel's request, W.W.’s counsel identified the three new potential plaintiffs so that Orlando Health could search its records in considering whether to oppose the forthcoming motion to amend the complaint. Orlando is a private, not-for-profit network of community and specialty hospitals. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mTeDXy at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Julie Singer Brady, Esq. Yameel L. Mercado Robles, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 2300 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 649-4000 Facsimile: (407) 841-0168 E-mail: jsingerbrady@bakerlaw.com ymercadorobles@bakerlaw.com OSHKOSH CORP: Conspires to Fix Fire Trucks' Prices, Newstead Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- THE NEWSTEAD FIRE CO., INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OSHKOSH CORPORATION, PIERCE MANUFACTURING, INC.; REV GROUP, INC.; ROSENBAUER AMERICA LLC; and FIRE APPARATUS MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01693 (E.D. Wis., October 31, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for injunctive and putative relief under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of themselves and on behalf of a proposed class consisting of all purchasers of Fire Trucks that purchased those products from at least January 1, 2016 until the present. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants conspired to fix the prices of Fire Trucks being sold throughout the United States. According to the complaint, the Manufacturer Defendants manufacture and supply Fire Trucks that are sold throughout the United States. Together, these manufacturers control between 70 and 80 percent of the United States Fire Truck market. They have used that dominant market power to unlawfully suppress the Fire Truck supply and subsequently raise Fire Truck prices. Beginning in January 2016, Manufacturing Defendants entered into an agreement, combination, or conspiracy to limit the supply, and to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices of Fire Trucks sold in the United States at supra-competitive levels, adds the complaint. As a result of the unlawful conduct of Defendants, the Plaintiff and Class members paid artificially inflated prices for Fire Trucks and have suffered antitrust injury in violation of the federal antitrust laws. Oshkosh Corp. is an American industrial company that designs and builds specialty trucks, military vehicles, truck bodies, airport fire apparatus, and access equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn M. Raiter, Esq. LARSON KING, LLP 30 East Seventh Street Suite 2800 St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (651) 312-6518 E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com - and - Michael J. Flannery, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 2 City Place Drive, Second Floor St. Louis, MO 63141 Telephone: (314) 226-1015 E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com - and - Evelyn Riley, Esq. Cody McCracken, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 2445 M Street NW Suite 740 Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 E-mail: evelyn@cuneolaw.com cmccracken@cuneolaw.com - and - Marco Cercone, Esq. RUPP PFALZGRAF LLC 1600 Liberty Building Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 854-3400 E-mail: cercone@rupppfalzgraf.com - and - Don Barrett, Esq Sterling Aldridge, Esq. BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A. 404 Court Square North Lexington, MS 39095-0927 Telephone: (662) 834-9168 E-mail: donbarrettpa@gmail.com saldridge@barrettlawgroup.com - and - Richard R. Barrett, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD R. BARRETT, PLLC 2086 Old Taylor Road, Suite 1011 Oxford, MS 38655 Telephone: (662) 380-5018 E-mail: rrb@rrblawfirm.net - and - Patrick W. Pendley, Esq. Christopher L. Coffin, Esq. PENDLEY BAUDIN COFFIN 24110 Eden Street Plaquemine, LA 70765 Telephone: (225) 687-6396 E-mail: pwpendley@pbclawfirm.com ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com PACIFIC COAST: Nelson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pacific Coast Producers. The case is styled as Kenneth Nelson, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pacific Coast Producers, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0016272 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Oct. 31, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Pacific Coast Producers -- https://pacificcoastproducers.com/ -- is an Agricultural Cooperative in California specializing in canning fruits and tomatoes for Private Brands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sage S. Stone, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW PC 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442 Phone: 310-622-4278 PACIRA BIOSCIENCES: Continues to Defend "Alvarez" in New Jersey --------------------------------------------------------------- Pacira Biosciences, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the putative class action filed by Leandro Alvarez in a New Jersey court. On January 13, 2025, Leandro Alvarez filed a putative class action on behalf of Company shareholders between August 2, 2023 and August 8, 2024 against the Company and certain of its officers, in the District Court of New Jersey (25-cv-322). The complaint alleges that the Company made materially false and misleading statements and/or concealed material adverse facts concerning EXPAREL patents. The case is in the pleadings stage and the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this litigation at this time. PALLET LOGISTICS: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Askrens ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALLAN ASKRENS, ROBERT L. BENNETT, and SHAWN BOSCHERT, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, V. PALLET LOGISTICS OF AMERICA, LLC d/b/a PLA, Case No. 3:25-cv-00008-S (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Karen Gren Scholer entered an order as follows: 1. The appointment of the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives is affirmed. 2. The appointment of Terence R. Coates of Markovits, Stock &DeMarco, LLC, Raina Borrelli of Strauss Borrelli PLLC, and Daniel Srourian of Srourian Law Firm, P.C as Class Counsel is affirmed. 3. The Court finally certifies the following Settlement Class and its California Settlement Subclass are defined as follows: Settlement Class: "All individuals residing in the United States whose Private Information was maintained on the Defendant's computer systems that were compromised in the Data Breach discovered by the Defendant in September 2024 (the "Class")." California Settlement Subclass: "All individuals residing in California whose Private Information was maintained on the Defendant's computer systems that were compromised in the Data Breach discovered by the Defendant in September 2024 (the "California Subclass") Excluded from the Settlement Class are the Defendant's officers and directors, and any entity in which the Defendant has a controlling interest; and the affiliates, legal representatives, attorneys, successors. heirs, and assigns of Defendant. Excluded also from the Class are members of the judiciary to whom this case is assigned, their families and members of their staff. PLA is a provider of recycled pallets and pallet-management services’ headquartered in Dallas, Texas. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9ksZ4M at no extra charge.[CC] PANERA LLC: Cissokho Suit Seeks to Certify Collective Action ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as OUSSEYNOU CISSOKHO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. PANERA, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-02559-LLA (D.D.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order as follows: 1. Conditionally certifying the case as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) on behalf of all current and former Bakery Training Specialists who worked for Defendant during the past three years; 2. Approving the Notice of Alleged Unpaid Overtime Lawsuit, Consent to Join Form, and Postcard Notice; 3. Authorizing issuance of those materials in accordance with the procedures set forth in the [Proposed] Order; and 4. Continuing the existing stay of discovery through the end of the forty-five-day opt-in period. The Complaint alleges that Panera maintained uniform policies and practices that deprived Bakery Training Specialists of overtime pay in violation of the FLSA. Panera is a fast-casual restaurant chain. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=U2v8Dg at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas Conlon, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5297 E-mail: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com - and - Stephen B. Lebau, Esq. LEBAU & NEUWORTH, LLC 502 Washington Avenue - Suite 720 Towson, MD 21204 Telephone: (443) 273-1203 Facsimile: (410) 296-8660 E-mail: sl@joblaws.net The Defendant is represented by: Adrien C. Pickard, Esq. Brian E. Whiteley, Esq. Kenneth M. Bello, Esq. BARCLAY DAMON LLP 1742 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 689-1900 Facsimile: (202) 689-1901 E-mail: APickard@barclaydamon.com BWhiteley@barclaydamon.com KBello@barclaydamon.com PAPA JOHN'S: Parties in Jacob Suit Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jacob v. Papa John's International, Inc., Case No. 6:25-cv-02085 (M.D. Fla., Filed Oct. 29, 2025), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order directing the parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report. The deadlines should include a deadline for (1) disclosure of expert reports -- class action, plaintiff and defendant; (2) discovery -- class action; (3) motion for class certification; (4) response to motion for class certification; and (5) reply to motion for class certification. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Papa John's is an American pizza restaurant chain.[CC] PENHALL COMPANY: Does not Properly Pay Employees, Fullilove Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- GEOFFREY FULLILOVE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PENHALL COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-02922-O (N.D. Tex., October 28, 2025) is a collective/class action complaint against the Defendant to recover unpaid compensation, including overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act (NMMWA). According to the complaint, Plaintiff Fullilove has worked for Penhall as a GPR Analyst since approximately November 2023. The Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members' job titles include GRP Analyst, Utility Locators, and X-Ray Technicians. Their job duties included: traveling to construction sites, x-raying or using other instruments to scan concrete or other hard surfaces to locate objects or utility lines, and providing a report of the scan to the customer. While exact job titles may differ, these employees were subjected to the same or similar illegal pay practices for similar work throughout the United States, asserts the complaint. Although Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, they were not paid overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the complaint alleges. Accordingly, they seek to recover from Defendants all unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, and other damages owed under the FLSA as a collective action, as well as all unpaid overtime, treble damages, and other damages owed under the NMMWA as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff Geoffrey Fullilove was employed by Penhall in Texas and New Mexico during the relevant time period. Penhall Company is a construction services company that operates across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. Maureen Villarreal, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com Maureen@a2xlaw.com PEOPLEGURU HOLDINGS: Fuentes Files Suit Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------- JONATHAN FUENTES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PEOPLEGURU HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:25-cv-02925 (M.D. Fla., October 28, 2025) is a class action complaint against the Defendant for failing to properly safeguard and protect Plaintiff's personal information, thus enabling cybercriminals to access, acquire, appropriate, compromise, disclose, encumber, exfiltrate, release, steal, misuse, and view it, in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act. According to the complaint, as part of the Defendant's business, it obtained and stored the personally identifiable information (PII) of Plaintiff and Class members. By taking possession and control of Plaintiff's and Class members' personal information, Defendant assumed a duty to securely store and protect it. On July 9, 2025, PeopleGuru detected suspicious activity on its PeopleGuru application, indicating a data breach. Based on a subsequent forensic investigation, PeopleGuru determined that cybercriminals infiltrated its inadequately secured computer environment and thereby gained access to its data files. The investigation further determined that, through this infiltration, cybercriminals potentially accessed and acquired files containing the sensitive personal information of thousands of individuals. The Personal Information accessed by cybercriminals included, but is not limited to, names, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, financial account information, dates of birth, passport numbers, medical information, and health insurance information. Despite the sensitivity of the PII that was exposed, and the attendant consequences to affected individuals as a result of the exposure, Defendant failed to disclose the Data Breach for several weeks from the time of the Breach. This inexplicable delay further exacerbated the harms to Plaintiff and Class members. Based on the notice letter received by Plaintiff, the type of cyberattack involved, and public news reports, it is plausible and likely that Plaintiff's Personal Information was stolen in the Data Breach, adds the complaint. Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it caused Plaintiff and similarly situated persons in the preventable data breach of Defendant's inadequately protected computer network. Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Worchester County, Massachusetts. PeopleGuru is a human capital management company that specializes in comprehensive payroll and HR solutions.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - A. Brooke Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Will Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Telephone: (405) 389-4989 E-mail: abm@murphylegalfirm.com PET PROS: Faces Youngren Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- DUSTIN YOUNGREN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Pet Pros, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-13403 (N.D. Ill., November 1, 2025) is a civil rights action against Pet Pros for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://shop.petstuff.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On July 4, 2025, the Plaintiff came across the Defendant's website after looking treats for his pets. As he tried to navigate the site, he encountered many accessibility barriers that significantly hindered his ability to proceed. Specifically, the 'Skip to Content' link was not implemented on the website, making it impossible for him to bypass repetitive navigation elements and quickly access the main content, says the suit. The Plaintiff alleges that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by him and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading hierarchy, the lack of navigation links, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Pet Pros' policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Pet Pros, LLC operates the website that offers pet food, treats, toys, grooming supplies, and wellness products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (718) 554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law PILOT AIR FREIGHT: Ruvalcaba Sues Over Unlawful Wage Deductions --------------------------------------------------------------- Salvador Ruvalcaba and Juan Sanchez, on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. PILOT AIR FREIGHT, LLC and A.P. MOLLER-MAERSK, Case No. 5:25-cv-02904 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 31, 2025), is brought under the California Labor Codes as a result of the Defendants' Wage Deductions, Expense Deductions, Failure to Provide Meal Periods, Failure to Provide Rest Periods, Failure to Pay All Wages, PAGA Penalties, Misclassification of Employees, Inaccurate Wage Statements, The Plaintiffs often worked 15 hours a day, 7 days a week, while making deliveries for Pilot. Pilot made deductions from the Plaintiffs wages to pay customers when customers complained about the quality or service of the delivery. Pilot paid the Plaintiffs a flat rate per day for their deliveries. This rate was non-negotiable and did not change regardless of how many hours the Plaintiffs worked. Pilot has regularly and routinely required Plaintiffs and Class Members to pay for items including fuel, insurance, and truck maintenance. These expenses totaled hundreds of dollars each week. Pilot routinely made deductions from the wages of Plaintiffs and Class Members without their authorization or consent. Pilot made deductions from Plaintiffs' pay for items including client damage claims and late deliveries in violation of California law, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked for Pilot between 2023 and 2025. Pilot provides domestic air and ground freight delivery options for nearly every type of shipment travelling throughout the United State with over 75 locations throughout North America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hoda Katebi, Esq. Harold Lichten, Esq. Olena Savytska, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Phone: (617) 994-5800 Email: hkatebi@llrlaw.com hlichten@llrlaw.com osavytska@llrlaw.com PLAY SPREE: Prince Sues Over Illegal Online "Sweepstakes" Casino ---------------------------------------------------------------- TANYA PRINCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PLAY SPREE LTD., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00999 (D. Utah, November 2, 2025) is a class action complaint brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, to redress Defendant's widespread violations of Utah's Gambling Act. The Defendant operates the website www.spree.com where it offers casino-style slots, table games, and digital scratch cards games to anyone willing to spend real money wagering on them (the "Spree Gambling Platform"). While Defendant advertises and promotes the Spree 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 Spree Gambling Platform is actually a dangerous and plainly unlawful gambling enterprise, says the suit. Specifically, the Defendant sells digital "coins" to consumers on the Spree Gambling Platform and then immediately accepts those coins back (from the consumers who purchased them) as wagers on the outcomes of the various casino-style games of chance offered on the Spree Gambling Platform. Consumers who purchase and then wager "coins" on the Spree Gambling Platform do so in the hopes of winning more "coins," which can be used to place more wagers and, in some instances, are redeemable for cash. The Plaintiff and numerous other Utah residents have lost significant sums of their hard-earned money placing wagers on the Spree Gambling Platform, and Defendant has in turn reaped enormous profits from the losses these people have sustained, the suit alleges. Play Spree Ltd. owns and operates online "sweepstakes" casino available at www.spree.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elliot O. Jackson, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140 Miami, FL 33131-3302 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 E-mail: ejackson@hedinllp.com - and - David W. Scofield, Esq. PETERS ❘ SCOFIELD A Professional Corporation 7430 Creek Road, Suite 303 Sandy, UT 84093-6160 Telephone: (801) 322-2002 E-mail: dws@psplawyers.com - and - Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. GUCOVSCHI LAW FIRM, PLLC 140 Broadway, Fl 46 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 E-mail: adrian@gr-firm.com PREMIER DEVELOPMENT: Cuevas Sues to Recover Unpaid Prevailing Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ramon Cuevas, and others similarly situated v. PREMIER DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES INC., TRISTAR SHIELDING LLC, STUART GIL, individually, and ALLEN DALTON, individually, Case No. 1:25-cv-09173 (S.D.N.Y, Nov. 4, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid prevailing wages under the Davis-Bacon Act, unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), unpaid prevailing wages under New York Labor Law Article, and statutory penalties for violations of the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act. Despite working predominantly on public works projects subject to prevailing wage requirements, Defendants have paid Plaintiff approximately only one-fourth of the legally required prevailing wage rate. The Defendants have unlawfully paid Plaintiff through misclassifying him as an "independent contractor" to avoid federal and state tax obligations, overtime pay, and fringe benefit requirements. The Defendants' violations include: failure to pay Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wages on federally funded construction projects; failure to pay New York Labor Law prevailing wages on state/locally funded public works; failure to pay FLSA and New York overtime compensation; willful misclassification of Plaintiff as an independent contractor; failure to provide required wage notices and statements; and engaging in a pattern of cash payments without proper documentation or recordkeeping, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendants from 2016 to present (with a break from October 2019 to September 2021). Premier is a construction corporation incorporated under the laws of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Geoffrey Kalender, Esq. GEOFFREY KALENDER, PC 447 Broadway, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10013 Phone: (929) 489-0636 - and - Jacob Aronauer, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER 250 Broadway, Suite 600 New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 323-6980 PROGRESSIVE LEASING: Class Settlement in Dreger Gets Prelim. Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dreger v. Progressive Leasing LLC (re Progressive Leasing Breach Litigation), Case No. 2:23-cv-00783-DBB-CMR (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge David Barlow entered an order granting unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. Accordingly, the court finds that it will likely be able to approve the proposed settlement under Rule 23(e)(2) and grants its preliminary approval. The court also preliminarily certifies the class and subclass described in the settlement proposal. The court further appoints CPT Group, Inc. as the settlement administrator and appoints Daniel Srourian and Tyler Bean as class counsel. The action will remain stayed until the court has made a final approval determination following the final approval hearing. This case arises out of a Sept. 11, 2023, incident in which Defendant Prog Leasing, LLC experienced a data breach of its systems. On July 7, 2025, the court received notice that the parties had reached a class-wide settlement in principle and extended the stay while the parties finalized their settlement agreement. The entire proposed settlement agreement is on the record, but a brief summary of its main terms is warranted. The agreement would distribute a $3,250,000 settlement fund among a proposed class of up to 216,000 individuals. The proposed class is defined for settlement purposes as: "all living individuals in the United States who were sent an incident notice from Prog regarding the data breach." A California subclass includes: "all class members who were residing in California at the time the breach occurred. Each class member may be reimbursed up to $5,000 for "ordinary out-of-pocket expenses that are fairly traceable" to the breach.14 California class members are eligible for an additional $100 statutory payment. Alternatively, a class member may elect to receive a $400 payment instead of submitting expenses for reimbursement. All class members are also eligible to receive two years of credit monitoring and identity theft services. Progressive is a lease-to-own company. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Nov. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Nqe6kt at no extra charge.[CC] QUEBEC: Superior Court Authorizes Class Lawsuit for Abused Kids --------------------------------------------------------------- Jesse Staniforth, writing for APTN News, reports that the Quebec Superior Court has authorized a class-action lawsuit on behalf of First Nations, Metis, and Inuit children who suffered abuse at the hands of Quebec's youth protection services since 1950. The class-action suit is leveled at the government of Quebec, its healthcare provider, Sante Quebec, and 16 university and integrated health-and-social service centres. The suit also names the Nunavik Regional Board of Health and Social Services, as well as the Cree Board of Health and Social Services of James Bay. According to a press release ordered by the court, the class automatically includes anyone who is Indigenous and was placed in a youth protection centre after Oct. 1, 1950, and suffered sexual abuse or use of force with or without the use of mechanical devices (including straitjackets, shackles and handcuffs) or chemical substances (including medication). Additionally, the class includes all those who suffered solitary confinement, were locked in a room or cell or common area, endured discriminatory or derogatory comments or treatment related to their Indigenous identity, were subject to unnecessary medical or dental treatment, or were denied access to education. The lawsuit is specific to youth protection schools and centres, reception centres, and transition and rehabilitation centres, as well as three group homes in Inukjuak, Puvirnituq, and Kuujjuaq (Saturvik) in the sub-Arctic Nunavik region of Quebec. The suit does not extend to hospital centres, other group homes, and foster families. The lead plaintiff in the class action is Harry Dandy, from Kebaowek First Nation in western Quebec. According to the 2023 Application for authorization to institute a class action, Dandy was sent to Temiskaming Indian Day School No. 19 (TDS) in the late 1950s at the age of six, where he alleges he was subjected to routine beatings and other physical abuse by teachers and priests, who called him a "savage" and "two-bit Indian." As Dandy attempted to escape from abusive authorities, the application alleges, he was frequently cited for truancy and minor offences. When he was 13, a police officer gave his parents the option to send him back to TDS or to Shawbridge Boys' Farm and Training School, a youth-detention centre in Prevost, Que., outside Montreal. During the three years he spent at Shawbridge, the application alleges, Dandy endured worse abuses than at TDS, both from staff and from older children whom staff "deputized" to "discipline" younger students with violence. Those older boys, the application says, sexually abused younger students with the knowledge of staff, who did not intervene. Because Dandy fought back against staff, he was frequently placed in isolation and under constant surveillance. He was also given a variety of dental treatments in spite of no apparent need for such care. Throughout his years at Shawbridge, Dandy was not allowed to contact his parents, the court records allege. Neither TDS nor Shawbridge, the application states, taught Dandy how to read. He argues he received "no education" there, but was left with deep emotional wounds and later suffered flashbacks to his many experiences of abuse. By 2022, nearly 60 years after Dandy alleges he experienced abuse there, Shawbridge had been renamed Shawbridge Youth Centres and taken under the banner of the government-funded Batshaw Youth and Family Centres. That year it was reported that an Inuk teen at the institution, in agony from a serious injury, was denied medical treatment and placed in isolation. When he was finally brought to the hospital the next day for emergency surgery, he was taken in handcuffs. Na'kuset is a longtime advocate for Indigenous children in the youth protection system. As director of the Native Women's Shelter of Montreal (NWSM), she oversaw a 2013 collaboration agreement between her Shelter and Batshaw intended to improve the experiences of Indigenous children in care with the organization. In 2021, Na'kuset said the collaboration agreement fell apart after Batshaw was absorbed into provincial health agency the Centre integre universitaire de sante et de services sociaux (CIUSSS). That agency is one of the 16 university and integrated health-and-social service centres named in the class action. Na'kuset told APTN News she feels the circumstances of the youth protection centres themselves create a fertile ground for abuse. "Prevost [Shawbridge] is designed like a jail, and the kids are treated as if they're prisoners," Na'kuset said. "[They] treat people as 'less-than,' [they] have these really tough rules, but there's no training. There's no sensitivity." As was the case with residential schools, the official policies of the centres themselves are under scrutiny. The court case also deals with instances of sexual, physical, medical, and psychological abuse that went far beyond staff members' officially mandated disciplinary behaviour toward students. All students who experienced abuses described in the class-action after October of 1950 are considered members of the class eligible for damages in the event of a court victory. Those who experienced abuses but do not wish to be considered as part of the suit or to receive damages have until 4:30 a.m. on Dec. 15, 2025 to opt out. [GN] QUEENS RESIDENTIAL: Faces Sanchez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- JONATHAN SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QUEENS RESIDENTIAL PAYROLL LLC d/b/a KINGS AND QUEENS APARTMENTS, KINGS AND QUEENS LEASING LLC d/b/a KINGS AND QUEENS APARTMENTS, ABC 1 CORP. d/b/a KINGS AND QUEENS APARTMENTS, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-06133 (E.D.N.Y., November 3, 2025) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, throughout Plaintiff's employment, the Defendants failed to pay him at any rate of pay, let alone the statutorily required overtime rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay, for hours worked in excess of 40 each week. Further, the Defendants willfully disregarded and purposefully evaded the record-keeping requirements of the FLSA and NYLL by failing to maintain accurate records of the daily and weekly hours worked by Plaintiff, failing to post notices explaining wage and hour requirements, and failing to provide Plaintiff with an accurate statement with every payment of wages listing, says the suit. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a porter from July 2013 through May 10, 2025. He performed non-exempt duties for the Defendants including maintaining the cleanliness of the building he was assigned to, taking out the trash, and keeping the common areas clean. Queens Residential Payroll LLC was and still is a domestic limited liability company that runs payroll as a part of Kings and Queens Leasing LLC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Farnworth, Esq. Peter A. Romero, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 E-mail: mfarnworth@romerolawny.com RAINFOREST CAFE: Azzou Sues Over Discriminative Barriers -------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Azzou, as guardian and natural parent on behalf of her minor daughter S.A., and others similarly situated v. RAINFOREST CAFE, INC., a Missouri corporation for profit, Case No. 2:25-cv-13506-SJM-EAS (E.D. Mich., Nov. 4, 2025), is brought against Defendant pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") due to the Defendant's place of public accommodation which contains barriers for people with disabilities. The Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendant's non-compliance with the ADA with respect to this property as described but not necessarily limited to the allegations contained in this complaint. Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination in violation of the ADA by the Defendant. The Plaintiff desires to visit the Defendant's place of business again on future occasions, not only to avail herself of the goods and services available at the property but to assure herself that this property is in compliance with the ADA so that she and others similarly situated will have full and equal enjoyment of the restaurant without fear of discrimination. The Defendant has discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the buildings, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff, Lisa Azzou is the guardian and natural parent of her minor daughter S.A. who qualifies as an individual with disability. Rainforest Cafe, Inc., owns and/or operates the property located in Oakland County, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is are represented by: Owen B. Dunn, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFCIES OF OWEN B. DUNN, JR. The Offices of Unit C 6800 W. Central Ave., Suite C-1 Toledo, OH 43617 Phone: (419) 241-9661 Facsimile: (419) 241-9737 Email: obdjr@owendunnlaw.com REBORN CABINETS: Harris Sues Over WARN Acts Violation ----------------------------------------------------- Sophia Harris, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. REBORN CABINETS, LLC, Case No. 8:25-cv-02460 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 31, 2025), is brought under the Worker Adjustment Retraining Notification Act ("Federal WARN Act"), and for the California employees, the California Labor Code ("California WARN Act") (collectively, the "WARN Acts") as a result of the Defendant failure to provided 60 days advance written notice of their terminations by Defendant. The Plaintiff seek to represent were terminated as part of, or as a result of, the shutdown or mass layoff ordered by the Defendant. As such, the Defendant violated the WARN Acts by failing to give the Plaintiff and the class of similarly situated employees they seek to represent at least 60 days' advance written notice of termination, as required by the WARN Acts. As a consequence, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees are entitled under the WARN Acts to recover from the Defendant 60 days' wages and ERISA benefits, none of which has been paid, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant and reported the Anaheim Facility until her termination. The Defendant was a California corporation which maintained Facilities located in Anaheim, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer R. Kramer, Esq. KRAMER BROWN HUI LLP 3600 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1908 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: (213) 310-8301 Facsimile: (213) 310-8302 Email: jennifer@kbhllp.com - and - Stuart J. Miller, Esq. LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP 100 Nassau Street, 8th FL New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 581-5005 Email: stuart@lankmill.com - and - Mary E. Olsen, Esq. M. Vance Mccrary, Esq. THE GARDNER FIRM, P.C. 182 St. Francis Street, Suite 103 Mobile, AL 36602 Phone: (251) 433-8100 Facsimile: (251) 433-8181 Email: molsen@thegardnerfirm.com - and - Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP One California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 638-8800 Facsimile: (415) 638-8810 Email: jsagafi@outtengolden.com REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Regeneron Pharmaceuticals 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 securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On January 7, 2025 (as amended on September 8, 2025), a purported shareholder filed a putative class action civil complaint, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain current and former executive officers of the Company. The complaint asserts violations of federal securities laws in connection with statements or disclosures purportedly related to the conduct alleged in the March 2024 Civil Complaint discussed under "Department of Justice Matters" above. On July 10, 2025, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the action. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals is party to a global, strategic collaboration with Sanofi to research, develop, and commercialize fully human monoclonal antibodies REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Medicare Advantage Class Suit Stayed --------------------------------------------------------------- Regeneron Pharmaceuticals 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 Medicare Advantage class suit is stayed pending resolution of the proceedings. On June 24, 2024, a group of plaintiffs purporting to be assignees of claims by various Medicare Advantage plans and related entities filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of Medicare Advantage plans and other payors. The lawsuit relates to the conduct alleged in the June 2020 Civil Complaint, March 2024 Civil Complaint, and June 2024 Civil Complaint discussed under "Department of Justice Matters" above. The lawsuit alleges causes of action under state law and RICO and seeks monetary damages and equitable relief. On October 22, 2024, the Company filed a motion to transfer the proceedings to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts or, in the alternative, to stay the proceedings or dismiss the proceedings. On January 28, 2025, pursuant to a stipulation among the parties, the proceedings were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On February 1, 2025, the parties jointly filed a stipulation to stay the action pending resolution of the proceedings before the same court concerning the allegations in the June 2020 Civil Complaint. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals is party to a global, strategic collaboration with Sanofi to research, develop, and commercialize fully human monoclonal antibodies RENOUN LLC: Vogeney Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Renoun, LLC. The case is styled as Joseph Vogeney, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Renoun, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-02977-AJB-DEB (S.D. Cal., Nov. 3, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Renoun -- https://renoun.com/ -- designs and sells high-performance sports equipment using proprietary materials.[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 RICCELLI HOLDINGS: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Sims Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- DILLON SIMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RICCELLI HOLDINGS, INC., RICELLI ENTERPRISES INC., RICCELLI ENTERPRISES, LLC and RICCELLI NORTHERN, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-01554-BKS-TWD (N.D.N.Y., November 3, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Payment of Wages Act, and the New York Minimum Wage Act. Although Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members have routinely worked (and continue to work) in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members were not paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, asserts the complaint. In addition, Riccelli paid non-discretionary bonuses to Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members, but failed to include these bonuses in the Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members' regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating their correct rate of overtime compensation, the suit asserts. The FLSA Collective Members are those current and former hourly employees who were employed by Riccelli at any time from November 3, 2022, through the final disposition of this matter, and have been subjected to the same illegal pay system under which Plaintiff Sims worked and was paid. Riccelli Holdings, Inc. provides transportation, mining and material handling services to the construction industry throughout the Northeastern United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com - and - Michael C. Conway, Esq. CONWAY, DONOVAN & MANLEY, PLLC 50 State Street, 2nd Floor Albany, NY Telephone: (518) 436-1661 Facsimile: (518) 432-1996 E-mail: MConway@lawcdm.com RISINGER BROS: Contreras Files Suit Over Wage Law Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL CONTRERAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RISINGER BROS. TRANSFER, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01441-JEH-RLH (C.D. Ill., October 27, 2025) is a class and collective action against the Defendants for unlawful practice of misclassifying its drivers as independent contractors. The complaint relates that Plaintiff Contreras worked for Risinger as a truck driver, making deliveries in Illinois and other states between April 2022 and October 2025. He was required to sign an independent contractor agreement with Risinger. He drove a truck and trailer which were owned by Risinger, and which had Risinger insignia on them. He worked for Risinger full time, routinely working up to 70 hours a week. Plaintiff and other delivery drivers were required to pick up and deliver freight for Risinger in Illinois, and received directions regarding their deliveries from Risinger dispatchers and management team in Illinois. The Plaintiff alleges that he was paid a set amount based on cents per mile, determined by Risinger, for the deliveries he made. Throughout the course of his employment, Risinger made deductions from his pay for items including truck payments, insurance payments, fuel, and a maintenance escrow account among others, which often came to hundreds of dollars per week. Plaintiff did not authorize these deductions. In addition, as a result of the deductions taken from their pay, there were weeks in which Plaintiff and other drivers did not receive minimum wage for all hours worked, in violation of Illinois and federal law. The Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for all unlawful deductions taken by Risinger from his and class members' pay. Plaintiff Michael Contreras is a resident of New Jersey who worked for the Defendant. Defendant Risinger Bros. Transfer, Inc. is an Illinois corporation headquartered in Morton, Illinois. Defendant Risinger's website describes Risinger as "Providing Transportation Services Since 1978" and prominently advertises "driver opportunities" and states that "[o]ur goal is to make driving at Risinger the best possible experience for our contractors and their families.".[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradley Manewith, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 5 Revere Drive, Suite 200 Northbrook, IL 60062 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: bmanewith@llrlaw.com - and - Harold Lichten, Esq. Olena Savytska, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Ste. 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com osavytska@llrlaw.com ROBLOX CORP: Class Cert Expert Reports Due Feb. 10, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Aracely Soucek, et al., v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-04146-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order following case management conference held on October 31, 2025 : 1. The Deadline to serve opening class certification expert reports: Feb. 10, 2026 2. The Deadline to serve rebuttal class certification expert reports: March 23, 2026 3. Close of class certification expert discovery: April 30, 2026 4. The Deadline to move for class certification and file Daubert for rebuttal class certification experts: April 30, 2025 5. The Deadline for opposition brief(s) to class certification, file Daubert for opening class certification experts, and oppose Daubert for rebuttal experts: June 4, 2026 6. The Plaintiffs' & Roblox's Deadline to complete pre-class certification fact discovery/depositions: June 30, 2026 7. The Deadline to file reply brief in support of class certification, oppose Daubert for opening class certification experts, and file reply for Daubert against rebuttal class certification experts: July 9, 2026 8. The Deadline to file Daubert reply brief against opening class certification experts: July 23, 2026 9. Class Certification Hearing: Aug. 6, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., Courtroom 4 in San Francisco Roblox is an American video game developer. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ICEreL at no extra charge.[CC] ROCHESTER REGIONAL: Richardson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime -------------------------------------------------------- Joan Richardson, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ROCHESTER REGIONAL HEALTH, Case No. 6:25-cv-06630 (W.D.N.Y., Nov. 3, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and unpaid compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the New York Payment of Wages Act ("NYPWA"); and the New York Minimum Wage Act ("NYMWA") (the NYPWA and NYMWA are collectively referred to as the "New York Acts"). Although Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members have routinely worked (and continue to work) in excess of 40 hours per workweek, Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members were not paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. During the relevant time period(s), the Defendant knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members for the proper amount of overtime on a routine and regular basis. Specifically, the Defendant paid non-discretionary bonuses--sign-on bonuses and retention bonuses--to Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members, but failed to include these bonuses in Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members' regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating their correct rate of overtime compensation. The effect of the Defendant' practices was (and is) that it failed to properly compensate Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members for all overtime hours worked at the rates required under the FLSA and applicable state law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Rochester Health in Clifton Springs, New York from January 2023 until September 2025. Rochester Health operates numerous hospitals and provides healthcare to patients across New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin Anderson, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Phone: 361-452-1279 Fax: 361-452-1284 Email: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com - and - Robert L. Mullin, Esq. FERR & MULLIN, P.C. 40 Wildbriar Road, Suite 100 Rochester, NY 14623 Phone: (585) 869-0210 Fax: (585) 869-0211 Email: rlmullin@FerrMullinLaw.com ROCKET PHARMA: Continues to Defend Securities Suits --------------------------------------------------- Rocket Pharmaceuticals, 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 putative securities class action lawsuits. "On June 11, 2025 and July 18, 2025, two stockholders filed putative securities class action lawsuits against us and certain of our executive officers in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, purportedly on behalf of classes of the Company's investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between February 27, 2025 and May 26, 2025 and between September 17, 2024 and May 26, 2025, respectively. "The complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder in connection with various public statements made by the Company regarding its Phase 2 clinical trial for RP-A501 for Danon disease. "The actions seek unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. On September 9, 2025, the Court consolidated the two pending putative securities class action lawsuits, appointed two stockholders as co-lead plaintiffs, and approved their selection of co-lead counsel. "Pursuant to a stipulation approved by the Court on September 22, 2025, the co-lead plaintiffs will have until November 18, 2025 to file a consolidated amended complaint. "The Company intends to vigorously defend against such allegations. Given the nature of the cases, including that the proceedings are in their early stages, the Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of the cases or estimate the range of potential loss, if any," the Company stated. RUSH UNIVERSITY: Bowles Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Princella Bowles, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RUSH UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, Case No. 2025 CH 10050 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for Northern District of Illinois on Nov. 4, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-13531. The Complaint alleges that RUMC violated the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act ("GIPA"), by purportedly "asking employees and/or prospective employees to provide their family medical histories as a condition of employment, as part of Defendant's onboarding process." The Plaintiff contends that RUMC requests this information "for the purpose of evaluating the risk that the individual may have inherited genetic conditions from family members, and then improperly uses that information when making hiring decisions, staffing assignments, and determinations regarding workers' compensation claims and medical leave."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jody Kahn Mason, Esq. Jason A. Selvey, Esq. Nina Finnigan Mazzulla, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 150 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2500 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 787-4949 Email: Jody.Mason@jacksonlewis.com Jason.Selvey@jacksonlewis.com Nina.FinniganMazzulla@jacksonlewis.com SANOFI-AVENTIS: 2nd Cir. Vacates Dismissal of Mosaic Health Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled MOSAIC HEALTH, INC., CENTRAL VIRGINIA HEALTH SERVICES, INC., INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S., LLC, ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, LILLY USA, LLC, NOVO NORDISK INC., ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 24-598 (2d Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacates the district court's judgment dismissing the Plaintiffs' lawsuit. The matter is an appeal from a judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, Case No. 21-cv-6507 (Elizabeth A. Wolford, Chief Judge). The Second Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judges Myrna Perez, Alison J. Nathan, and Maria Araujo Kahn. Judge Perez wrote the Opinion of the Court. Plaintiffs Mosaic Health, Inc., and Central Virginia Health Services, Inc., are two federally funded health centers operating safety-net clinics that serve low-income, underserved patient populations and provide medications to patients in need with sliding-fee discounts. Mosaic Health, Inc. operates 22 safety-net clinics in New York, and Central Virginia Health Services, Inc., operates 18 safety-net clinics in Virginia. Defendants SanofiAventis U.S., LLC ("Sanofi"), Eli Lilly and Company and Lilly USA, LLC (together, "Eli Lilly"), Novo Nordisk Inc. ("Novo Nordisk"), and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP ("AstraZeneca") (collectively, "Defendants") are a group of drug manufacturers, who produce drugs covered by Medicare and Medicaid. Together, the Defendants control three diabetes drug production markets: (i) rapid-acting analog insulins, (ii) long-acting analog insulins, and (iii) incretin mimetics. The Defendants compete against each other as horizontal competitors in these diabetes drug production markets. Defendants Sanofi, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk compete in the sale of rapid-acting and long-acting analog insulins, and all four Defendants compete in the sale of incretin mimetics. The Plaintiffs filed a putative class action alleging that the Defendants violated state and federal antitrust laws, as well as state common law, by engaging in a horizontal price-fixing conspiracy. Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants conspired, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, to limit a drug discount offered to safety-net hospitals and clinics that purchase diabetes drugs filled at retail pharmacies. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York dismissed the first amended complaint and denied leave to file a second amended complaint. The Plaintiffs timely appealed. The Panel concludes that the proposed second amended complaint plead enough facts to give rise to a plausible inference of a horizontal price-fixing conspiracy under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1. Judge Perez opines that the district court erred in denying the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint as futile and ultimately dismissing the Plaintiffs' complaint. Judge Perez adds, among other things, that the Plaintiffs plead sufficient facts in their proposed second amended complaint to support their allegations of parallel conduct and plus factors. The Panel concludes that the proposed second amended complaint pleads sufficient facts to support a plausible inference of a horizontal price-fixing conspiracy through circumstantial allegations, where both (1) the conduct that the Plaintiffs allege was sufficiently parallel, as the Defendants' announced policies were similar enough in substance, timing, and effect; and (2) the Plaintiffs alleged sufficient circumstantial plus factors, including a common motive to conspire, parallel conduct contrary to the Defendants' individual economic self-interest, and a high level of interfirm communications. Therefore, the Court of Appeals vacates the district court's judgment dismissing the Plaintiffs' lawsuit and denying leave to amend, and remands for the district court to grant the Plaintiffs leave to file their second amended complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/mrp5wvn6 from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Brian Marc Feldman -- brian.feldman@aurelianlaw.com -- Sheila Baynes -- sheila.baynes@aurelianlaw.com -- AURELIAN LAW PLLC, in Rochester, NY; Ellen Meriwether -- emeriwether@caffertyclobes.com -- CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP, in Chicago, IL; Lauren R. Mendolera -- lmendolera@hselaw.com -- HARTER SECREST & EMERY LLP, in Buffalo, NY, for the Plaintiffs-Appellants. John C. O'Quinn -- john.oquinn@kirkland.com -- Megan McGlynn -- megan.mcglynn@kirkland.com -- Lucas H. Funk -- lucas.funk@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, in Washington, D.C.; Daniel E. Laytin -- dlaytin@kirkland.com -- Alyssa C. Kalisky -- alyssa.kalisky@kirkland.com -- Katie R. Lencioni -- katie.lencioni@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, in Chicago, IL, for Defendants-Appellees Eli Lilly and Company and Lilly USA, LLC. Ashley C. Parrish -- aparrish@kslaw.com -- KING & SPALDING LLP, in Washington, D.C.; Lohr A. Beck -- lohr.beck@kslaw.com -- KING & SPALDING LLP, in Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellee Novo Nordisk Inc. C. Scott Lent -- scott.lent@arnoldporter.com -- ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP, in New York, NY; Matthew Tabas -- matthew.tabas@arnoldporter.com -- Allon Kedem -- allon.kedem@arnoldporter.com -- ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP, Washington, D.C., for Defendant-Appellee AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP. Rajeev Muttreja -- rmuttreja@jonesday.com -- JONES DAY, in New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC. SAPP BROS INC: Noel Files Suit in D. Nebraska --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sapp Bros, Inc. The case is styled as Guy Noel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sapp Bros, Inc., Case No. 4:25-cv-03224 (D. Neb., Nov. 3, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Sapp Bros, Inc. -- http://www.sappbros.net/-- is a full service travel center and wholesale petroleum distributer.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com SELF FINANCIAL INC: Rudolph Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Self Financial, Inc. The case is styled as Jami Stinson Rudolph, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Self Financial, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-01765 (W.D. Tex., Nov. 3, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Self Financial -- https://www.self.inc/ -- is a venture-backed fintech startup that helps customers build credit and save money.[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 SOLANO COUNTY, CA: Ayala Sues to Recover Unpaid Cashout ------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Ayala, Gary Bhangu, Mark Demarest, Jessica Dew, Michael Ferrando, Jaime Garcia, Deogracias Gasper Jr., Robert Greenberg, Kyle Gutierrez, Conner Hamilton, David Hollingsworth, Joshua Hughes, Russel Lopez, Miglissa Mercado, Anthony Myrick, Marcus Pitts, Richard Pontecorvo, Karnjit Purewal, Corbin Randolph, Kevin Ryan, Dalton Ryken, Joshua Sawtelle, Bryce Smith, Frank Smith, Stephen Terry, Loren Thomson, Amy Thurau, William Michael Urlaub, Alyssa Vega, Emmaliee Watkins, And Edward Wisgerhof, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals v. COUNTY OF SOLANO, Case No. 2:25-cv-03166-SCR (E.D. Cal., Oct. 31, 2025), is brought pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), to recover from Defendant unpaid cashout of compensatory time off ("CTO"), interest thereon, liquidated damages, costs of suit, and reasonable attorney's fees. The Plaintiffs were entitled to earn CTO in lieu of overtime pay and could cash out that CTO at specified times throughout the year. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals for whom Defendant failed to properly calculate CTO cashouts within the FLSA statute of limitations encompassing the three years prior to the filing of this Complaint ("Relevant Time Period"). The Defendant implemented an illegal compensation computation method which undercounted Plaintiffs' regular rate of pay for the purposes of CTO cashouts. Defendant's improper method of calculating Plaintiffs' regular rate of pay resulted in underpayment for CTO cashouts. Defendant suffered or permitted Plaintiffs to perform overtime work and earn CTO without proper compensation, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are, or were, employed by the Defendant within the Relevant Time Period. The Defendant is a political subdivision of the State of California and employs or employed Plaintiffs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David E. Mastagni, Esq. Taylor Davies-Mahaffey, Esq. Amanda McCarthy, Esq. MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT, A.P.C. 1912 I Street Sacramento, CA 95811 Phone: (916) 446-4692 Facsimile: (916) 447-4614 Email: davidm@mastagni.com tdavies-mahaffey@mastagni.com amccarthy@mastagni.com SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Awaits Ruling in "Shen" Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------- Solaredge Technologies, 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 is awaiting court ruling in the motion for class certification pending in the putative class action filed by Daphne Shen. On November 3, 2023, Daphne Shen, a purported stockholder of the Company, filed a proposed class action complaint for violation of federal securities laws, individually and putatively on behalf of all others similarly situated, in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York against the Company, the Company's former CEO and the Company's former CFO. The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, as well as violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants. The complaint seeks class certification, damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other relief. On December 13, 2023, Javier Cascallar filed a similar proposed class action. On January 2, 2024, six purported lead plaintiffs filed motions in the Shen litigation seeking to consolidate the Cascallar and Shen litigations and appoint lead plaintiffs and lead counsel pursuant to the procedures of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. On February 7, 2024, the Court consolidated the two actions (the "Consolidated Securities Litigation"), and appointed co-lead plaintiffs (the "Plaintiffs") and lead counsel. On April 22, 2024, the co-lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding two additional officers. The amended complaint made substantially similar allegations and claims. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on July 15, 2024. On December 4, 2024, the Court issued an order granting in part the motion, dismissing all allegations except those relating to two purported misstatements. The Court allowed the Plaintiffs to again amend their complaint, and they filed a second amended complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint") on January 3, 2025. On February 10, 2025, Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On April 7, 2025, the Court issued an order granted in part the motion, dismissing all allegations except those related to alleged misstatements characterizing inventory levels as "low" and those relating to demand in Europe. Discovery is ongoing. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on October 17, 2025. Defendants' deadline to file an opposition to Plaintiffs' motion is January 16, 2025. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Pitsick-Perez Suit Removed to S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Raymond Pitsick-Perez, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.; and DOES 1-100, Case No. 225CU040616C was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for Southern District of California on Nov. 5, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-03000-GPC-AHG. The Complaint seeks penalties under PAGA for Labor Code violations including; failure to pay straight, regular rate wages for all work performed; failure to pay wages due at termination and during employment; knowing and intentional failure to comply with itemized employee wage statements; and failure to pay employees two times per month.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: David E. Amaya, Esq. Sean L. McKaveney, Esq. Andrew B. Dizon, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 4747 Executive Drive Suite 1000 San Diego, CA 92121 Phone: (858) 597-9600 Facsimile: (858) 597-9601 Email: damaya@fisherphillips.com smckaveney@fisherphillips.com adizon@fisherphillips.com SYMMETRY FINANCIAL: Level Up Asks Court to Quash Bennett's Subpoena ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned BRADY BENNETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SYMMETRY FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC, and QUILITY SOFTWARE APPLICATIONS LLC, Defendants, Case No. 9:25-mc-00854-BHH (D.S.C., October 27, 2025), Level Up Consulting Agency, LLC asks the Court to quash a Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a Civil Action dated October 10, 2025, issued by the Plaintiff on Level Up. Level Up alleges that the Plaintiff seeks irrelevant information and is disproportionate to the needs of the case. The Subpoena is also grossly overbroad on its face and places undue burden or expense. In the alternative, Level Up says, the Court should enter a protective order to limit the scope of the deposition topics and the document requests in the Subpoena and to prevent the disclosure of Level Up's protected information. Level Up asserts that it is entitled to recover its attorney fees and costs from Plaintiff, as Plaintiff violated his duty to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on Level Up, and Plaintiff's conduct is sanctionable under the Court's inherent authority. Level Up Consulting Agency, LLC is a nonparty to the litigation.[BN] Level Up Consulting Agency, LLC is represented by: Addie K.S. Ries, Esq. SMITH, ANDERSON, BLOUNT, DORSETT, MITCHELL & JERNIGAN, L.L.P. Post Office Box 2611 Raleigh, NC 27602-2611 Telephone: (919) 821-1220 E-mail: aries@smithlaw.com - and - Tyler A. Mamone, Esq. Rachel E. Walker, Esq. Yetian Wang, Esq. MAMONE VILLALON 100 SE 2nd St., Suite 4030 Miami, FL, 33131 Telephone: (786) 495-8180 E-mail: tyler@mvlawpllc.com rachel@mvlawpllc.com yetian@mvlawpllc.com SYNGENTA CROP: Autry Sues Over Negligent Marketing -------------------------------------------------- Katie H. Autry, and others similarly situated v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION LLC and CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Case No. N25C-11-021-PQT (Del. Super Ct., Nov. 4, 2025), is brought for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of products containing the herbicide Paraquat, which causes Parkinson's disease in humans. The Plaintiff maintains that Defendants' Paraquat products are defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Paraquat, Plaintiff Katie H. Autry developed Parkinson's disease, Parkinsonism, and/or symptoms consistent with Parkinson's disease in the years following her exposure to Paraquat, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was exposed to Paraquat beginning in about 2004 through 2022 while living in Mississippi on a 19-acre farm where she sprayed paraquat with a hand pump sprayer. The Defendants advertise and sell goods in the State of Delaware and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th St. Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Fidelma Fitzpatrick, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 40 Westminster Street, 5th Floor Providence, RI 02903 Phone: (401) 457-7728 Fax: (401) 457-7708 Email: ffitzpatrick@motleyrice.com TESLA INC: Faces Shareholder Suit over Self-Driving Tech -------------------------------------------------------- Tesla Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2025, that on August 4, 2025, a proposed class action was filed in the U.S. District Court Western District of Texas against Tesla, Inc., Elon Musk, and certain current and former Company executives. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws through alleged material misrepresentations in public filings regarding the effectiveness of Autopilot, Full-Self Driving (Supervised), and Robotaxi. The complaint seeks monetary damages and other relief on behalf of persons who purchased Tesla stock between April 19, 2023, and June 22, 2025. Tesla is an electric car manufacturer based in Palo Alto, California. TORI FOOD: Faces Faldonie Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- SOPHIA FALDONIE, on behalf of herself and similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TORI FOOD HOLDING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-13239 (D. Mass., November 3, 2025) arises from the Defendant's failure to make its website www.torijapan.com accessible to Plaintiff and other legally blind individuals, which violates the effective communication and equal access requirements of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On multiple occasions, including most recently on July 17, 2025, the Plaintiff attempted to navigate and interact with Defendant's Website using the JAWS screen reader software. Each time, the Plaintiff encountered access barriers that prevented meaningful interaction with key areas of the site. These persistent obstacles included inadequate focus order, unclear labels for interactive elements, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, all of which interfere with screen reader navigation and comprehension, says the Plaintiff. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to ensure that Defendant takes the steps required by law to make its Website accessible, not only for herself but for the broader community of individuals with visual disabilities who rely on screen reader technology to navigate the Internet. This case arises out of Defendant's policy and practice of denying the blind access to the Website, including the goods and services offered by Defendant through the Website. Due to Defendant's failure and refusal to remove access barriers to the Website, blind individuals have been and are being denied equal access to the restaurant, as well as to the numerous goods, services and benefits offered to the public through the Website, asserts the complaint. Tori Food Holding, LLC operates the website that is engaged in the restaurant business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (716) 281-5496 E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law TORRID LLC: Hernandez Sues Over Discriminative Website ------------------------------------------------------ Yudy Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TORRID LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company D/B/A TORRID, Case No. 1:25-cv-25094-BB (S.D. Fla., Nov. 4, 2025), is brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), as a result of the Defendant's discriminative website. The Defendant's Website, https://www.torrid.com/, contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by blind and visually disabled individuals using keyboards and available screen reader software. Plaintiff attempted to purchase clothing on Defendant's website. However, the Plaintiff was not able to freely and fully use Defendant's website because it contains access barriers that make it inaccessible to persons with disabilities, and for which there is no reasonable accommodation for the Plaintiff. The Defendant's Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by blind and visually disabled individuals using keyboards and available screen reader software. Although the Website appeared to have an "accessibility" statement displayed and an "accessibility" widget/plugin added, the "accessibility" statement and widget/plugin, when tested, still could not be effectively accessed by, and continued to be a barrier to, blind and visually disabled persons, including Plaintiff as a completely blind person. Plaintiff, although she attempted to access the statement, thus, was unable to receive any meaningful or prompt assistance through the "accessibility" statement and the widget/plugin to enable her to quickly, fully, and effectively navigate the Website, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses the computer regularly, but due to her visual disability, Plaintiff cannot use her computer without the assistance of appropriate and available auxiliary aids, screen reader software, and other technology and assistance. TORRID, is a company that sells women clothing, intimates, shoes and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Diego German Mendez, Esq. MENDEZ LAW OFFICES, PLLC P.O. BOX 228630 Miami, FL 33172 Phone: 305.264.9090 Facsimile: 1-305.809.8474 Email: info@mendezlawoffices.com - and - Richard J. Adams, Esq. ADAMS & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 6500 Cowpen Road, Suite 101 Miami Lakes, FL 33014 Phone: 786-290-1963 Facsimile: 305-824-3868 Email: radamslaw7@gmail.com TOYOTA ARENA: Bid to Extend Class Cert Briefing Sched Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY ROBERT PHOENIX and ADRIENNE GENE VINENT-PHOENIX, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. TOYOTA ARENA LLC, a California limited liability company; CITY OF ONTARIO; SMG, a Pennsylvania General Partnership; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 8:23-cv-02403-JWH-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Holcomb entered an order denying the ex parte application of the Plaintiffs Anthony Robert Phoenix and Adrienne Gene Vinent-Phoenix to advance the hearing date on Plaintiffs' motion requesting continuance of class certification briefing schedule. The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have not shown the likelihood of irreparable prejudice nor that they are without fault in creating the purported "crisis." The Plaintiffs have had sufficient time to request leave to amend, but they created this crisis by waiting until a conflict arose with the class certification briefing schedule to which they stipulated a month ago. In December 2023, the Plaintiffs filed this class action, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Unruh Act, and California's Disabled Persons Act. In July 2024, the Court set a class certification briefing schedule, including a deadline of Oct. 3, 2025, for the Plaintiffs to file their class certification motion. On Sept. 22 and 23, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed motions to continue the class certification briefing schedule5 and for leave to amend their Complaint, respectively. Toyota is the management company for the Toyota Arena, a large, modern multi-purpose indoor arena located in Ontario, California. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=b3kDYI at no extra charge.[CC] TRANS UNION: Bid to Seal Class Cert Filing Tossed ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LESLEY KAPLAN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. TRANS UNION, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02438-WB (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Wendy Beetlestone entered an order denying the following motions: -- The Defendant's Motion to Seal in Connection with the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, Motion to Seal in Connection with the Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions. -- Motion to Seal Trans Union's Opposition to the Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions. -- Motion to Seal Trans Union's Opposition to the Plaintiff's Motion to Class Certification. TransUnion is an American consumer credit reporting agency. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SviEme at no extra charge.[CC] TYLER PERRY: Case Management Order Entered in Dixon Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Derek Dixon, v. Tyler Perry, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-09112-JFW-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered a scheduling and case management order as follows: Trial (jury): Mar. 9, 2027 Hearing on motions in limine: Feb. 19, 2027 Pre-Trial Conference: Feb. 5, 2027 Last day for hearing motions: Nov. 16, 2027 Discovery cut-off: Nov. 2, 2027 Last day to conduct settlement Aug. 3, 2026 conference/mediation: A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5vJmzF at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Braxton Bid for Prelim. Injunction Tossed -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENAN BRAXTON, et al., v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-03534-SLS (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Sparkle Sooknanan entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction. The Court further orders that the Parties meet and confer and jointly file a proposed expedited summary judgment briefing schedule by Nov. 6, 2025, for the Court's consideration. Because the Plaintiffs have failed to show irreparable harm or that the balance of equities and public interest favor relief, the Court declines to evaluate their likelihood of success on the merits of their claims. Given the serious issues at stake, however, the Court intends to move expeditiously to resolve the merits of this dispute and orders the Parties to jointly propose an expedited summary judgment briefing schedule. In sum, the Plaintiffs have not shown that the Commission actions they seek to enjoin have caused or will cause them "great, actual and not theoretical" injuries "of such imminence that there is a clear and present need for equitable relief." They thus have not satisfied the high degree of proof required for irreparable harm and are not entitled to a preliminary injunction. The case involves significant questions about the legitimacy of the United States Parole Commission in light of the ongoing federal government shutdown. The Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that this relief is warranted. They may ultimately succeed in this litigation. At this early stage, however, the Plaintiffs have not sufficiently shown that they will be irreparably harmed in the absence of the preliminary injunction they request. Nor have they shown that the balance of equities and the public interest favor granting such relief. For these reasons, which are explained in greater detail below, the Court denies the Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Mr. Braxton, Mr. Petty, and Mr. Dunbar seek to represent a class of similarly situated individuals under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The proposed class includes: "All people financially unable to obtain adequate representation who are on supervised release or parole for D.C. Code offenses and who are or will be detained solely by the Parole Commission and are pending action by the Parole Commission at midnight on Oct. 1, 2025, or later." The Defendant is the parole board responsible for granting or denying parole to, and supervising the parole releases of, incarcerated individuals who fall under its jurisdiction. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Nov. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0R0XIL at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Perrone Seeks to Certify Claims as Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KALI RAE PERRONE, ANIKA OKJE ERDMANN-BROWNING, and CYNTHIA DE LA MORA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BROOKE ROLLINS, Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture, in her official capacity; RUSSELL VOUGHT, Director of the United States Office of Management and Budget, in his official capacity, Case No. 3:25-cv-09508-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting ex parte application certifying or provisionally certifying the Plaintiffs' claims as a class action, appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives, and appointing class counsel, under Rule 23(a), Rule 23(b)(2), and Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 7-2 of the Civil Local Rules of the Court. The Plaintiffs' present application seeks class certification for purposes of the motion for expedited relief. The Plaintiffs propose the following class definition: "All households who are or will be certified to receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for November 2025 and subsequent months in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands." The Defendants' failure to ensure prompt and complete issuance of SNAP benefits for November 2025 and subsequent months applies uniformly to the proposed class and—as briefed in the concurrently filed Application for Temporary Restraining Order—injunctive and declaratory relief are appropriate for the class as a whole. The application also requests appointment of Plaintiffs Perrone, Erdmann-Browning, and De La Mora as representatives of the proposed class and attorneys at the Western Center on Law and Poverty (Antionette Dozier, Jodie Berger, Rebecca Miller, Richard A. Rothschild, Robert Newman) and the Impact Fund (Lori Rifkin, Fawn Rajbhandari-Korr, Meredith Dixon, Megan Flynn) as class counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). The Plaintiffs' counsel met and conferred with Department of Justice counsel for Defendants on November 4, 2025, and informed Defendants' counsel of their intention to file this application for class certification along with an application for temporary restraining order. The Plaintiffs Kali Rae Perrone, Anika Okje Erdmann-Browning, and Cynthia De La Mora are certified to receive subsistence food benefits assistance through the federally funded Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The Plaintiffs and the proposed class desperately need their entire monthly SNAP benefits distributed on time to feed themselves and their families. The current delay in receiving their November 2025 benefits and the anticipated reduction of their November benefits jeopardizes their ability to do so, leaving them to choose between putting food on the table or meeting other basic needs, such as paying for shelter and buying gas to attend medical appointments. The putative class action lawsuit challenges the failure of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to apportion funds for issuance of November 2025 and ongoing benefits, and of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to authorize the state SNAP agencies to continue issuing benefits. Department of Agriculture provides leadership on food, agriculture, natural resources, and related issues. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jJB532 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Antionette Dozier, Esq. Jodie Berger, Esq. Rebecca Miller, Esq. Richard Rothschild, Esq. Robert Newman, Esq. WESTERN CENTER ON LAW & POVERTY 3701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 208 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 235-2617 Facsimile: (213) 487-0242 E-mail: adozier@wclp.org jberger@wclp.org rmiller@wclp.org rrothschild@wclp.org rnewman@wclp.org - and - Lori Rifkin, Esq. Fawn Rajbhandari-Korr, Esq. Meredith Dixon, Esq. Megan Flynn, Esq. IMPACT FUND 2080 Addison St., Suite 5 Berkeley, CA 94704 Telephone: (510) 845-3473 Facsimile: (510) 845-3654 E-mail: lrifkin@impactfund.org fkorr@impactfund.org mdixon@impactfund.org mflynn@impactfund.org UNITED STATES: Watts Suit Seeks Class Certification --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHLEEN L. WATTS, ROBERT NEWMAN, AND RYAN G. MILLER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. TROY E. MEINK, SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in his official capacity, Case No. 1:25-cv-01093-MSN-IDD (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for class certification, appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives, and appointing undersigned counsel as Class Counsel. The proposed Class satisfies each of the requirements set forth in Rule 23(a). First, there are hundreds of people in the Proposed Class, and Class members are identifiable using records maintained in the ordinary course of business by the United States Air Force. Second, common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Proposed Class. The Plaintiffs request certification of an injunctive relief class under Rule 23(b)(2) defined as follows: "All current and former members of the United States Air Force, including the Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard, who, from Jan. 1, 2019, to the present, were identified by an Air Force medical authority as having one or more medical conditions that did not meet retention standards, remained duty-limited for twelve months or more, or were prohibited from deployment or permanent change of station ("PCS") due to the risk or burden of a medical condition, and who were referred into the Air Force's Pre-IDES, and did not receive access to the Integrated Disability Evaluation System ("IDES") process." The Plaintiffs suffered the same procedural harms as other class members that they seek to represent with this action. Each member of the Proposed Class—including Plaintiffs -- was procedurally harmed by the Air Force's unlawful screening process that blocked Air Force service members from procedural protections of the IDES. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AHQ0uF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alec W. Farr, Esq. Francys Guevara Sanchez, Esq. Thomas J. Tobin, Esq. Oviett Worthington Wargula, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 700 Thirteenth Street, N.W., Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005-3960 Telephone: (202) 654-6200 Facsimile: (202) 654-6211 E-mail: AFarr@perkinscoie.com FGuevara@perkinscoie.com TTobin@perkinscoie.com OWorthingtonWargula@perkinscoie.com - and - Rochelle Bobroff, Esq. Esther Leibfarth, Esq. Matthew Handley, Esq. NATIONAL VETERANS LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAM 1100 Wilson Blvd., Suite 900 Arlington, VA 22209 Telephone: (202) 621-5709 Facsimile: (202) 223-9199 E-mail: Rochelle@nvlsp.org Esther@nvlsp.org Matthew.Handley@nvlsp.org UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Parties Seeks to Seal Class Cert Docs --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ATLANTIC NEUROSURGICAL SPECIALISTS P.A., et al., v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-13834-MEF-JBC (D.N.J.), the Parties, on Dec. 1, 2025, shall jointly move, pursuant to Local Civil Rules 5.3 and 7.1, for entry of an Order sealing certain materials and related briefing filed in connection with the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, the Plaintiffs' motion to exclude the testimony of Kimberly Ingram, and United's motion to exclude the testimony of Michael Miscoe. UnitedHealth is a multinational health insurance and healthcare services company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FSnRYb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Natalie Lesser, Esq. Amey J. Park, Esq. Julie S. Selesnick, Esq. Zoe Seaman-Grant, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: nlesser@bm.net apark@bm.net jselesnick@bm.net zseamangrant@bm.net - and - Leslie S. Howard, Esq. Michael F. Fried, Esq. COHEN HOWARD, LLP 766 Shrewsbury Avenue, Suite 200 Tinton Falls, NJ 07724 Telephone: (732) 747-5202 Facsimile: (732) 747-5259 E-mail: lhoward@cohenhoward.com mfried@cohenhoward.com - and - John W. Leardi, Esq. Christopher B. Bladel, Esq. BUTTACI LEARDI & WERNER LLC 212 Carnegie Center, Suite 202 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (609) 799-5150 Facsimile: (609) 799-5180 E-mail: jwleardi@buttacilaw.com cbbladel@buttacilaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Francis X. Manning, Esq. Robert Norcia, Esq. Chelsea Anne Biemiller, Esq. STRADLEY RONON STEVENS & YOUNG LLP 457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 100 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Telephone: (856) 321-2400 Facsimile: (856) 321-2415 E-mail: fmanning@stradley.com rnorcia@stradley.com cbiemiller@stradley.com - and - Meaghan VerGow, Esq. Stuart M. Sarnoff, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 1625 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 383-5300 E-mail: mvergow@omm.com ssarnoff@omm VAUGHAN MCLEAN: Seeks More Time to File Opposition Brief -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHERINE DEMETRO, et al., v. VAUGHAN MCLEAN, LLC, et al. Case No. 1:24-cv-02199-APM (D.D.C.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline for Vaughan McLean to file its opposition brief in response to the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration to Nov. 19, 2025. Vaughan McLean requires additional time to prepare its response to the motion for reconsideration. A one-week extension through and until Nov. 19, 2025 will be sufficient time for Vaughan McLean to prepare its response. The Plaintiffs initiated this litigation on June 20, 2024, by filing an initial complaint in D.C. Superior Court. On July 26, 2024, Defendant Lawyers Title removed this case from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia to this Court. On Sept. 13, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint in this matter. On Nov. 27, 2024, the Court issued an Order granting Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an amended complaint, and ordered all Defendants to file any motions to dismiss on or before December 11, 2024. On Dec. 4, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On Jan. 6, 2025, the Vaughan McLean, along with additional defendants, filed a joint motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' amended complaint, and briefing on that Motion concluded on Feb. 3, 2025. Vaughan provides legal services focused on litigation and defense for businesses and organizations. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6YwAGb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew P. McGuire, Esq. IN REM PLLC 1809 20th Street NW, Suite 52 Washington DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 618-3461 E-mail: mcguireesquire@msn.com - and - Aristotle Theresa, Esq. STOOP LAW PLLC 1604 V Street SE Washington DC 20020 Telephone: (202) 651-1148 The Defendants are represented by: Constantinos Panagopoulos, Esq. Sarabeth Ranghia, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR, LLC 1909 K Street NW, 12th Floor Washington DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 661-2202 E-mail: cgp@ballardspahr.com rangiahs@ballardspahr.com VIRGINIA MASON: Murphy Labor Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as AUDREY MURPHY, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VIRGINIA MASON FRANCISCAN HEALTH, a Washington nonprofit Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 25-2-11852-1, was removed from the Superior Court for the State of Washington for the County of Pierce, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on November 3, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-05974 to the proceeding. In the complaint, the Plaintiff asserts two causes of action: [i] failure to pay overtime under the Washington Minimum Wage Act and [ii] willfully withholding earned wages under the Washington Wage Rebate Act, wherein she alleges that she and other hourly, non-exempt employees of Defendant are due overtime wages for failure to incorporate "sign-on bonuses" into the regular rate for the calculation of overtime pay. Virginia Mason Franciscan Health is an integrated health system serving the Puget Sound region of Washington.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Donald L. Samuels, Esq. POLSINELLI PC 1401 Lawrence Street, Suite 2300 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 572-9300 Facsimile: (303) 379-4895 - and - Derek A. McKee, Esq. POLSINELLI PC 4020 Maple Avenue, Suite 300 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 661-5520 Facsimile: (214) 397-0033 - and - Lindsay C. David, Esq. POLSINELLI PC Century Plaza Towers 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 203-5303 Facsimile: (213) 947-1069 VISA INC: Awaits Court Approval of "Burke" Settlement ----------------------------------------------------- Visa Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is awaiting court approval of the class settlement agreement in the purported consumer class action, Burke, et al. v. Visa Inc., et al. Consumer Class Actions. In October 2011, a purported consumer class action, Burke, et al. v. Visa Inc., et al. (Burke) was filed against Visa and Mastercard in the same federal court challenging the same ATM access fee rules. Two other purported consumer class actions challenging the rules, later combined in Mackmin, et al. v. Visa Inc., et al., (Mackmin), were also filed in October 2011 in the same federal court naming Visa, Mastercard and three financial institutions as defendants. Plaintiffs sought treble damages, restitution, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees where available under federal and state law, including under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and consumer protection statutes. On August 4, 2021, the district court granted class certification in each case. On August 8, 2022, the district court in Mackmin granted plaintiffs' motion for final approval of a class action settlement with the three financial institution defendants and entered final judgments of dismissal as to those institutions. On June 23, 2025, the district court in Mackmin granted plaintiffs' motion for final approval of a class action settlement and entered final judgments of dismissal as to Visa and Mastercard. Visa and Mastercard entered into a class settlement agreement with plaintiffs in Burke, subject to court approval. VISA INC: Bid to Dismiss Debit Surcharge Class Suit Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------- Visa Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that its motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the debit surcharge class action remains pending. On December 4, 2024, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Visa Inc. on behalf of a nationwide class of all persons in the United States who paid a surcharge when completing a purchase with a Visa debit card in a transaction with a merchant located in the United States since 2010. The complaint claims that Visa has failed to enforce its rules prohibiting merchants from surcharging those transactions, and that plaintiff and putative class members have been harmed as a result. On May 28, 2025, the district court granted a motion to dismiss by Visa, and plaintiff subsequently filed an amended complaint asserting unjust enrichment and unfair competition claims, and seeking monetary damages, declarative and injunctive relief. On July 23, 2025, Visa filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. VISA INC: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------- Visa Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that its motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the securities class action remains pending. On November 20, 2024, a shareholder filed a putative securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California asserting claims against Visa Inc., and certain current and former officers. Following appointment as lead representative plaintiff, on July 15, 2025, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting claims on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Visa securities between March 2, 2023, and September 23, 2024. The amended complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by failing to disclose the alleged practices that are the subject of the lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice on September 24, 2024 (see U.S. Department of Justice matter). The plaintiff seeks a ruling that this case may proceed as a class action, and seeks damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. Visa filed motions to strike and dismiss the amended complaint on September 12, 2025. VISA INC: Continues to Defend Consumer Interchange Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------- Visa Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the consumer interchange litigation. In 2022, a putative class action was filed in California state court against Visa, Mastercard and certain financial institutions on behalf of all Visa and Mastercard cardholders in California who made a purchase using a Visa-branded or Mastercard-branded payment card in California from January 1, 2004. Plaintiffs primarily allege a conspiracy to fix interchange fees and seek injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and damages as direct and indirect purchasers based on alleged violations of California law. After plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting the same claims as asserted in the prior complaint, Visa removed the action to federal court, and the case was transferred to MDL 1720. On December 30, 2024, the district court adopted a magistrate judge's recommendation to deny defendants' motion to compel arbitration and grant defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' California law claims, and plaintiffs moved for reconsideration. On May 12, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and their request for leave to amend the complaint, which decision plaintiffs both appealed and moved to further reconsider. On October 20, 2025, the reconsideration motion was denied. VISA INC: Continues to Defend Interchange MDL --------------------------------------------- Visa Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the Interchange Multidistrict Litigation. Beginning in May 2005, a series of complaints (the majority of which were styled as class actions) were filed in U.S. federal district courts by merchants against Visa U.S.A., Visa International and/or Mastercard, and in some cases, certain U.S. financial institutions. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order transferring the cases to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York for coordination of pre-trial proceedings in MDL 1720. A group of purported class plaintiffs subsequently filed amended and supplemental class complaints. The individual and class complaints generally challenged, among other things, Visa's and Mastercard's purported setting of interchange reimbursement fees, their "no surcharge" and honor-all-cards rules, alleged tying and bundling of transaction fees, and Visa's reorganization and IPO, under the federal antitrust laws and, in some cases, certain state unfair competition laws. The complaints sought money damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and, in one instance, an order that the IPO be unwound. Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A., Visa International, Mastercard Incorporated, Mastercard International Incorporated, various U.S. financial institution defendants and the class plaintiffs signed a settlement agreement (2012 Settlement Agreement) to resolve the class plaintiffs' claims. Pursuant to the 2012 Settlement Agreement, the Company deposited approximately $4.0 billion from the U.S. litigation escrow account and approximately $500 million attributable to interchange reductions for an eight-month period into court-authorized settlement accounts. Visa subsequently received from the district court and deposited into the Company's U.S. litigation escrow account "takedown payments" of approximately $1.1 billion. On June 30, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the district court's certification of the merchant class, reversed the approval of the settlement and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. On remand, the district court appointed interim counsel for two putative classes of plaintiffs, a "Damages Class" and an "Injunctive Relief Class." The plaintiffs purporting to act on behalf of the putative Damages Class subsequently filed a Third Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, seeking money damages and attorneys' fees, among other relief. A new group of purported class plaintiffs, acting on behalf of the putative Injunctive Relief Class, filed a class action complaint against Visa, Mastercard and certain bank defendants seeking, among other things, an injunction against the setting of default interchange rates; against certain Visa operating rules relating to merchants, including the honor-all-cards rule; and against various transaction fees, including the fixed acquirer network fee, as well as attorneys' fees. Damages Class. On September 17, 2018, Visa, Mastercard and certain U.S. financial institutions reached an agreement with plaintiffs purporting to act on behalf of the putative Damages Class to resolve all Damages Class claims (Amended Settlement Agreement). The Amended Settlement Agreement supersedes the 2012 Settlement Agreement and includes, among other terms, a release from participating class members for liability arising out of conduct alleged by the Damages Class in the litigation, including claims that accrue no later than five years after the Amended Settlement Agreement becomes final. Participating class members will not release injunctive relief claims as a named representative or non-representative class member in the putative Injunctive Relief Class. The Amended Settlement Agreement also required an additional settlement payment from all defendants totaling $900 million, with the Company's share of $600 million paid from the Company's litigation escrow account established pursuant to the Company's retrospective responsibility plan. The additional settlement payment was added to the approximately $5.3 billion previously deposited into settlement accounts by the defendants pursuant to the 2012 Settlement Agreement. Certain merchants in the proposed settlement class objected to the settlement and/or submitted requests to opt out of the settlement class. On December 13, 2019, the district court granted final approval of the Amended Settlement Agreement, which was subsequently appealed. Based on the percentage of class members (by payment volume) that opted out of the class, $700 million was returned to defendants. Visa's portion of the takedown payment, approximately $467 million, was deposited into the U.S. litigation escrow account. On March 15, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the final approval of the Amended Settlement Agreement by the district court. On August 3, 2023, the district court appointed a special master to resolve matters arising out of or relating to the Amended Settlement Agreement's plan of administration. Indirect Purchaser Claims. Three complaints have been filed against Visa and other defendants asserting violations of certain state antitrust laws and seeking recovery as indirect purchasers. A complaint was filed by Old Jericho Enterprise, Inc. on May 29, 2020, against Visa and Mastercard on behalf of a purported class of gasoline retailers operating in 24 states and the District of Columbia. Two separate complaints were subsequently filed in 2021 against Visa and Mastercard on behalf of a purported class of merchants located in 25 states and the District of Columbia who have taken payment using the Square card acceptance service — one by Hayley Lanning and others on April 28 and one by Camp Grounds Coffee and others on June 16. Plaintiffs in all three actions subsequently served motions for partial summary judgment. Thereafter, in May and September 2024, the district court denied motions for partial summary judgment filed by the Lanning and Camp Grounds plaintiffs and the Old Jericho plaintiffs, which all three plaintiff groups have now appealed. To the extent these plaintiffs' claims are not released by the Amended Settlement Agreement, Visa believes they are covered by the U.S. Retrospective Responsibility Plan. Injunctive Relief Class. Following remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the appointment of Injunctive Relief Class counsel, on September 27, 2021, the district court certified without opt out rights an Injunctive Relief Class consisting of all merchants that accept Visa or Mastercard credit or debit cards in the United States at any time between December 18, 2020 and entry of final judgment. From January through April 2024, the district court issued rulings on various summary judgment motions. The district court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion for summary judgment under Ohio v. American Express, denied defendants' motions for summary judgment based on the post-IPO conspiracy claims, and granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on Injunctive Relief Class plaintiffs' monopolization claims. The district court denied the Injunctive Relief Class plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment. On March 25, 2024, Visa and Mastercard entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the Injunctive Relief Class claims. On March 26, 2024, the Injunctive Relief Class plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, which was denied on June 25, 2024. Interchange Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) - Individual Merchant Actions Since May 2013, more than 50 cases have been filed in or removed to various federal district courts by hundreds of merchants generally pursuing damages claims on allegations similar to those raised in MDL 1720. The cases name as defendants Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A., Visa International, Mastercard Incorporated and Mastercard International Incorporated, although some also include certain U.S. financial institutions as defendants. A number of the cases include allegations that Visa has monopolized, attempted to monopolize and/or conspired to monopolize debit card-related market segments. Some of the cases seek an injunction against the setting of default interchange rates; certain Visa operating rules relating to merchants, including the honor-all-cards rule; and various transaction fees, including the fixed acquirer network fee. In addition, some cases assert that Visa, Mastercard and/or their member banks conspired to prevent the adoption of chip-and-PIN authentication in the U.S. or otherwise circumvent competition in the debit market. Certain individual merchants have filed amended complaints to, among other things, add claims for injunctive relief and update claims for damages. The individual merchant actions described in this section are U.S. covered litigation for purposes of the U.S. retrospective responsibility plan. Visa has reached settlements with a number of merchants representing approximately 82% of the Visa-branded payment card sales volume of merchants who opted out of the Amended Settlement Agreement with the Damages Class plaintiffs. The district court's rulings on defendants' summary judgment motions under Ohio v. American Express and on post-IPO conspiracy claims, described above, apply to these Individual Merchant Actions. In addition, on October 9, 2022, defendants' motion for summary judgment regarding damages for EMV-related chargebacks was denied. On February 22, 2024, defendants' motion for summary judgment based on Illinois Brick standing was denied, and the district court denied as moot certain plaintiffs' motions for partial summary judgment. On April 2, 2024, the district court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion for summary judgment on certain plaintiffs' monopolization claims. In July 2024, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation remanded the action led by Target Corporation and action led by 7-Eleven, Inc. to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and remanded the action led by Grubhub Holdings Inc. to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Trials have been scheduled to begin in April 2026 for a subset of plaintiffs in the actions pending in the Southern District of New York, and in September 2026 for the plaintiffs in the action pending in the Northern District of Illinois. In May 2024, the district court found that merchants serviced by Intuit and Square are members of the MDL Damages Class and therefore granted defendants' motion to enforce the Amended Settlement Agreement, and denied a motion by Intuit for partial summary judgment, regarding claims in the actions brought by Intuit and Block in their capacity as payment facilitators. In November 2024, defendants served a motion for injunction compelling dismissal of claims by Intuit and Block. On March 24, 2025, the magistrate judge recommended that the motion for injunction be denied, and the district court adopted the recommendation on August 22, 2025. The Company believes it has substantial defenses to the claims asserted in the putative class actions and individual merchant actions, but the final outcome of individual legal claims is inherently unpredictable. The Company could incur judgments, enter into settlements or revise its expectations regarding the outcome of merchants' claims, and such developments could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial results in the period in which the effect becomes probable and reasonably estimable. While the U.S. retrospective responsibility plan is designed to address monetary liability in these matters, U.S. and Europe Retrospective Responsibility Plans, judgments or settlements that require the Company to change its business practices, rules, or contractual commitments could adversely affect the Company's financial results. VISA INC: Continues to Defend VE Territory Covered Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------- Visa Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against Visa Europe territory covered litigation. Since July 2013, proceedings have been commenced by more than 1,150 Merchants (the capitalized term "Merchant", when used in this section, means a Merchant together with subsidiary/affiliate companies that are party to the same claim) against Visa Europe, Visa Inc. and other Visa subsidiaries in the UK and other countries, primarily relating to interchange rates in Europe and, in some cases, relating to fees charged by Visa and certain Visa rules. They seek damages for alleged anti-competitive conduct in relation to one or more of the following types of interchange fees for credit and debit card transactions: UK domestic, other European domestic, intra-European Economic Area and/or other inter-regional. As of the filing date, Visa has settled the claims asserted by over 950 Merchants, and there are over 100 Merchants with outstanding claims. In addition, merchants continue to threaten similar proceedings, and in some cases, the Company has entered into standstill agreements. While the amount of interchange being challenged could be substantial, these claims have not yet been filed and their full scope is not yet known. The Company anticipates additional claims in the future. On June 17, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom found that Visa's UK domestic interchange before the introduction of the Interchange Fee Regulation (IFR) restricted competition, a case which was subsequently settled. On November 26, 2021, the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) found that the question of whether domestic interchange fees are a restriction of competition after the introduction of the IFR, along with inter-regional and commercial interchange fees across all time periods, would need to be resolved at trial. The UK Court of Appeal affirmed the CAT's ruling, and in February and March 2024, the CAT held a trial to consider whether certain interchange rates are a restriction of competition. In April 2025, the CAT completed a trial regarding the extent to which interchange fees were passed on by acquirers and merchants. On June 25, 2025, the CAT issued a decision finding that certain interchange rates restrict competition under UK competition law, and Visa has sought permission from the UK Court of Appeal to appeal that decision. On December 19, 2024 the UK Court of Appeal issued a decision restricting Merchant damages to six years preceding the claim filing. On June 1, 2022, two class action claims were filed against Visa with the CAT on behalf of UK businesses that accepted Visa-branded payment cards at any time since June 1, 2016, alleging that UK domestic, intra-European Economic Area and inter-regional interchange fees on commercial credit cards, and inter-regional interchange fees on consumer cards, are anti-competitive. The CAT subsequently granted class certification of the claim regarding interchange fees on commercial credit cards only. On July 8, 2025, Visa was served with a class action claim in the Netherlands on behalf of Dutch merchants against several Visa entities. The claim alleges that inter-regional interchange fees on transactions at Dutch merchants are a restriction of competition and seeks damages from 1992 to present. On November 14, 2021, a motion to certify a class action was filed against Visa and Mastercard in the Israel Central District Court. The motion asserts that interchange fees on cross-border transactions in Israel and the Honor All Cards rule are anti-competitive and seeks damages and injunctive relief. Visa filed its response on July 22, 2024. The claimant filed a counter-response and a preliminary hearing was held on February 26, 2025. VISA INC: EMV Chip Liability Shift Class Settlement Has Prelim OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- Visa Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the class settlement in the EMV chip liability shift lawsuit has obtained preliminary court approval. Following their initial complaint filed on March 8, 2016, B&R Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a Milam's Market, and Grove Liquors LLC filed an amended class action complaint on July 15, 2016, against Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A., Mastercard, Discover, American Express, EMVCo and certain financial institutions in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The amended complaint asserts that defendants, through EMVCo, conspired to shift liability for fraudulent, faulty, or otherwise rejected payment card transactions from defendants to the purported class of merchants, defined as those merchants throughout the U.S. who have been subjected to the "Liability Shift" since October 2015. Plaintiffs claim that the "Liability Shift" violates Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act and certain state laws, and seek treble damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. EMVCo and the financial institution defendants were dismissed, and the matter was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On August 28, 2020, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On November 30, 2022, Visa and other defendants served motions to decertify and for summary judgment, which the court subsequently denied. On June 24, 2025, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of class settlements with Discover and American Express. Visa and Mastercard entered a class settlement agreement with plaintiffs, and the court granted preliminary approval of that settlement on October 17, 2025. VISA INC: Illinois Court Dismisses Mirage Wine Suit --------------------------------------------------- Visa Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2025, that an Illinois court has entered a final judgment of dismissal as to all defendants in the putative class action lawsuit filed by Mirage Wine + Spirit's Inc. On December 14, 2023, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois by Mirage Wine + Spirit's Inc. against Apple Inc. (Apple), Visa Inc. and Mastercard Incorporated on behalf of certain merchants in the United States that accepted Apple Pay as a method of payment at the physical point-of-sale from December 14, 2019. Plaintiff alleged a conspiracy under which Apple agreed not to enter a purported market for point-of-sale payment card networks services and seeks damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees based on alleged violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action Complaint on August 5, 2024, and defendants filed a motion to dismiss which the court granted. On August 8, 2025, the parties filed a stipulation for dismissal with prejudice, and the court subsequently entered a final judgment of dismissal as to all defendants. WARDEN FRITH: Moore's Petition for Writ of Habeas Tossed -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WENDELL MOORE, v. WARDEN FRITH, Case No. 3:25-cv-01220-JKM-MP (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Munley entered an order that: 1. Petitioner Wendell Moore's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2241 is denied. 2. To the extent that Moore seeks class certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that undeveloped request is denied. 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hhS4rQ at no extra charge.[CC] WC PERFORMANCE FORD: Han Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against WC PERFORMANCE FORD INC., et al. The case is styled as Hai Than Han, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WC PERFORMANCE FORD INC., KAB GROUP INVESTMENTS INC., Case No. 25STCV32150 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 3, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." WC Performance Ford Inc. -- https://www.wcperformanceford.com/ -- is a Ford dealer in West Covina, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung L. Yang, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 355 S. Grand Ave., Suite 1450 Los Angeles, California 90071 Phone: (213) 985-1150 Fax: (213) 985-2155 Email: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com WESTERN-SOUTHERN FINANCIAL: Sladen Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Karen T. Sladen, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Western-Southern Financial Group, Inc.; Eagle Realty Group, LLC; Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00795-MWM (S.D. Ohio, November 3, 2025) seeks redress for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act resulting from Defendants' denial of overtime wages to employees designated by Defendants as "hourly non-exempt" employees, including Plaintiff. According to the complaint, the Defendants employ hundreds of workers, but they do not use a timekeeping system to track their time worked. Instead, Defendants pay hourly workers based on the number of hours they are scheduled to work, rather than the number of hours they actually work. As a result, the Defendants violate the FLSA and Ohio wage law because they do not pay their hourly, non-exempt employees at time-and-a-half their regular hourly rate when they work overtime hours. Western-Southern Financial Group, Inc. is a nationwide financial services organization that offers various financial services including life insurance, retirement and investment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Biller, Esq. Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. Laura E. Farmwald, Esq. Emily A. Hubbard, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC 8044 Montgomery Road, Suite 515 Cincinnati, OH 45236 Telephone: (513) 715-8711 Facsimile: (614) 340-4620 E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com akimble@billerkimble.com lfarmwald@billerkimble.com ehubbard@billerkimble.com WHEELER REAL: Awaits Prelim Approval of Settlement in "Khoshaba" ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wheeler Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, that it is awaiting preliminary court approval of the settlement entered in the case captioned Daniel Khoshaba v. Joseph D. Stilwell, et al., Civil Action No. 2:24CV237 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. On April 10, 2024, Daniel Khoshaba, a holder of the Company's Common Stock and former CEO of the Company, filed a derivative action on behalf of the Company and putative class action on behalf of common stockholders who had not purchased the Convertible Notes in a rights offering alleging that the current and certain former directors of the Company and the Company's CEO (the "Individual Defendants") each breached their duty to the Company and its common stockholders, and that certain of those directors and an officer of the Company were unjustly enriched. The complaint primarily asserted the Individual Defendants failed to take sufficient action to mitigate the potential dilution that could be caused by the redemption rights of holders of Series D Preferred Stock and that they should not have authorized dividends on the Convertible Notes sold in the rights offering to be paid in Series D Preferred Stock. The Individual Defendants denied any liability and raised affirmative defenses. The Company was named as a nominal defendant in the case, and no claims were asserted against it. The Company provided indemnification (including legal fees and costs) to the Individual Defendants. On June 10, 2024, the Individual Defendants and the other Defendants in the case filed motions to dismiss the complaint. On September 13, 2024, the District Court granted in part and denied in part those motions. The parties thereafter conducted substantial fact discovery and exchanged expert reports. Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification which the Defendants opposed. The parties engaged in settlement discussions resulting in a settlement agreement dated October 21, 2025. In the agreement, the Defendants denied any wrongdoing and members of a settlement class provide full releases of liability to all Defendants. The settlement class is defined to include all persons other than Defendants and certain related parties who held Company common stock as of August 16, 2021 or purchased Company common stock between August 16, 2021 and September 20, 2023. On October 21, 2025, the parties filed a motion asking the Court to certify the settlement class, grant preliminary approval of the settlement and authorize notice to members of the settlement class. The settlement will not be final unless and until the court grants final approval after class notice. The Company is not responsible for any portion of the settlement payment. WHEELER REAL: Shareholders Suits vs. Cedar Remain Pending --------------------------------------------------------- Wheeler Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, that the shareholder suits against Cedar Realty Trust, Inc., filed prior to the Company's acquisition of Cedar remain pending. Preferred stockholders of Cedar have filed a putative class action suit against the directors of Cedar prior to the Cedar Acquisition (collectively, the "Former Cedar Directors") in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland captioned Anthony Aquino, et al. v. Bruce Schanzer, et al., Case No.: C-15-CV-25-000731 (the "Aquino Action"). The Aquino Action alleges that the Former Cedar Directors breached their fiduciary duties to Cedar's preferred stockholders through the Cedar Acquisition. The claims in the Aquino Action mirror the fiduciary duty breach claims that were a subject of the putative class action complaint entitled Kim, et al., v. Cedar Realty Trust, Inc., et al. (the "Kim Action"), which was dismissed with prejudice in 2023 by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The dismissal was affirmed on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in 2024. The Aquino Action alleges that the courts in the Kim Action misinterpreted Maryland law on fiduciary duties to preferred stockholders. The Former Cedar Directors have filed a motion to dismiss the Aquino Action. The court has provided the parties with an opportunity to submit supplemental briefing prior to holding a hearing on that motion. Neither the Company nor Cedar have been sued in the Aquino Action. The Company has a contractual obligation to indemnify the Former Cedar Directors, including for reasonable costs and legal fees. At this juncture, the outcome of the litigation remains uncertain. WYNDHAM VACATION: Huskey Seeks to Extend Class Cert Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOGAN HUSKEY, HEATHER HUSKEY, DANIEL FOLDEN and NICOLE FOLDEN, OCIE MCELVEEN, and RACHEL MCELVEEN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WYNDHAM VACATION RESORTS, INC., AND WYNDHAM RESORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Case No. 6:23-cv-00601-CEM-RMN (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending class certification deadline set forth in the Court's order granting joint motion to stay class discovery. The Defendants Motion to Dismiss is fully briefed before the Court. Based on the pending Motion to Dismiss, and based on the posture of several other similar MLA class action cases in this district, the Parties filed the Joint Motion to Stay Class Discovery. On April 21, 2025, the Court entered an Order Granting Joint Motion to Stay Class Discovery, which included the following deadlines relevant to this Motion: The deadline for Plaintiff to file for Class Certification is continued to January 12, 2026. The Defendant's deadline to respond is thirty days thereafter. Because the Court has not ruled on the Motion to Dismiss, the Parties request that the Court vacate the scheduling order and allow the parties to submit a new Case Management Report within seven (7) days of the stay being lifted or that the Court extend the Class Certification deadline by 180 days. Wyndham provides travel services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uUeCzI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey L. Newsome, II, Esq. Janet R. Varnell, Esq. Brian W. Warwick, Esq. Christopher J. Brochu, Esq. Pamela G. Levinson, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A. 400 N. Ashley Drive, Suite 1900 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (352) 753-8600 Facsimile: (352) 504-3301 E-mail: jnewsome@vandwlaw.com jvarnell@vandwlaw.com bwarwick@vandwlaw.com cbrochu@vandwlaw.com plevinson@vandwlaw.com ckoerner@vandwlaw.com XCEL ENERGY: Arandell Seeks Prelim Approval of Class Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARANDELL CORPORATION, et al., v. XCEL ENERGY, INC., et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-00076-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (i) Granting expedited consideration of this motion, including scheduling a final fairness hearing at the earliest date that is 105 days or more after the date of this filing, at which the Court will consider: (a) whether to grant final approval of the Dynegy and Xcel Settlements; (b) class counsel's applications for attorneys' fees and costs; and (c) any request for service awards to individual Class Plaintiffs. (ii) Granting preliminary approval of the class action settlement agreement that the Plaintiffs and Dynegy and Xcel have signed; (iii) Preliminarily certifying the Dynegy and Xcel Settlement Class for the Wisconsin Class (Arandell and NewPage); (iv) Appointing Arandell Corporation, Briggs & Stratton Corporation, Carthage College, Ladish Co., Inc. (n/k/a ATI Ladish LLC), Merrick's, Inc., Billerud Wisconsin LLC (f/k/a NewPage Wisconsin System Inc., f/k/a, Verso Minnesota Wisconsin LLC), and Sargento Foods, Inc., as Wisconsin Class Plaintiffs for the Wisconsin Settlement Class; (v) Appointing Kohner Mann & Kailas, S.C., Perkins Coie LLP, and Polsinelli PC as Settlement Counsel; (vi) Approving the manner and form of giving notice of the Dynegy and Xcel Settlements to class members; (vii) Establishing the timetable outlined above for publishing class notice and lodging objections to the terms of the Dynegy and Xcel Settlement; (viii) Approving the procedures outlined above for Wisconsin Class Members to exclude themselves from the Dynegy and Xcel Settlement Class and object to the Xcel Settlements; (ix) Appointing AB Data as the settlement administrator to conduct the duties assigned to that position in the Dynegy and Xcel Settlements; (x) Staying all non-settlement proceedings in the Wisconsin Actions against Dynegy and Xcel pending final approval of the Dynegy and Xcel Settlement; and (xi) Providing such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. The Wisconsin Actions arise from a well-publicized arrangement to manipulate the prices of natural gas sold to industrial and commercial users in the 2000 to 2002 time frame in violation of the laws of the state of Wisconsin. This settlement resolves claims brought by the Wisconsin Class against Dynegy and Xcel. The respective Complaints define the Class Members as: "All industrial and commercial purchasers of natural gas for their own use or consumption during the Relevant Time Period [from Jan. 1, 2000 until Oct. 31, 2002], and which gas was used or consumed by them in Wisconsin." Excluded from the Class are (a) entities that purchased natural gas for resale (to the extent of such purchase for resale); (b) entities that purchased natural gas for generation of electricity for the purpose of sale (to the extent of such purchase for generation); (c) entities that purchased natural gas from entities that sold natural gas at rates approved by the Wisconsin Public Service Commission (to the extent of such purchases at such approved rates); (d) defendants and their predecessors, affiliates and subsidiaries; and (e) the federal government and its agencies. The Plaintiffs have alleged that the Defendants' price manipulation began no later than Jan. 1, 2000, and continued in many respects until at least Oct. 31, 2002. The Plaintiffs have alleged, and their experts' work has confirmed, that the Defendants' actions resulted in Wisconsin Class Members paying excessive prices for natural gas. Xcel is a regulated electric and natural gas utility company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2ioHyZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan M. Billings, Esq. Melinda A. Bialzik, Esq. Lance E. Duroni, Esq. KOHNER, MANN & KAILAS, S.C. Barnabas Business Center 4650 N. Port Washington Road Milwaukee, WI 53212 Telephone: (414) 962-5110 Facsimile: (414) 962-8725 - and - Christopher G. Hanewicz, Esq. Autumn N. Nero, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 33 East Main Street, Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 663-7460 Facsimile: (608) 663-7499 - and - Russell S. Jones, Jr., Esq. Andrew J. Ennis, Esq. POLSINELLI PC 900 W. 48th Place, Suite 900 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 753-1000 Facsimile: (816) 753-1536 YMCA: Valencia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Young Women's Christian Association (YMCA) of Greater Los Angeles California. The case is styled as Monica M. Valencia, an individual, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Young Women's Christian Association of (YMCA) Greater Los Angeles California, Case No. 25STCV32142 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 3, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." YWCA Greater Los Angeles -- https://www.ywcagla.org/ -- offers high-quality, affordable child care and preschool services, nurturing children in creatively redesigned learning areas with low teacher-to-child ratios.[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 ********* 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 ***