251120.mbx

251120.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, November 20, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 232 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Collado Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 7-ELEVEN INC: Reeves Appeals Suit Dismissal to D.C. Circuit A1 DEVELOPMENT: Operates an Unlicensed Casino, Salgado Says ABC PHONES OF NORTH: Hargis Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California ADVANCE AMERICA: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Sept. 24, 2026 AFFIRM HOLDINGS: Kusnier Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit AGA SERVICE: Herssein Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action AGA SERVICE: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ALAN PHILIPS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Jones Alleges ALLIED WASTE: Complete Discovery Due April 14, 2026 ALTIMMUNE INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Maryland AMERICAN AIRLINES: Court Tosses Bid for Class Certification APEX GLOBAL: Fails to Protect Highly Sensitive Data, Williams Says ARISTOCRAT LEISURE: Estep Sues Over Illegal Online Gambling Games ATYR PHARMA: Faces Securities Suits in California AUTOZONE INC: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response AVEN FINANCIAL: Court Narrows Claims in Marino Class Suit BAKESTREET INC: Valencia Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BANDIT RUNNING: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Jones Says BEE SWEET: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Amaro Suit Due Nov. 21 BIOGEN INC: Shash Seeks to File Reply Under Seal BROTHERS GUITAR: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Jones Says CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY: Class Cert Hearing Reset to Dec. 18 CLARIENCE TECHNOLOGIES: Class Cert Bid Filing Due June 5, 2026 COHEN'S FASHION: Faces Hall Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info COMAL COUNTY, TX: Denies Inmates Adequate Medical Care, Harley Says COSTCO WHOLESALE: Class Cert. Filing Extended to Jan. 22, 2026 CRYSTAL PROPERTY: Le Sues Over Inaccessible Commercial Property DELAWARE NORTH COMPANIES: Grady Sues to Recover Unpaid Tips EAST OHIO GAS: Amended Bid for Class Certification Tossed ECHOSTAR CORP: DISH Data Breach Class Suits Dismissed EDGIO INCORPORATED: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 13, 2026 EMPOWERING PEOPLE: Sturgeon Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ENERGY TRANSFER: Appeal From $179MM Damages Award Remains Pending EPOCH EVERLASTING: Jones Can File Class Cert Bid Under Seal EVO BRANDS: Amiel Bid for Class Certification Tossed EXACT CARE: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Jan. 19, 2026 EZ ADVOCATES: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid Response FIVE9 INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit FLORIDA POWER: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Calif. FORD MOTOR: Parties Seek to File Class Docs Under Seal GEICO: SCI Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal GENERAL DYNAMICS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due April 10, 2026 GENERAL MOTORS: Hermanowicz Sues Over Undisclosed Engine Defect GIORGIO ARMANI: Ahumada Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action HI-TECH PHARMACEUTICALS: Must File Complaint Response by Dec. 29 HKB HOTEL: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Jones Says HUEL INC: Gouldbourne Sues Over Protein Powder's Lead Content IFTIKAR AHMED: Receiver Seeks to Sell 530 Park Avenue for $7M IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Glazing Union Seeks to Certify Class Action LEVAIN BAKERY: Douglass Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website LOAN STORE: Furman Seeks Conditional Class Certification LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Seeks Reconsideration of Class Cert. Order LOLA + THE BOYS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Cole Alleges NOWRX INC: Mueller Sues Over False, Misleading Stock Sale Statement OMI JEWELRY: Alexandria Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS: Can File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal PARADIGM PROPERTIES: Class Settlement Prelim. Approval Sought PARKERZ LLC: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Karandish Says SHERYL MAXFIELD: Class Cert. Initial Disclosures Due Dec. 5 SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Settles USERRA Suit in California Court SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Lamers Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, Overtime SPRINGER NATURE: Court Orders More Fee Documentation in "Lee" SUGARED + BRONZED: Bid for Class Certification Due March 20, 2026 SUPERNUS PHARMA: "Korver" Remains Pending in New York SWEDISH MATCH: Siegert Suit Stayed Pending Kelly Class Cert Order SYNGENTA CROP: Herbicide Causes Parkinson's Disease, Gray Says TESLA GENERAL: Boggs Sues to Correct Auto Insurance Coverage Policy TESLA INC: Dismissal of Shareholder Suit Under Appeal TGL AIR: Faces Lin Class Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation TOUCHPAY HOLDINGS: Faces Manafov Suit Over TCPA Breach TOYOTA MOTOR: Natale Sues Over Defective Transmission Assemblies TRACER BULLET: Dalton Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Forces Insureds to Forfeit Policies, Suit Says UNDER ARMOUR: Rappaport Appeals Reconsideration Order to 2nd Cir. UNITED STATES: Fails to Provide Full SNAP Benefits, Perrone Says UNUM LIFE: Heritagemark Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 5th Cir. VISA INC: Appeal in Debit Class Suits Remain Pending with 2nd Cir. VISA INC: ATM Access Fee Litigation Remains Pending WALMART INC: Appeals Arbitration Order in R. C. Suit to 9th Cir. WALMART INC: Underpays Company Employees, Flores Says WISE FOODS: Faces Hussain Suit Over Mislabeled Potato Chips X CORP: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Jan. 15, 2026 YOUTUBE LLC: Colombo Suit Seeks $6MM Settlement YVES SAINT: Class & PAGA Settlement in Sabzerou Gets Final Nod ZAMI INC: Faces Rodriguez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ZEALTHY INC: Perez Files Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages ZILLOW GROUP: Plaintiffs Allowed Leave to Amend Class Complaint ZYNGA INC: Fitzer Files Suit Over Illegal Online Gambling Losses ********* 3M COMPANY: Collado Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as David Collado, et al, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-01887 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-13247-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 7-ELEVEN INC: Reeves Appeals Suit Dismissal to D.C. Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------- S. J. REEVES, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled S. J. Reeves, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 7-Eleven, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-03533-RCL, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The Plaintiffs allege that 7-Eleven misled consumers into believing that menthol cigarettes pose the same health risks as nonmenthol cigarettes by shelving the products next to one another in its stores. The Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief under D.C. consumer protection law and D.C. contract law. On Sept. 27, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which Judge Royce C. Lamberth granted on Sept. 30, 2025. All counts are dismissed for failure to state a claim. The appellate case is entitled S. J. Reeves, et al. v. 7-Eleven, Inc., Case No. 25-7170, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, filed on October 30, 2025. [BN] A1 DEVELOPMENT: Operates an Unlicensed Casino, Salgado Says ----------------------------------------------------------- JANNEL SALGADO, individually, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. A1 DEVELOPMENT, LLC, d/b/a NO LIMIT COINS, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06061 (E.D.N.Y., October 29, 2025) is a class action complaint against the Defendant for its illegal online gambling operation that violates New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant owns and operates one of the most popular and profitable online gambling websites on the planet called No Limit Coins ("No Limit Coins"), available at https://www.nolimitcoins.com. While the Defendant has branded No Limit Coins as a harmless "social casino," that label is nothing more than a misleading marketing tactic to deceive regulators and consumers into believing it offers harmless gameplay instead of unlawful gambling, the complaint alleges. In practice, No Limit Coins players can buy chips, gamble and cash out for rewards--just like at a regular casino. Virtual gambling is highly addictive and strictly regulated in New York. By law, these games can only be offered by licensed operators in licensed, physical locations. New York prohibits gambling that involves risking something of value, including virtual coins that can be redeemed for cash or prizes. The Defendant's operations flout these legal requirements by providing unlicensed gambling services to New York residents via its Chance Games, the complaint asserts. The Defendant's illegal online gambling platform that it markets as a "free" "social casino" is in reality, an unlicensed casino prohibited under New York law, it adds. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, seeks damages, restitution, and declaratory and injunctive relief to stop Defendant's unlawful conduct. The Plaintiff seeks an order requiring Defendant to cease the operation of its gambling business and return all lost monies, with costs. Plaintiff Jannel Salgado has been a resident and citizen of New York, and is domiciled in Suffolk County, New York. She played No Limit Coins from approximately 2023 to March 2025 during which she made many in-game purchases of Super Coin. A1 Development LLC owns and operates a gambling website (available at https://www.nolimitcoins.com/) and app under the brand "No Limit Coins."[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 - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE First Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: 305-479-2299 E-mail: edwine@shamisgentile.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Gabriel Mandler, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (786) 673-2405 E-mail: gabriel@edelsberglaw.com ABC PHONES OF NORTH: Hargis Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ABC Phones of North Carolina, Inc. The case is styled as Kiaya Danan Hargis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ABC Phones of North Carolina, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-01466-BAM (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. ABC Phones of North Carolina, Inc., operating under the brand name Victra -- https://victra.com/ -- (formerly known as A Wireless), is a large telecommunications retailer that serves as Verizon's largest exclusive premium retailer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana J. Oliver, Esq. OLIVER LAW CENTER, INC. 8780 19th Street, #559 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 Phone: (562) 500-0600 Fax: (888) 570-2021 Email: dana@danaoliverlaw.com ADVANCE AMERICA: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Sept. 24, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLAUDIA FIGUEROA, v. ADVANCE AMERICA, CASH ADVANCE CENTERS OF CALIFORNIA, LLC., et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00534-JLT-EPG (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Grosjean entered an order extending case deadlines by 90 days. Event Deadline Nonexpert discovery cutoff: June 25, 2026 Expert disclosure: July 27, 2026 Expert discovery cutoff: Sept. 24, 2026 Motion for class certification: Sept. 24, 2026 Opposition to class certification: Nov. 30, 2026 Reply re: class certification: Dec. 29, 2026 Class certification hearing: Jan. 14, 2027, at 10:00 a.m. Advances is a non-bank provider of cash advance services. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yrVZnC at no extra charge.[CC] AFFIRM HOLDINGS: Kusnier Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit -------------------------------------------------------------- MARK KUSNIER, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss in the lawsuit entitled Mark Kusnier, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Affirm Holdings, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-07770-AMO, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this is a federal securities class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class consisting of all persons and entities other than the Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Affirm securities between February 12, 2021 and December 15, 2021, both dates inclusive, 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 the Company and certain of its top officials. On Jan. 19, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Feb. 2, 2024. On Feb. 2, 2024, the Defendants filed a request for judicial notice. On Aug. 26, 2024, Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend and denying as moot their request for judicial notice. The appellate case is entitled Kusnier, et al. v. Affirm Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 25-6869, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 30, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on November 4, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on December 9, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on January 8, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants MARK KUSNIER, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Omar Jafri, Esq. Brian O'Connell, Esq. POMERANTZ, LLP 10 S. LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60603 Defendants-Appellees AFFIRM HOLDINGS, INC., et al. are represented by: James Albert Kelly, Esq. Monica K. Loseman, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP 1900 Lawrence Street, Suite 3000 Denver, CO 80202 - and - Jessica Valenzuela, Esq. Michael D. Celio, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP 310 University Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 AGA SERVICE: Herssein Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as REUVEN T. HERSSEIN, on behalf of himself, the general public, and those similarly situated, v. AGA SERVICE COMPANY (d/b/a ALLIANZ GLOBAL ASSISTANCE), JEFFERSON INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 0:25-cv-60256-RS (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to certify class action and supporting memorandum of law. The Plaintiff seeks certification of the following class: Florida Class: "All residents of Florida who, within the applicable statute of limitations, purchased the Defendants' trip insurance or event ticket insurance through an online platform, and were charged a fee for "assistance services" in addition to the insurance premium." Excluded from the Class are: (1) Defendants, their officers, directors, employees, and affiliates; (2) any entity in which Defendants have a controlling interest; (3) the judge to whom this case is assigned and any member of the judge's immediate family; and (4) persons who timely and validly request exclusion from the Class. The class action challenges the Defendants' deceptive and unlawful practice of surreptitiously bundling undisclosed, mandatory "assistance services" fees into the total price of their trip and event ticket insurance products, while never disclosing the actual cost of the insurance or the assistance fee itself prior to purchase. Allianz is a travel insurance and assistance provider. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jVRBi9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maury L. Udell, Esq. BEIGHLEY, MYRICK, UDELL & ZEICHMAN PA 2601 S. Bayshore Drive, Suite 770 Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 349-3930 E-mail: mudell@bmulaw.com AGA SERVICE: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as REUVEN T. HERSSEIN, on behalf of himself, the general public, and those similarly situated, v. AGA SERVICE COMPANY (d/b/a ALLIANZ GLOBAL ASSISTANCE), JEFFERSON INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 0:25-cv-60256-RS (S.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their unopposed motion for extension of time allowing the Defendants up to and including Tuesday, Nov. 25, 2025 to file their response to the Plaintiff's motion to certify class. The Plaintiff's failure to timely file a timely or compliant response to the Defendants' motion to compel has prejudiced the Defendants by making it very difficult for the Defendants to respond to the Plaintiff's motion to certify class by the current Nov. 14, 2025 deadline. As Plaintiff knew before making the late filing last week, the Defendants took the proposed class representative's deposition this week, while, at the same time reviewing the Plaintiff's motion to certify and preparing their reply in support of their motion to compel by the agreed-upon November 7 deadline. Moreover, a later reply deadline makes it less likely that the Motion to Compel will be resolved (and the withheld discovery be ordered produced) before Defendants' response to the Motion to Certify Class is due. The additional eleven (11) days Defendants seek to respond to the Motion to Certify Class may help alleviate some of the prejudice to Defendants. The Defendants also request the additional time to respond to the Motion to Certify Class because of other work-related obligations in this case, including continued written discovery due next week, preparation for additional depositions, and the travel burdens involved in the discovery process. The Defendants' request for an extension of time is made in good faith and not for the purpose of delay. AGA provides travel insurance and assistance services. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gTBj8e at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Lazaro Fernandez, Jr., Esq. Denise B. Crockett, Esq. STACK FERNANDEZ & HARRIS, P.A. 255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 330 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 371-0001 E-mail: lfernandez@stackfernandez.com dcrockett@stackfernandez.com - and - Elizabeth Ireland, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 300 South Tryon Street, 16th Floor Charlotte, NC 28202 Telephone: (704) 350-7812 E-mail: Eireland@winston.com ALAN PHILIPS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Jones Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- CLAY LEE JONES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ALAN PHILIPS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08993 (S.D.N.Y., October 30, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website www.communityfoodandjuice.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most recently on May 31, 2025, to access Defendant's Website from his home but encountered barriers that denied his full and equal access to Defendant's online content and services. Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to make an online order on the Website. Due to Defendant's failure to build the Website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, however, the Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the Website, and was thus denied the benefit of placing an online order, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. ALAN PHILIPS, LLC operates the website featuring a neighborhood-focused restaurant that offers wholesome American cuisine with an emphasis on sustainability and fresh, locally sourced produce.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com ALLIED WASTE: Complete Discovery Due April 14, 2026 --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN LOPEZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ALLIED WASTE SERVICES OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive. Case No. 2:24-cv-00822-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Troy Nunley entered an order continuing discovery and all other dates pending completion of class certification discovery: Event Ordered Date Last day to complete discovery: April 14, 2026 Last day to file list of designated June 12, 2026 expert witnesses: Last day to file supplemental discovery: Sept. 8, 2026 Last day to file dispositive motions: Oct. 9, 2026 Last day to file joint notice of trial Nov. 6, 2026 Readiness: Allied was a waste management company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=epuxqX at no extra charge.[CC] ALTIMMUNE INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Maryland -------------------------------------------------------------- Altimmune, 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 lawsuit pending in a Maryland court. On August 5, 2025, a class action complaint was filed in federal district court in the District of Maryland, Southern Division, naming as defendants the Company and two of the Company's executive officers, which is now captioned In re Altimmune, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 8:25-cv-02581 (D. Md.) (the "Securities Class Action"). The Securities Class Action alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by making false and misleading statements and omissions of material fact to the investing public including the plaintiff and class members, who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between August 10, 2023 and June 25, 2025, including relating to pemvidutide and our IMPACT Phase 2b trial of pemvidutide in MASH. The plaintiff and class members seek, among other things, to have the action maintained as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and for the defendants to pay damages, interest, and an award of costs, including attorneys' fees. On October 16, 2025, the court appointed lead plaintiffs for the litigation. On October 29, 2025, the court entered an order requiring lead plaintiffs to file an amended complaint by November 26, 2025, and for defendants to file an answer or notice of intent to file a motion to dismiss such amended complaint by December 10, 2025. The Company intends to defend vigorously against this litigation. AMERICAN AIRLINES: Court Tosses Bid for Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANTRISE WHITE, BERCLINE MILCENT, MONIQUE SPRINGER, GIRAM SANCHEZ, DANIELLE PARIS, and JORGE LEZCANO individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-00935-O (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Reed O'Connor entered an order denying the motion for class certification. The Court concludes that the elements of Rule 23(a) are not satisfied. Thus, class certification is improper. The Plaintiffs move to certify the following classes: (1) Under Rule 23(b)(2) ("Class One"): "current employees and former employees of American who: (1) have disabilities within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. section 12102(1); (2) are qualified under the ADA 42 U.S.C. section 12111(8); and (3) are subject to American Airlines' illegal policies regarding reasonable accommodations." (2) Under Rule 23(b)(3) ("Class Two"): "current employees and former employees of American Airlines who: (1) have disabilities within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. section 12102(1); (2) are qualified under the ADA, 42 U.S.C. section 12111(8); and (3) have been adversely affected by American Airlines' ADA violating policies and procedures." The case involves the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a federal statute requiring covered employers to provide qualified disabled employees with reasonable workplace accommodations, absent a showing of undue hardship on the business. See 42 U.S.C. section 12112(b)(5)(A). On Sept. 18, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on behalf of themselves, and others similarly situated against Defendant American Airlines in the Western District of Texas. American is a major U.S. airline. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=H0nnh5 at no extra charge.[CC] APEX GLOBAL: Fails to Protect Highly Sensitive Data, Williams Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ KANDICE WILLIAMS, TOMISHUA MORRISON, DONALD ZIMMERMANN, KEIA THOMPSON, and TREMAYNE DALY on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. APEX GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LLC, Defendant, Case No. CACE-25-016523 (Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Fl., October 28, 2025) is a class action complaint against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and violation of New York General Business Law. The complaint relates that the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) about its current and former clients' employees and patients as part of its business. This PII/PHI includes but is not limited to names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, drivers' license numbers; financial account information; and protected health information including health insurance information, provider name, and other treatment information. However, Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. On July 14, 2024, Defendant discovered suspicious activity on its network systems. Defendant discovered that an unauthorized third-party accessed Defendant's systems between June 18, 2024, and July 2, 2024. This resulted in a double-extortion ransomware attack on its systems in which hackers infiltrated Defendant's information systems, performed reconnaissance operations, identified and stole valuable files containing Class Members' PII/PHI, and then encrypted Defendant's systems. The ransomware group known as Brain Cipher has claimed responsibility, stating on their dark web portal that they exfiltrated up to 2 terabytes of data from AGS, says the complaint. Against this backdrop, the Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief, injunctive relief, monetary damages, statutory damages, equitable relief, and other relief authorized by law. Plaintiffs Williams, Morrison, Zimmermann, Thompson and Daly are citizens of the United States who are victims of the Data Breach. Defendant Apex Global Solutions LLC is a New York-based firm providing financial and other services to nursing homes and long term care facilities.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.A. 1 West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Ave, Suite 200 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (786) 879-8200 Facsimile: (786) 879-7520 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com ARISTOCRAT LEISURE: Estep Sues Over Illegal Online Gambling Games ----------------------------------------------------------------- SCOTT ESTEP, Plaintiff v. ARISTOCRAT LEISURE, LTD, ARISTOCRAT TECHNOLOGIES INC., and PRODUCT MADNESS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01261-MHW-EPD (S.D. Ohio, October 28, 2025) is a state-wide class action seeking recovery of illegal gambling losses by Ohio residents who played Aristocrat's illegal online gambling games. The complaint states that Aristocrat is a game developer that has created games that simulate slot machines and other gambling games, that it makes available to the public in multiple formats including smartphone applications (apps). Aristocrat's apps include Big Fish Casino, Cashman Casino, Lightning Link Casino, Mighty Fu Casino, and Heart of Vegas Slots, and it makes them available to the public through the Apple App Store and Google Play Store. Aristocrat's games operate with virtual coins that are available for purchase. These virtual coins cannot be redeemed for real-world currency. However, when users play with and win more coins, the coins won can be used to extend their playing time without having to purchase more coins, and thus users obtain more amusement, a valuable consideration under Ohio gambling law. Aristocrat's games are games of chance that simulate casino gambling such as slot machines. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff Scott Estep spent money to purchase virtual coins, played Aristocrat's gambling games, and lost money on the games within the six months preceding the filing of this complaint. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks, on behalf of himself and the class, seeks: (1) a ruling that Aristocrat's games violate federal law, and that Aristocrat's online terms of service set out the terms and conditions under which the illegal gambling is conducted are therefore unenforceable in a federal court; (2) a determination that the online terms of service and the arbitration provision and delegation contained in the terms of service are each void as violative of Ohio law; (3) recovery under the Ohio gambling loss recovery act; (4) recovery under the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act; and (5) restitution for unjust enrichment. Plaintiff Scott Estep is an adult resident citizen of Delaware County, Ohio and played the illegal gambling games. Defendants Aristocrat Leisure, Ltd., Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. and Product Madness, Inc. are doing business through its online games throughout the United States, including in the state of Ohio, and in the district and division.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua D. Rockwell, Esq. ROCKWELL LLC 47 East Wilson Bridge Road Worthington, OH 43085 Telephone: (614) 806-7672 E-mail: jrockwell@lawrockwell.com - and - Wesley W. Barnett, Esq. DAVIS & NORRIS, LLP 2154 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: 205-930-9900 Facsimile: 205-930-9989 E-mail: wbarnett@davisnorris.com ATYR PHARMA: Faces Securities Suits in California ------------------------------------------------- Atyr Pharma, 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 facing two putative securities class action complaints filed in a California court. "On October 9, 2025 and October 22, 2025, two substantially similar putative securities class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, naming aTyr Pharma, Inc. and our Chief Executive Officer, Sanjay Shukla. The complaints allege certain violations of the U.S. federal securities laws and seek unspecific damages. "We make provisions for liabilities when they are both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. No such liability has been recorded related to this matter. With regard to legal fees, such as attorney fees related to this matter or any other legal matters, we recognize such costs as incurred," the Company stated. AUTOZONE INC: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID SHAPLLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AUTOZONE, INC., Case No. 25-cv-80770-DMM (S.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order continuing the Nov. 5, 2025, deadline to file response to the Plaintiff's motion to certify class. The Defendant AutoZone requests a thirty-day continuation, through to December 5, 2025, of the deadline to respond to the Motion to Certify Class, and for any and all other relief this Court deems just and proper. AutoZone files this unopposed motion in the interest of preserving judicial and party resources addressing an issue (class certification) that has been rendered moot by virtue of the parties' settlement. The instant motion will not prejudice the Plaintiff or the Court. The Plaintiff filed the motion to certify class on Oct. 27, 2025. While AutoZone was preparing its response in opposition, the parties settled the case through mediation on Nov. 3, 2025. The parties filed a joint notice of settlement on Nov. 4, 2025. As a result of the settlement, AutoZone was not intending to file further substantive briefs while the parties are in the process of executing a formal settlement agreement as is typical in such circumstances. AutoZone is an American retailer and distributor of automotive parts and accessories. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wsRFli at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Samuel L. Felker, Esq. Desislava K. Docheva, Esq. BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC 200 East Broward Blvd., Suite 2000 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 768-1600 E-mail: samfelker@bakerdonelson.com ddocheva@bakerdonelson.com AVEN FINANCIAL: Court Narrows Claims in Marino Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARIANNA MARINO, v. AVEN FINANCIAL, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00503-BAS-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cynthia Bashant entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Court also grants the Plaintiff leave to amend her claims for actual damages under 15 U.S.C. section 1681o(a)(2) and under Cal. Civ. Code section 1785.31(a)(3), for statutory damages under Cal. Civ. Code section 1785.31(a)(2), and for injunctive relief under Cal. Civ. Code section 1785.31(b). The Plaintiff may file an amended complaint on or before Nov. 26, 2025. More specifically, the Court denies Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1); and Plaintiff’s claims for statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. section 1681n(a)(1)(A), pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The Plaintiff alleges causes of action for: (1) Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et. seq, (FCRA), and (2) Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (CCRAA). Aven operates as a financial technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zS31Au at no extra charge.[CC] BAKESTREET INC: Valencia Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------- JUSTIN VALENCIA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BAKESTREET, INC., Defendant, Case No. 25-9000 (S.D.N.Y., October 30, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most recently on May 8, 2025, to access Defendant's Website from his home but encountered barriers that denied his full and equal access to Defendant's online content and services. Specifically, due to Defendant's failure to build the Website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the Website, and was thus denied the benefit of purchasing a dessert item, specifically "Chocolate Covered Strawberry – 6 Pack", says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Bakestreet, Inc. operates the website that presents itself as a long-established pastry shop offering a wide variety of handmade cakes, pastries, and specialty sweets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steainsakslegal.com BANDIT RUNNING: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Jones Says --------------------------------------------------------------- CLAY LEE JONES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BANDIT RUNNING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 25-8996 (S.D.N.Y., October 30, 2025) is a civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website www.banditrunning.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was injured when Plaintiff attempted multiple times, most recently on June 7, 2025, to access Defendant's Website from Plaintiff's home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. Due to Defendant's failure to build the Website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the Website, and was thus denied the benefit of purchasing a Classic Cotton Tee Abstract Water in white, that Plaintiff wished to acquire from the Website, says the suit. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Clay Lee Jones is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Bandit Running, Inc. operates the website that showcases Banditrunning.com as a destination for performance-driven apparel that does not compromise on style.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steainsakslegal.com BEE SWEET: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Amaro Suit Due Nov. 21 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Amaro, et al., v. Bee Sweet Citrus, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00382 (E.D. Cal., Filed March 11, 2021), the Hon. Judge Jennifer L. Thurston entered an order that Plaintiffs' deadline to file the motion for class certification be continued to Nov. 21, 2025. On Oct. 30, 2025, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation to Continue Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification Deadline which requests a continuance of the current Oct. 31, 2025, deadline for filing Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The parties have reached a global settlement and require additional time to finalize the long form settlement agreement and collect signatures. The nature of suit states Agricultural Acts and Farmworker Rights. Bee is a grower, packer and shipper of premium California citrus.[CC] BIOGEN INC: Shash Seeks to File Reply Under Seal ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as NADIA SHASH and AMJAD KHAN, Indivudally and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. BIOGEN INC., MICHEL VOUNATSOS, ALFRED W. SANDROCK, JR., and SAMANTHA BUDD HAEBERLEIN, Case No. 1:21-cv-10479-IT (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting unopposed motion to file under seal reply in further support of motion for class certification and exhibits. The exhibits at issue are Exhibits 7, 8, 11, 15, 20, and 24. They are documents produced by the Defendants to the Plaintiffs which have been designated as Confidential by the Defendants. The redacted portions of the brief refer to these documents. Absent consent of the designating party or a contrary Order from this Court, Section XII.3 of the Protective Order requires a party seeking to file documents designated Confidential by an opposing party to make a good-faith effort to have the documents filed under seal, rather than on the public record. Biogen is an American multinational biotechnology company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZwigQW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan Horne, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. Brian B. Alexander, Esq. Joshua Baker, Esq. Sara Fuks, Esq. ROSEN LAW FIRM 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 100016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com jhorne@rosenlegal.com balexander@rosenlegal.com jbaker@rosenlegal.com sfuks@rosenlegal.com BROTHERS GUITAR: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Jones Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- CLAY LEE JONES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BROTHERS GUITAR SHOP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 25-8992 (S.D.N.Y., October 30, 2025) is a civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website www.brosguitars.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was injured when Plaintiff attempted multiple times, most recently on May 31, 2025, to access Defendant's Website from Plaintiff's home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. Due to Defendant's failure to build the Website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the Website, and was thus denied the benefit of purchasing an electric guitar that Plaintiff wished to acquire from the Website. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Clay Lee Jones is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Brothers Guitar Shop, LLC operates the website that presents brosguitars.com as a specialized platform for high-end and vintage guitars, offering electric, acoustic, and bass models alongside expert advice and curated inventory.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steainsakslegal.com CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY: Class Cert Hearing Reset to Dec. 18 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fisk, et al., v. Board of Trustees of the California State University, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00173 (S.D. Cal., Filed Feb. 7, 2022), the Hon. Judge Todd W. Robinson entered an order resetting the hearing for the Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Joint Motion for Class Certification for Dec 18, 2025. The nature of suit states Title IX Educational Amendments 1992 -- Sex Discrimination. CSU is a public university system in California, comprising 23 campuses that serve over 461,000 students.[CC] CLARIENCE TECHNOLOGIES: Class Cert Bid Filing Due June 5, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN FERRY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. CLARIENCE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, and SAFE FLEET HOLDINGS, LLC Case No. 4:25-cv-00593-RK (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Roseann A. Ketchmark entered a scheduling and trial order: Joinder of Parties: Nov. 14, 2025 Completion of discovery (on class July 24, 2026 certification issues): The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification June 5, 2026 and class certification expert reports: The Defendant's response to motion for class July 24, 2026 certification and rebuttal class certification expert reports: The Plaintiff’s reply in support of motion for Aug. 28, 2026 class certification: Clarience is a provider of visibility and safety technology solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wP7rnG at no extra charge.[CC] COHEN'S FASHION: Faces Hall Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info --------------------------------------------------------------- MALCOM HALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COHEN'S FASHION OPTICAL OF AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-06147 (E.D.N.Y., November 4, 2025) is a class action arising out of the recent data breach involving Defendant that, upon information and belief, compromised Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information and protected health information. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class Members were required to entrust Defendant with sensitive, non-public private information as a condition of obtaining products or services from Defendant, which Defendant retains for years. On October 28, 2025, an unauthorized third party gained access to Defendant's inadequately secured systems and obtained files containing Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information. In breaching its duties to properly safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information and give them timely, adequate notice of the data breach's occurrence, Defendant's conduct amounts to negligence and/or recklessness and violates federal and state statutes, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy harms caused by the Defendant and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of himself, and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the data breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices. Cohen's Fashion Optical of America, Inc. is a retailer in the United States, providing eyeglasses and eye exam services to customers with over 100 locations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Courtney Maccarone, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: maccarone@kolawyers.com - and - Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 65 Overhill Rd Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: Grunfeld@kolawyers.com COMAL COUNTY, TX: Denies Inmates Adequate Medical Care, Harley Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- CHIREE HARLEY, on behalf of herself and as mother and next friend of M.M.M., Deceased, Plaintiff and v. COMAL COUNTY, TEXAS, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-01426 (W.D. Tex., November 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and The Rehabilitation Act. Plaintiff Harley alleges that while detained at Comal County Jail, she was denied adequate medical care relating to her pregnancy and that this denial and the constitutional deprivations arising from the same resulted in birth complications and the death of her son, M.M.M., who died November 4, 2023. The Plaintiff contends that Comal County has a pattern and practice of causing unconstitutional deprivation, denial of adequate medical care, and harm to similarly situated inmates. She further asserts that Defendant's conditions of confinement resulted in systemic policies, customs, and practices resulting in constitutional deprivation and harm. Comal County is the government entity responsible for the Comal County Sheriff's Office. Comal County is located in the Western District of Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Taylor M. Hunter, Esq. HUNTER LAW CORPORATION, PC 4131 North Central Expressway, Suite 900 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (214) 206-1200 Facsimile: (214) 206-1220 E-mail: taylor@thehunterlaw.com COSTCO WHOLESALE: Class Cert. Filing Extended to Jan. 22, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lock et al v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-07904 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 23, 2023), the Hon. Judge Sanket J. Bulsara entered an order on motion for extension of time to complete discovery: The time to complete class certification discovery is extended to Dec. 11, 2025. The time for Plaintiffs to initiate their class certification motion is extended to Jan. 22, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Costco engages in the operation of membership warehouses.[CC] CRYSTAL PROPERTY: Le Sues Over Inaccessible Commercial Property --------------------------------------------------------------- HOANG MINH LE, an individual, Plaintiff v. CRYSTAL PROPERTY, L.P., a limited partnership, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-02941 (C.D. Cal., November 4, 2025) is a class action seeking damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act and related California statutes against Defendant. This is a civil rights action by Plaintiff Hoang Minh Le, on behalf of similarly situated persons with disabilities, for alleged discrimination at the building, structure, facility, complex, property, land, development, and/or the entire parking lot surrounding the shopping plaza in Rowland Heights, California. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff visited the Property and encountered barriers (both physical and intangible) that interfered with Plaintiff's ability to use and enjoy the goods, services, privileges and accommodations offered at the facility. To the extent known by Plaintiff, the barriers at the Property included slopes in access aisle and/or accessible parking spaces, ramps protruding onto the access aisle, as well as inaccessible parking spaces and accompanying access aisles. The Plaintiff is a T-12 paraplegic, and as a result is unable to walk or stand, and thus requires a use of a wheelchair at all times when traveling in public. Crystal Property, L.P. is a real estate company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Pamela Tsao, Esq. ASCENSION LAW GROUP 12341 Newport Ave Suite B200 Santa Ana, CA 92705 Telephone: (714) 783-4220 Facsimile: (888) 505-1033 E-mail: Pamela.Tsao@ascensionlawgroup.com DELAWARE NORTH COMPANIES: Grady Sues to Recover Unpaid Tips ----------------------------------------------------------- Steven Grady, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DELAWARE NORTH COMPANIES SPORTSERVICE, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-01640 (E.D. Mo., Nov. 4, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to recover unpaid tips and statutory damages under the Missouri Minimum Wage Law ("MMWL"). Across approximately 100 concession stands, Delaware North requires that cashiers employed by Delaware North retain all customer tips, while the vendor employees who earn those tips receive none. The Plaintiff and similarly situated vendors were deprived of all tips received from customers in violation of the FLSA and the MMWL. The Plaintiff seeks to recover the value of misappropriated tips, liquidated or treble damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other appropriate relief, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked as a food service vendor at Busch Stadium in St. Louis, Missouri from 2012 until August 10, 2025. Delaware North Companies Sportservice, Inc. manages and controls food-service operations at Busch Stadium in St. Louis, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip E. Oliphant, Esq. THE ROLWES LAW FIRM, LLC 254 Court Avenue, Suite 305 Memphis, TN 38103 Phone:(901.519.9135 Fax: 901.979.2499 Email: poliphant@rolweslaw.com - and - Edward J. Rolwes, Esq. THE ROLWES LAW FIRM, LLC 2333 South Hanley Road, Suite. 104 St. Louis, MO 63144 Phone:(314-806-9626 Fax: 314-472-0900 Email: erolwes@rolweslaw.com EAST OHIO GAS: Amended Bid for Class Certification Tossed --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHANIE ARBLE, et al., v. EAST OHIO GAS COMPANY, dba DOMINION ENERGY OHIO, et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-00747-BYP (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Benita Y. Pearson entered an order denying the Plaintiff's amended motion for class certification. The case will proceed with Stephanie Arble, Cynthia Beckler, and Kristi Grossholz as named Plaintiffs. After reviewing the record, briefings, and relevant caselaw, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have not established a strong likelihood that the putative collective action members are so similarly situated as to warrant Court-supervised notice. Granting this motion would amount to a "solicitation of claims" that is explicitly proscribed by the Supreme Court, thw Court says. The Plaintiffs have failed to provide sufficient evidence of a strong likelihood of similarly situated employees as required under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). Without more, neither Defendants nor the Court can be burdened with Plaintiffs’ responsibilities to name and join parties to this dispute. Notice to employees who are not eligible to join this litigation would amount to claim solicitation that the Court declines to undertake. The Plaintiffs seek a Court order defining their Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") class as: "All current and former hourly employees and those working in call center positions who were required to log on to and boot up the Defendants' systems and applications prior to the start of their shifts that were employed by either Defendant at any time in the period measured from three years prior to the filing of the Complaint to the present who did not receive any compensation for hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek or overtime payment at a rate of one and one-half times their Regular Rate of Pay for all hours worked in a workweek in excess of 40 (hereinafter referred to as "SSPs" or "similarly- situated employees")." The Plaintiff Stephanie Arble filed a purported collective action against Defendants East Ohio Gas Company on April 26, 2024. She alleges that Defendants failed to pay earned wages to her and similarly situated employees in violation of the FLSA. East is an energy company that provides natural gas utility services. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Nov. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fYWslU at no extra charge.[CC] ECHOSTAR CORP: DISH Data Breach Class Suits Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------- 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 the data breach class actions against DISH Network are now dismissed. "On May 9, 2023, Susan Owen-Brooks, an alleged customer, filed a putative class action complaint against our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. She purports to represent a nationwide class of all individuals in the United States who allegedly had private information stolen as a result of the February 23, 2023 Cyber-security Incident (and a North Carolina statewide subclass of the same individuals). Since that filing, ten additional putative class action complaints have been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, purporting to represent the same nationwide class of people, and Owen-Brooks has filed an amended complaint. On August 2, 2023, the Court issued an order consolidating the first ten cases (the eleventh was dismissed) and, on November 16, 2023 and January 16, 2024, the plaintiffs filed consolidated amended class action complaints. On September 27, 2024, the Court granted DISH Network's motion to dismiss the First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint as to eight of the eleven named plaintiffs and as to certain causes of action. "On October 29, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed the operative Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, which deletes the allegations as to the dismissed plaintiffs and causes of action, leaving three named plaintiffs and causes of action for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and declaratory judgment. DISH Network filed for summary judgment on lack of standing, on the grounds that plaintiffs had no evidence that their alleged harms were "fairly traceable" to the Cyber-security incident. "Rather than oppose the motion, the plaintiffs agreed to a walk-away settlement and the case was dismissed on September 10, 2025. This matter is now concluded," the Company stated. EDGIO INCORPORATED: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 13, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mehran Esfandiari, et al., v. Edgio Incorporated, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00691-DJH (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Diane Humetewa entered an order denying the parties' joint stipulation regarding deadlines for class certification motion: -- Discovery regarding class certification, including any necessary depositions, shall be completed by Jan. 30, 2026. -- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be filed by Feb. 13, 2026. -- Briefing deadlines on any response and reply will be governed by the Local Rules. The case was initiated in April of 2023, and discovery has just begun. And while discovery is allowed for class certification purposes here, there is no need to drag out the process and no reason why standard briefing schedules should not apply. Edgio is an edge-enabled software solutions provider. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZKnT00 at no extra charge.[CC] EMPOWERING PEOPLE: Sturgeon Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------------ Christine Sturgeon, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. EMPOWERING PEOPLE MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-02369 (N.D. Ohio, Nov. 4, 2025), is brought challenging wage-and-hour practices of Defendant by which it willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Ohio overtime compensation statute, and Ohio's common law of unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff worked over 40 hours most workweeks during her tenure with the Defendant. The Plaintiff, the Potential Opt-Ins, and the Class Members were classified by the Defendant as salaried-exempt, meaning that they were paid no overtime premium for hours worked over 40 per workweek. As a result, the FLSA and Ohio law required the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff, the Potential Opt-Ins, and the Class Members overtime compensation of at least one and one half times their "regular rate" for all hours worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek. The Defendant knew, or recklessly disregarded, that its LPNs were entitled to overtime compensation under federal and state laws, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was an LPN employed by Defendant at one of its Intermediate Care Facility in North Olmsted, Ohio from February 2022 through April 2025. Empowering People Management, Inc provides Intermediate Care direct care services--meaning a level of care between inpatient and independent living--to individuals with disabilities throughout Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott D. Perlmutter, Esq. Kathleen R. Harris, Esq. TITTLE & PERLMUTER 4106 Bridge Ave. Cleveland, OH 44113 Phone: 216-222-2222 Fax: 888-604-9299 Email: scott@tittlelawfirm.com katie@tittlelawfirm.com ENERGY TRANSFER: Appeal From $179MM Damages Award Remains Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 an appeal from the judgment awarding approximately $104 million in actual damages and $75 million in punitive damages in the Cline Class Action remains pending. On July 7, 2017, Perry Cline filed a class action complaint in the Eastern District of Oklahoma (the "Eastern District Court") against Sunoco, Inc. (R&M), LLC (now known as Energy Transfer R&M) and Energy Transfer Marketing & Terminals L.P. (collectively, "ETMT") that alleged ETMT failed to make timely payments of oil and gas proceeds from Oklahoma wells and to pay statutory interest for those untimely payments. On October 3, 2019, the Eastern District Court certified a class to include all persons who received untimely payments from Oklahoma wells on or after July 7, 2012, and who have not already been paid statutory interest on the untimely payments (the "Class"). Excluded from the Class are those entitled to payments of proceeds that qualify as "minimum pay," prior period adjustments and pass through payments, as well as governmental agencies and publicly traded oil and gas companies. After a bench trial, on August 17, 2020, Judge John Gibney (sitting from the Eastern District of Virginia) issued an opinion that awarded the Class actual damages of $75 million for late payment interest for identified and unidentified royalty owners and interest-on-interest. This amount was later amended to $81 million to account for interest accrued from trial (the "Order"). Judge Gibney also awarded punitive damages in the amount of $75 million. The Class is also seeking attorneys' fees. On August 27, 2020, ETMT filed its Notice of Appeal with the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ("10th Circuit") and appealed the entirety of the Order. The matter was fully briefed, and oral argument was set for November 15, 2021. However, on November 1, 2021, the 10th Circuit dismissed the appeal due to jurisdictional concerns with finality of the Order. En banc rehearing of this decision was denied on November 29, 2021. On December 1, 2021, ETMT filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the 10th Circuit to correct the jurisdictional problems and secure final judgment. On February 2, 2022, the 10th Circuit denied the Petition for Writ of Mandamus, citing that there are other avenues for ETMT to obtain adequate relief. On February 10, 2022, ETMT filed a Motion to Modify the Plan of Allocation Order and Issue a Rule 58 Judgment with the trial court, requesting the Eastern District Court to enter a final judgment in compliance with the Rules. ETMT also filed an injunction with the trial court to enjoin all efforts by plaintiffs to execute on any non-final judgment. On March 31, 2022, Judge Gibney denied the Motion to Modify the Plan of Allocation, reiterating his thoughts that the order constitutes a final judgment. Judge Gibney granted the injunction in part (placing a hold on enforcement efforts for 60 days) and denied the injunction in part. The injunction has since been lifted. Despite the fact that ETMT has taken the position that the judgment is not final and not subject to execution, the Class engaged in asset discovery and actively tried to collect on the judgment through garnishment proceedings from ETMT's customers. ETMT unsuccessfully tried to deposit the funds into the Eastern District Court's Registry. Accordingly, to stop the garnishment proceedings, on December 2, 2022, ETMT wired approximately $161 million to the Plaintiff's approved Plan Administrator, which represented at the time the full amount of the judgment with attorneys' fees and post-judgment interest. ETMT did so without waiving its ability to pursue its pending appeal or its right to appeal the merits of the judgment. Plaintiff has since dismissed the garnishment actions. ETMT appealed the denial of the Motion to Modify to the 10th Circuit in an attempt to get a decision on finality. The appeal was fully briefed, and oral argument was held on March 21, 2023. On August 3, 2023, the 10th Circuit ruled in favor of ETMT and found that the Eastern District Court's plan of allocation (which was part of the final judgment) did not satisfy all finality requirements. The 10th Circuit held that the Eastern District Court abused its discretion in denying ETMT's Rule 60(b)(6) Motion to Modify and reversed and remanded for further proceedings. The case was sent back to the trial court so that the Eastern District Court could fix the finality requirements with the judgment. Further, ETMT sought and recovered a return of funds deposited with the Plan Administrator; Class Counsel did not oppose this motion. At a status hearing on September 28, 2023, Class Counsel indicated that it would seek additional interest up until the date that the final judgment is entered. The Eastern District Court asked for briefing on the issue of additional interest and held a hearing on October 17, 2023 to address this issue further and enter a ruling as to whether additional interest should be added to the judgment total. During the hearing, the Eastern District Court ruled that additional interest should be awarded at the 12% statutory rate from the date of the prior improper judgment up until October 17, 2023. However, the Judge tolled the running of interest for the time period during which the Plan Administrator was in possession of ETMT's funds (between November 2, 2022 and October 10, 2023). Based on this ruling, the Class calculated that approximately $23 million in additional interest should be added to the final judgment. On October 19, 2023, the Eastern District Court entered the new final judgment with a corrected Plan of Allocation. Both parties agree that this newly entered judgment fixes the finality concerns and will allow an appeal to the 10th Circuit on the merits. With the inclusion of additional interest, the total amount awarded to the Class is approximately $104 million in actual damages and $75 million in punitive damages. ETMT has appealed the entirety of the judgment to the 10th Circuit. Oral argument took place on November 20, 2024 and the parties are awaiting a decision. ETMT cannot predict the outcome of the case, nor can ETMT predict the amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve the appeal. EPOCH EVERLASTING: Jones Can File Class Cert Bid Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Williene Jackson-Jones et al., v. Epoch Everlasting Play, LLC et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-02567-ODW-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright, II entered an order granting the Plaintiff's application to file under seal portions of her renewed motion for class certification and supporting exhibit, as well as the supporting declarations. 1. Unredacted portions of the Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification; and 2. Pages 121–122 of Exhibit 13 to the Wade declaration, containing limited deposition testimony designated "Highly Confidential – Attorneys' Eyes Only." The Plaintiff shall comply with Local Rule 79-5.2.2 and file the above documents within three court days. The Clerk will not convert the proposed sealed document submitted with the application into a new filing. Epoch offers items including games, infant toys, preschool toys, dolls, educational toys, and activity toys. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uCcdS6 at no extra charge.[CC] EVO BRANDS: Amiel Bid for Class Certification Tossed ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAYLEY AMIEL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. EVO BRANDS, LLC d/b/a PUFF BAR, and PVG2, LLC, d/b/a Puff Bar, Case No. 7:24-cv-07327-PMH (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Philip Halpern entered an order as follows: -- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied and Plaintiff's motion for default judgment as to Plaintiff individually, on liability only, is granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, default judgment is: -- Granted as to Plaintiff's First and Second Claims for Relief (Violations of GBL sections 349, 350). -- Granted as to Plaintiff's Third Claim for Relief (violations of "State Consumer Protection Statutes") to the extent pled under New Jersey's respective consumer protection statute, but otherwise denied; and -- Granted as to Plaintiff's Fourth Claim for Relief (Implied Warranty of Merchantability), only as to Plaintiff's purchases of Defendants' Products in New Jersey, but otherwise denied. The Plaintiff seeks certification of the following nationwide class: "all consumers who purchased disposable electronic cigarettes containing nicotine, sold under the brand name of Puff Bar [the 'Products'], within the United States between 2019 and 2024." The Plaintiff may also be seeking to certify a New York Subclass, defined as "All persons who purchased the Products . . . in New York during the Class Period." Hayley Amiel commenced the instant putative class action, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, on September 27, 2024. The Plaintiff presses four claims against EVO Brands, LLC and PVG2, LLC, all stemming from Plaintiff's alleged purchases of Defendants' electronic cigarettes, identified as "Puff Bars." Puff is a company specialized in the production of high-quality vape products. A copy of the Court's opinion & order dated Nov. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bzzKt8 at no extra charge.[CC] EXACT CARE: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Jan. 19, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------- 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 Hon. Judge Michael Baylson entered an order granting unopposed motion for extension of time to file motion for class certification. The deadline to do so is extended to Jan. 19, 2026, with a response due Feb. 12, 2026, and a reply due by Feb. 19, 2026. Although the Court does not agree with the Plaintiff that discovery is always necessary before ruling on a motion for class certification, the Court will grant the Motion as unopposed but does not welcome further request for extensions. ExactCare is a national medication management and pharmacy care provider. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=k6Jx9S at no extra charge.[CC] EZ ADVOCATES: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid Response ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BYRON BUSH, v. EZ ADVOCATES, LLC and RAHAMAN KARGAR, Case No. 8:25-cv-01375-KKM-TGW (M.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting a 14-day extension of time to respond to the Plaintiff's pre-discovery motion for conditional collective certification and court-authorized notice to potential opt-in Plaintiffs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) and memorandum of law in support of the Plaintiff's pre discovery motion for conditional collective certification and court authorized notice to potential Opt-In Plaintiffs Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). On October 17, 2025, Plaintiff filed his Motion for Conditional Collective Certification and supporting Memorandum of Law. Defendants' response is due today, October 31, 2025. Due to other professional obligations, the Defendants' counsel requires a brief extension of time to prepare and submit Defendants' response opposing conditional collective certification. EZ is a full-service Developers Partnership cancellation company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cGT8QB at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Steven G. Wenzel, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: swenzel@wfclaw.com rcooke@wfclaw.com FIVE9 INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Five9, 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 of its motion to dismiss the amended complaint filed in the putative securities class action. On December 4, 2024, a purported holder of the Company's securities filed a putative class action complaint against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, and its then-current Chief Financial Officer in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, based on alleged false and/or misleading statements or omissions regarding the Company and its business and seeking unspecified damages on behalf of all persons and entities (subject to specified exceptions) that purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities, including call options, from June 4, 2024, through the close of trading on August 8, 2024. On February 3, 2025, Lucid Alternative Fund, LP moved to be appointed lead plaintiff of this action pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. On March 18, 2025, the court appointed Lucid Alternative Fund, LP as lead plaintiff and approved lead plaintiff's selection of lead counsel. Per the court's subsequent order on March 27, 2025, Lucid Alternative Fund, LP filed an amended complaint on May 30, 2025. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July 29, 2025. The Company cannot predict the duration or outcome of this lawsuit at this time. As a result, the Company is unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible losses arising from this lawsuit. The Company intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit. FLORIDA POWER: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Florida Power & Light Co. 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 continue to defend itself from a securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. XPLR, NEE and certain NEE executives who also serve or served as directors or officers of XPLR are the named defendants in a purported federal securities class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in July 2025 that seeks unspecified damages alleging that the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding XPLR's business model, XPLR distributions, and its arrangements relating to noncontrolling Class B members' interests under certain limited liability company agreements to which XPLR and certain of its subsidiaries are or were a party. The alleged class includes all persons or entities other than the defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired XPLR securities between September 27, 2023 and January 27, 2025. The defendants are vigorously defending against the claims in this proceeding. Florida Power & Light Company is the largest power utility in Florida. It is a Juno Beach, Florida-based power utility company serving roughly 5 million customers and 11 million people in Florida. FORD MOTOR: Parties Seek to File Class Docs Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DROESSER, et al., v. FORD MOTOR CO., Case No. 2:19-cv-12365-LJM-APP (E.D. Mich.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order authorizing the Plaintiffs to file certain materials under seal in connection with the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel. The parties request that this Court enter a text-only order authorizing the Plaintiffs to file the above-listed documents in partially redacted form in connection with the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel. The materials at issue were designated as "Confidential" by the Defendant and third-party pump supplier Bosch, and were produced pursuant to the Protective Order entered in both this case and the Protective Order entered in the related case of Stevens, et al. v. Ford Motor Co., Case No. 2:18-cv-00456 (S.D. Tex.) By Nov. 10, 2025, Ford will file a response to this Motion with appropriate support to justify maintaining the documents under seal if Ford determines that these materials should remain fully or partially under seal or giving notice that the materials do not need to be maintained under seal. Ford is an American multinational automobile manufacturer. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yNGHlK 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 The Defendant is represented by: Perry W. Miles, IV, Esq. Brian D. Schmalzbach, Esq. W. Cole Geddy, Esq. MCQUIREWOODS LLP 800 East Canal Street Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 775-1000 E-mail: pmiles@mcguirewoods.com bschmalzbach@mcguirewoods.com cgeddy@mcguirewoods.com - and - Derek J. Linkous, Esq. Stephanie A. Douglas, Esq. BUSH SEYFERTH PLLC 100 W. Big Beaver Rd., Ste. 400 Troy, MI 48084 Telephone: (248) 822-7800 E-mail: douglas@bsplaw.com linkous@bsplaw.com GEICO: SCI Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE CHING INSURANCE, INC., et al., v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY (GEICO), et al., Case No. 8:23-cv-03033-PX (D. Md.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting them leave to file under seal their unredacted motion for class certification and accompanying exhibits. The Plaintiff requests that the Court enter an Order granting Plaintiff leave to file their unredacted Motion and Exhibits designated Confidential under seal consistent with the Protective Order and granting any further relief the Court deems proper and just. The Plaintiff's motion and Exhibits include information that has been designated Confidential by the Defendants under the stipulated order regarding confidentiality. Alternatives to sealing are not available because revealing the information contained in Plaintiff's Motion would result in a disclosure of information designated Confidential by Defendants under the Protective Order. In seeking to file under seal, Plaintiffs do not concede that the Defendants' designations are appropriate and reserve all rights to contest the Defendants' designations. 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=fcjUe6 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 DYNAMICS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due April 10, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VERONICA B. LOPEZ, et al., v. GENERAL DYNAMICS INFO. TECH., INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-01743-BAS-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Butcher entered a scheduling order regulating discovery and class certification motion filing deadline. 1. Counsel shall refer to the Standing Order for Civil Cases for the Honorable Cynthia Bashant, which is accessible via the Court's website at www.casd.uscourts.gov. 2. Any motion to join other parties, to amend the pleadings, or to file additional pleadings shall be filed by Jan. 16, 2026. 3. A telephonic Status Conference will be held on Jan. 16, 2026 at 10:30 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Butcher. 4. Merit and class discovery are not bifurcated; however, all discovery for Plaintiff’s motion for class certification must be completed on or before March 13, 2026. 5. A motion for class certification must be filed no later than April 10, 2026. General is a global IT services provider. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tko3pr at no extra charge.[CC] GENERAL MOTORS: Hermanowicz Sues Over Undisclosed Engine Defect --------------------------------------------------------------- RONALD S. HERMANOWICZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-13440-LVP-CI (E.D. Mich., October 28, 2025) is a class action complaint against the Defendant for its unfair, unconscionable, and deceptive practices in the conduct of trade and commerce in violation of, among other things, the Michigan Consumer Protection Act. The complaint relates that in 2018, Defendant GM introduced the L87 Engine which was designed to optimize fuel efficiency and featured industry-first cylinder deactivation technology. Despite GM's claims of the engine's advanced technology and efficiency, the L87 Engine was found to contain a dangerous and potentially fatal manufacturing defect wherein rod-bearing damage from sediment on connecting rods and crankshaft-oil galleries combined with out-of-specification crankshaft dimensions and surface finish could lead to engine damage, engine failure, loss of propulsion, and vehicle crashes or collisions. GM sold an estimated 597,630 vehicles with this Defect. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff purchased a new 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 in Joliet, Illinois on June 4, 2024. Prior to his purchase of the Class Vehicle, Plaintiff did not know, nor could have known through reasonable diligence, of the Defect in his Vehicle. On March 22, 2025, the Plaintiff heard a loud ticking noise emanating from his Sierra's L87 Engine, and the vehicle stopped running. Plaintiff had his Sierra towed back to the GMC dealership, where the service technicians identified the problem as spun rod bearings. The service technicians noted that "Rod bearings had spun damaging the rods and crankshaft and putting metal throughout the engine" requiring the engine, radiator, and oil cooler lines to be replaced. Plaintiff had to wait three weeks until April 12, 2025, before the repairs could be completed. GM knew about the L87 Engine Defect and failed to disclose it, alleges the complaint. Defendant must pay restitution to Plaintiff and Class Members for its unjust enrichment. Moreover, despite its knowledge, GM continued to market the Class Vehicles as safe and reliable and did not disclose the Defect to consumers, the complaint adds. Against this backdrop, the Plaintiff and Class members seek all monetary and non-monetary relief allowed by law, including restitution, declaratory relief, and any other relief that is just and proper. Plaintiff Ronald S. Hermanowicz is a resident and citizen of the State of Illinois. General Motors, LLC was founded in 1908 and has become one of the largest automobile manufacturers in the United States, selling vehicles under several brands, including Chevrolet, GMC, Cadillac, and Buick.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David P. Meyer, Esq. MEYER WILSON WERNING CO., LPA 41000 Woodward Ave #350 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Telephone: (614) 224-6000 Facsimile: (614) 224-6066 E-mail: dmeyer@meyerwilson.com - and - Laurence D. King, Esq. Matthew B. George, Esq. Blair E. Reed, Esq. Walter B. Howe, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1501 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: 415-772-4700 Facsimile: 415-772-4707 E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com mgeorge@kaplanfox.com breed@kaplanfox.com whowe@kaplanfox.com GIORGIO ARMANI: Ahumada Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACQUELINE AHUMADA, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, and as an aggrieved employee pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), 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 Plaintiff, on Dec. 8, 2025, will move pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for an Order certifying a class action against the Defendant. Pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3), the Plaintiff requests the Court: A. Certify the following Classes and Subclasses: 1. Off-the-Clock Class: "All non-exempt, hourly employees who work or worked for the Defendant in California (excluding its Armani Casa and Armani Cafe locations) at any time between May 31, 2020, and the date of the order granting class certification." 2. Meal Break Class: "All non-exempt, hourly employees who work or worked for the Defendant in California (excluding its Armani Casa and Armani Cafe locations) at any time between May 31, 2020, and the date of the order granting class certification, who worked at least one shift of six hours or more." 3. Derivative Wage Statement Subclass: "All members of the Off-the Clock and Meal Break Classes who received at least one wage statement at any time between May 31, 2023, and the date of the order granting class certification." 4. Derivative Waiting Time Subclass: "All members of the Off-the-Clock and Meal Break Classes who work or worked for the Defendant at any time between May 31, 2021, and the date of the order granting class certification, and whose employment has since ended." 5. Business Expense Class: "All non-exempt, hourly employees who work or worked for the Defendant in California (excluding its Armani Casa and Armani Cafe locations) at any time between May 31, 2020 and the date of the order granting class certification." 6. Derivative UCL Subclass: "All members of the foregoing Classes and/or any of the foregoing Subclasses." B. Appoint Plaintiff Jacqueline Ahumada as representative of the proposed Classes and Subclasses. C. Appoint Capstone Law APC as Class Counsel for the proposed Classes and Subclasses. D. Authorize Notice to Class Members pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c). Giorgio designs, manufactures, distributes and retails fashion and lifestyle products. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=s2iQgM at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Grant, Esq. Roxanna Tabatabaeepour, Esq. Ryan Tish, Esq. Alexander Wallin, Esq. Capstone Law APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1860 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Melissa.Grant@capstonelawyers.com Roxanna.Taba@capstonelawyers.com Ryan.Tish@capstonelawyers.com Alexander.Wallin@capstonelawyers.com HI-TECH PHARMACEUTICALS: Must File Complaint Response by Dec. 29 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON MCCOOL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HI-TECH PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-05668-SEG (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Sarah E. Geraghty entered an order as follows: The Defendant shall respond to the Plaintiff's complaint on or before Dec. 29, 2025. If the Defendant's response to the Plaintiff's complaint is a motion to dismiss, the Plaintiff shall respond to the Defendant's motion to dismiss on or before Feb. 12, 2026, and the Defendant shall reply to the Plaintiff's response on or before Feb. 26, 2026. The deadline for the Plaintiff to seek class certification is stayed pending resolution of any motion to dismiss filed by Defendant and will be reset if and when a discovery schedule is entered. sHi-tech manufactures and sells herbal products. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=k5SeM6 at no extra charge.[CC] HKB HOTEL: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Jones Says ---------------------------------------------------- Leonard Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HKB Hotel Group, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-13440-LVP-CI (E.D. Mich., October 28, 2025) is a class and collective action against the Defendant for failure to pay Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees all earned overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, Ohio Prompt Pay Act, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff was employed by HKB Hotel Group as a shuttle driver at its Crowne Plaza Hotel located at 7230 Engle Road, Middleburg Heights, Ohio 44130 from October 1, 2017 through October 1, 2025. The Plaintiff, the Class and Collective Members were compensated on an hourly basis. In his work for the Defendant, the Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of 40 hours in a given workweek. Pursuant to HKB Hotel Group's Meal Break Policy, it automatically deducts a 30-minute meal break for each and every shift worked by Plaintiff, the Collective Members and the Class Members whether they were permitted to take a full 30-minute meal break, and regardless of whether they were completely relieved from duty for 30-minutes. HKB Hotel Group also routinely edits the time records of Plaintiff, the Collective Members and the Class Members so that they are paid for no more than 40 straight-time hours. Additionally, HKB Hotel Group has engaged in a consistent, widespread and illegal practice of time clock manipulation or "time shaving," alleges the complaint. As a result of HKB Hotel Group's company-wide policies, the Plaintiff, Class and Collective Members were not paid for all time worked each day and are owed significant unpaid wages, says the suit. Plaintiff Leonard Jones was an employee of HKB Hotel Group. HKB Hotel Group owns and operates 36 hotel properties across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Simon, Esq. SIMON LAW CO. 11 1/2 N. Franklin Street Chagrin Falls, OH Telephone: (216) 816-8696 E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com HUEL INC: Gouldbourne Sues Over Protein Powder's Lead Content ------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Gouldbourne, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HUEL INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08921-MMG (S.D.N.Y., October 28, 2025) is a class action that seeks to remedy the deceptive and misleading business practices of the Defendant with respect to the manufacturing, marketing, and sale of its Huel Blak Edition protein powder products throughout the state of New York and throughout the country. According to the complaint, the Defendant specifically lists the ingredients in the Products on the labeling; however, Defendant fails to disclose that the Products contain, or are at the risk of containing, lead which is a powerful neurotoxin. Lead consumption has been shown to reduce intelligence, and to increase the risk of mental illness, dementia, hypertension, arrhythmia, and breast cancer. More specifically, Plaintiff purchased the Products numerous times throughout the class period from Amazon and other locations, including purchasing the Huel Black Edition Protein Powder Meal Replacement Shake Vanilla for an approximate retail price of $59.50. Among the purchased products were reported about in the New York Times and subject of the Consumer Reports study on October 24, 2025. Consumers like the Plaintiff trust manufacturers such as Defendant to sell products that are safe and free from harmful known substances, including lead. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated certainly expect that the food products they purchase will not contain, or risk containing, any knowingly harmful substances that cause disease. Unfortunately for consumers, like Plaintiff, the food Products they purchased contained, or were at risk of containing, lead, alleges the complaint. In addition, the Plaintiff and Class Members paid a price premium for the Products based upon Defendant's marketing and advertising campaign including its false and misleading representations and omission on the Products' labels. Given that Plaintiff and Class Members paid a premium for the Products, Plaintiff and Class Members suffered an injury in the amount of the premium paid, says the suit. Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Bronx County, New York. Huel Inc. is a food products manufacturer in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com IFTIKAR AHMED: Receiver Seeks to Sell 530 Park Avenue for $7M ------------------------------------------------------------- Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2001, Stephen M. Kindseth, Esq., solely in his capacity as court-appointed receiver in SEC v. Ahmed, 3:15-cv-00675-VDO (D. Conn.), and not individually, will conduct a private sale of the real property located at 530 Park Avenue, #12A, New York, 10065 to The 530 Park 12F Trust, Christopher Lacaria, Trustee, for $7,000,000. The sale is subject to approval by the U.S. District Court. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2001(b), bona fide offers that exceed the sale price by 10% must be submitted to the Receiver. All offers or inquiries regarding the property or its sale should be made to the Receiver at 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor, Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604, tel: (203) 368-4234, email: info@zeislaw.com IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Glazing Union Seeks to Certify Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GLAZING EMPLOYERS AND GLAZIERS' UNION LOCAL #27 Pension And Retirement Fund, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES, INC. et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00706-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Feb. 26, 2026, will move the Court for an order: Certifying the case as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23; Appointing Oklahoma Firefighters as Class Representative; and Approving Lead Plaintiff's selection of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP ("BLBG") as Class Counsel. The Lead Plaintiff alleges claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of itself and all other persons or entities who purchased the common stock of iRhythm during the period from July 25, 2022, to Aug. 9, 2024, inclusive. The Defendant is a medical device company that develops and manufactures heart monitoring devices designed to diagnose abnormalities in the timing or pattern of a patient’s heartbeat, known as arrhythmias. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6AcCGD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Katherine M. Sinderson, Esq. John J. Rizio-hamilton, Esq. Thomas Z. Sperber, Esq. Abby Kritta, Esq. Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 Facsimile: (212) 554-1444 E-mail: johnr@blbglaw.com katiem@blbglaw.com thomas.sperber@blbglaw.com abygail.kritta@blbglaw.com jonathanu@blbglaw.com LEVAIN BAKERY: Douglass Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ BLAIR DOUGLASS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEVAIN BAKERY COOKIE COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01722 (W.D. Pa., November 4, 2025) arises from the Defendant's inaccessible commercial website https://levainbakery.com to Plaintiff and other blind individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. From its physical facilities, the Defendant makes various goods, like cookies, and services, like customer service, return processing, and technical support, available to consumers in Pennsylvania and across the country. Consumers may remotely access the goods and services at Defendant's physical facilities by phone and email, or through the Internet at Defendant's website. Plaintiff Douglass uses screen reader auxiliary aids to remotely access the goods and services available at Defendant's physical facilities through the Website. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant failed to effectively make its Website sufficiently compatible with screen reader auxiliary aids, and thereby denied Plaintiff full and equal access to the goods and services available at Defendant's physical facilities. Levain Bakery Cookie Company owns, leases, and/or operates physical facilities, including corporate offices, manufacturing facilities, shipping and distribution centers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin W. Tucker, Esq. Kevin Abramowicz, Esq. Chandler Steiger, Esq. Stephanie Moore, Esq. Kayla Conahan, Esq. Jessica Liu, Esq. EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC 6901 Lynn Way, Suite 503 Pittsburgh, PA 15208 Telephone: (412) 877-5220 Facsimile: (412) 626-7101 E-mail: ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com csteiger@eastendtrialgroup.com smoore@eastendtrialgroup.com kconahan@eastendtrialgroup.com jliu@eastendtrialgroup.com LOAN STORE: Furman Seeks Conditional Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Katherine Furman, an Arizona Resident, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated; v. The Loan Store AZ, Inc. (FN), a Delaware corporation; and The Loan Store, Inc., A Delaware corporation, Case No. 4:25-cv-00554-AMM (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for conditional certification. the Court should grant Plaintiff’s Motion and provide the following relief to Plaintiff: (1) Conditionally certify a collective action pursuant to section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") consisting of: "All employees who work[ed] for Defendant The Loan Store AZ, Inc. (FN) and The Loan Store, Inc. and/or a related entity; within the last three years; who work[ed] over 40 hours in any given workweek as a past or present account specialist, partner support specialist, funder, closer, and/or doc drawer (or similar job title and/or similar job duties and responsibilities) are known as (the "Collective Members")"; and (2) Authorize the Opt-In procedure outlined above. These Collective Members were not paid overtime at the correct overtime rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a given workweek and/or worked off the clock hours that they did not receive overtime compensation for. The Defendants instituted a company-wide practice to deprive Plaintiff and other similar employees of their full overtime wages by not providing an adjusted overtime rate to include bonuses and not paying for off-the-clock overtime pay for hours worked over 40 hours in a given workweek. Plaintiff has submitted sufficient evidence to meet this lenient threshold for conditional certification; therefore, the Court should grant Plaintiff’s motion. Furman was a full-time employee who worked for Defendant and was titled as an Account Specialist and partner support specialist from on or around May 28, 2024, until on or around August 15, 2025. Loan is a mortgage lending company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Nj1xom at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Weiler, Esq. Jason Barrat, Esq. WEILER LAW PLLC 5050 N.40th St., Suite 260 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Telephone: (480) 442-3410 Facsimile: (480) 442-3410 E-mail: jweiler@weilerlaw.com jbarrat@weilerlaw.com www.weilerlaw.com LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Seeks Reconsideration of Class Cert. Order ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY KEARNS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LOANDEPOT.COM, LLC, Case No. 8:22-cv-01217-JWH-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Defendant, on Dec. 5, 2025, will move the Court for reconsideration of the Court's order granting class certification pursuant to Local Rule 7-18. The Plaintiff Jeffrey Kearns's counsel indicated that he would oppose the motion. On Jan. 26, 2024, the Plaintiff moved to certify a class consisting of: "All persons in the United States whose cellular telephone number appears in "Exhibit A" of the Defendant's Court Ordered Supplemental Discovery Responses and who was called by the Defendant utilizing a prerecorded message on the date reflected in "Exhibit A"." On October 20, 2025, the Court certified a class definition that was modified sua sponte to include: "All persons in the United States (1) whose cellular telephone number appears in "Exhibit A" to the Defendant's Court Ordered Supplemental Discovery Responses; (2) whose telephone number the Defendant obtained solely via the www.lendingtree.com website; and (3) who received a call from Defendant utilizing a prerecorded message on the date reflected in "Exhibit A" and did not return that call." LoanDepot is nonbank holding company which sells mortgage and non-mortgage lending products. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0T8Kto at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Eric J. Troutman, Esq. Puja J. Amin, Esq. Brittany A. Andres, Esq. Maxwell Levins, Esq. TROUTMAN AMIN, LLP 400 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1550 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 350-3663 Facsimile: (949) 203-8689 E-mail: troutman@troutmanamin.com amin@troutmanamin.com brittany@troutmanamin.com maxwell@troutmanamin.com LOLA + THE BOYS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Cole Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ HARON COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Lola + The Boys, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-13311 (N.D. Ill., October 30, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website www.lolaandtheboys.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired person in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, Plaintiff HARON COLE made an attempt to complete a purchase on Lolaandtheboys.com. However, as he tried to navigate the website and complete his purchase, he encountered accessibility barriers that significantly hindered his progress. Specifically, an automatic pop-up appeared on the website without any prior warning, repeatedly disrupting his navigation. In addition, different images on the website had the same alternative text, which made it confusing for him to understand the content. Furthermore, many interactive elements, like buttons, had poor and non-descriptive names, making it impossible to understand their function. These access barriers have made Lolaandtheboys.com inaccessible and not independently usable by blind and visually-impaired individuals. The inaccessibility of Lolaandtheboys.com has deterred Plaintiff from making an online purchase of children's clothing. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Lola + The Boys' policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff Haron Cole is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Lola + The Boys provides to the public a website known as Lolaandtheboys.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a variety of jackets, bombers, sweaters, dresses, tops, swimwear, shorts, skirts, mommy-and-me outfits, shoes, and accessories.[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 NOWRX INC: Mueller Sues Over False, Misleading Stock Sale Statement ------------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH MUELLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NOWRX, INC., CARY BREESE, SUMEET SHEOKAND, BARRY KARLIN and MARK MARLOW, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-09185 (S.D.N.Y., November 4, 2025) is a securities class action on behalf of Plaintiff and the class of all persons and entities who purchased, or otherwise acquired, NowRx Inc. C Stock or Series C during the period from February 1, 2022 through November 5, 2022, inclusive, asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b5-a thereunder in connection with the C Stock sales and offering. According to the complaint, the C Stock shares convertible into shares of Common Stock, were purchased at a price of $10.50 per share in a crowdfunding offering. The Defendants made a series of materially false and misleading statements which omitted material facts necessary to make their statements misleading in connection with the sale and purchase of C Stock. NowRx, controlled by the other Defendants, as of April 19, 2022, sold $18.6 million of C Stock to over 6,100 investors through materially misleading information disseminated via online marketing and mass email blasts sent over several months which caused class members to buy tens of millions of dollars of NowRx Series C stock, asserts the complaint. These materially false and misleading statements omitted the facts that the net income for NowRx during the Class Period was negative and only getting worse every month between January 2022 and May 2022. Also omitted were the cash burn rates in 2022 of approximately 1.5 million per month and the net capital raised in 2022 after the expenses of marketing the C stock offering, says the suit. NowRx Inc. was a Delaware corporation headquartered in Mountain View, California. While it was an active corporation (before November 2022) NowRx described itself as a tech-powered pharmacy that provides same-day prescription delivery and telehealth services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee Squitieri, Esq. SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP 205 Hudson Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 421-6492 Facsimile: (212) 421-6553 E-mail: lee@sfclasslaw.com - and - Fletcher Moore, Esq. MOORE LAW, PLLC 30 Wall Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 709-8245 Facsimile: (917) 634-3035 E-mail: fletcher@fmoorelaw.com OMI JEWELRY: Alexandria Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ ERIKA ALEXANDRIA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. OMI JEWELRY CORP., Defendant, Case No. 25-9006 (S.D.N.Y., October 30, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website www.omijewelry.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, Plaintiff was injured when Plaintiff attempted multiple times, most recently on May 15, 2025, to access Defendant's Website from Plaintiff's home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. Due to Defendant's failure to build the Website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the Website, and was thus denied the benefit of purchasing a piece of jewelry, specifically a pair of earrings, that Plaintiff wished to acquire from the Website, says the suit. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Omi Jewelry Corp. operates the website that presents itself as a fine jewelry brand that blends craftsmanship with contemporary design, offering handcrafted earrings, rings, and necklaces made from ethically sourced materials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS: Can File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LIBERTY CAPITAL GROUP, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS INC., et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-04822-JSR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Rakoff entered an order granting motion to file opposition under seal to class certification motion. Oppenheimer is an American multinational independent investment bank and financial services company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2ue8Gs at no extra charge.[CC] PARADIGM PROPERTIES: Class Settlement Prelim. Approval Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN CRABTREE, and DAVID T. SHEEHAN, et al., v. PARADIGM PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT TEAM, INC., and HUNTER WARFIELD, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00066-AW-MAF (N.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for preliminary approval of a class settlement. Specifically, the Plaintiffs request the Court enter an order: (1) certifying the proposed Class for settlement purposes; (2) preliminarily approving the proposed Class Settlement Agreement; (3) directing notice to be sent to the Class Members via first class mail; and (4) setting dates for opt-outs, submission of claim forms, objections and a hearing under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2). The class action was brought by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants for violation of state and federal law, including the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), the Florida Residential Landlord and Tenant Act ("FRLTA"), and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ("FCCPA"), for the unlawful acceleration of rent and other charges following the termination of residential leases by Florida tenants. Paradigm specializes in multifamily and association property management. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aHLwyY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert W. Murphy, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT W. MURPHY 440 Premier Circle, Suite 240 Charlottesville, VA 22901 Telephone: (434) 328-3100 Facsimile: (954)763-8660 E-mail: rwmurphy@lawfirmmurphy.com PARKERZ LLC: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Karandish Says ---------------------------------------------------------- Zahra Karandish and Kayleigh Olaiz, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs V. Moeed P. Nagra, Bassam P. Nagra, and Parkerz LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-05259 (S.D. Tex., November 4, 2025) seeks to recover Plaintiffs' improperly taken tips and to recover the minimum wage to which they are entitled to under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, during the time Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants, the latter took portions of the tips earned by Plaintiffs and their other employees and paid them as part of an ostensible tip pool to individuals who were not "tipped workers" and who are not legally entitled to receive tips. The Defendants paid Plaintiffs and their other employees as "tipped workers," that is, they took the FLSA's maximum tip credit of $5.12 from the minimum wage of $7.25, resulting in an hourly wage of $2.13. The Defendants violated the FLSA by not paying Plaintiffs for all the time that they worked or were required to be at work, says the suit. Plaintiffs Karandish and Olaiz worked for the Defendants as servers from April 2025 to October 2025 and from June 2025 to October 2025, respectively. Parkerz LLC operates a hookah bar in Houston, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Josef F. Buenker, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM P.O. Box 10099 Houston, TX 77206 Telephone: (713) 868-3388 Facsimile: (713) 683-9940 E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com SHERYL MAXFIELD: Class Cert. Initial Disclosures Due Dec. 5 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY BLEICK, et al., v. SHERYL MAXFIELD, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01140-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge. Preston Deavers entered a preliminary pretrial order as follows: -- Any initial disclosures shall be made by Dec. 5, 2025. -- Any motion to amend the pleadings or to join additional parties shall be filed by Feb. 9, 2026. Any motion for class certification shall be filed by Oct. 30, 2026. -- All discovery shall be completed by Sept. 11, 2026. -- Any dispositive motion shall be filed by Oct. 30, 2026. The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action complaint seeking to certify a class of: "All similarly situated individuals and entities whose funds are being held in the Ohio Unclaimed Funds Trust Fund on or after June 30, 2025 through the date of judgment." A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hhbL8d at no extra charge.[CC] SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Settles USERRA Suit in California Court ----------------------------------------------------------- Southwest Airlines Co. 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 13, 2025, the parties in a class action litigation asserting violations of the federal Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) filed a notice of settlement advising the United States District Court for the Northern District of California that they reached a settlement in principle, and the parties made a stipulated request for the court to vacate the case schedule, including the hearing on the company's decertification motion, and to set a deadline of June 19, 2025, for the filing of either a motion for preliminary approval of the class settlement or a status update about the timing of the remaining steps in the settlement process. The court granted the stipulation on February 14, 2025. On June 20, 2025, the court granted the parties' stipulated request to continue the deadline for filing a motion for preliminary approval of the class settlement. On September 25, 2025, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement class. The settlement includes an $18.5 million settlement fund and prospective relief that includes a differential pay benefit for up to ten days of military leave per year, which will remain in place for at least five years once initiated. The company is accused of not provided paid short-term military leave to certain employees, in violation of USERRA. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California previously issued an order to effectively stay the action, pending an appeal from an order by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington granting summary judgment in favor of an airline in a separate case involving substantially the same claims at issue in this action. On February 1, 2023, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment and remanded the separate airline case to the District Court. The Ninth Circuit's decision may adversely affect the company's defenses in the USERRA proceeding and may give rise to additional litigation in this or other areas. On October 29, 2024, the company filed a motion to decertify the class, which was then fully briefed and set for hearing. Southwest Airlines Co. operates a major passenger airline that provides scheduled air transportation in the United States and near-international markets. It serves 121 destinations in 42 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and ten near-international countries: Mexico, Jamaica, The Bahamas, Aruba, Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, Belize, Cuba, the Cayman Islands, and Turks and Caicos. SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Lamers Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------------ NICHOLAS LAMERS, and CAROL FLATTERICH, on behalf of themselves individually and all other similarly situated employees, Plaintiffs v. SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-01250 (D. Kan., November 4, 2025) is a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Kansas Wage Payment Act, and Kansas common law to recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation owed to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated workers who are and were employed by Defendant. According to the complaint, Spirit paid its hourly, non-exempt employees improperly and unlawfully by automatically deducting a 30-minute lunch period from its hourly employees' time each day, even if those employees did not take a full, uninterrupted 30-minute break for lunch or such a break at all. The Defendant has violated the FLSA by failing to properly compensate its hourly, non-exempt employees for all their hours worked, and by failing to properly pay them overtime wages, asserts the complaint. Further, the Defendant has breached its contracts with Plaintiffs and its other hourly, non-exempt employees by failing to pay them for all of the hours that the employees actually worked, says the suit. Spirit Aerosystems, Inc. is an American manufacturer of aerostructures for commercial airplanes, headquartered in Wichita, Kansas.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brad K. Thoenen, Esq. John J. Ziegelmeyer, III, Esq. Kevin A. Todd, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 1501 Westport Road Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 875-9339 E-mail: bthoenen@hkm.com jziegelmeyer@hkm.com ktodd@hkm.com SPRINGER NATURE: Court Orders More Fee Documentation in "Lee" ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Mark Lee, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Springer Nature America, Inc., Defendant, Civil Action No. 24-cv-4493 (LJL) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Lewis J. Liman of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an order requiring Plaintiff's counsel to provide additional documentation to support their fee and service award requests. At the fairness hearing on November 6, 2025, the Court asked Plaintiff's counsel to supply a number of items for the Court to consider the effectiveness of the notice program and the reasonableness of the fee and service award requests. Counsel agreed to do so. The items supplied by counsel fail to comply with the Court's request. The Court requested counsel to analyze its time records and to provide an excel spreadsheet itemizing the time spent on each of the categories of work set forth on pages 2-3 of the Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Litigation Expenses, and Service Award. Such information is necessary for the Court to analyze the reasonableness of the number of hours billed which, in turn, is necessary for the Court to do the lodestar check. The excel spreadsheet should be sortable by each of the following categories: (1) extensive pre-suit factual investigation; (2) detailed and thorough forensic analyses of the cookie and pixel technologies employed on Defendant's websites; (3) identification and analysis of the specific data transmitted to third parties through such technologies; (4) drafting the complaint; (5) drafting the opposition to Defendant's motion to dismiss; (6) drafting the motion to strike; (7) engaging in informal discovery and reviewing information propounded in response thereto; (8) drafting a mediation statement and reviewing and evaluating Defendant's mediation submissions; (9) participating in a full-day mediation; (10) drafting the Settlement Agreement and all related exhibits; (11) presenting the proposed Settlement to the Court and obtaining an order directing notice to the Settlement Class; and (12) working with the Settlement Administrator. Counsel shall supply copies of receipts to support the costs billable to the class where such receipts are available. Such information shall be provided no later than November 17, 2025. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=x6hyaa from PacerMonitor SUGARED + BRONZED: Bid for Class Certification Due March 20, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZOE GRIPPO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. SUGARED + BRONZED, LLC, Case No. 8:24-cv-01792-AB-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge André Birotte, Jr. entered an order amending schedule and lifting stay. -- Bid for Class Certification Due March 20, 2026. -- Opposition to Class Certification Bid Due April 17, 2026 -- Reply to Class Opposition due May 1, 2026 Sugared specializes in natural hair removal and sunless tanning. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=U3tiqq at no extra charge.[CC] SUPERNUS PHARMA: "Korver" Remains Pending in New York ----------------------------------------------------- Supernus Pharmaceuticals, 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 the securities class action filed by Darren Korver remains pending in a New York court. On August 28, 2024, named plaintiff Darren Korver filed a purported federal securities class action lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against Sage and individuals, Barry E. Greene and Kimi Iguchi (Securities Class Action). The complaint in the Securities Class Action alleges violations of U.S. securities laws under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks an as-yet unspecified amount of damages allegedly sustained by parties who purchased Sage stock between April 12, 2021 and July 23, 2024, as well as applicable attorneys' fees and costs. Sage denies any allegations of wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend against the Securities Class Action. SWEDISH MATCH: Siegert Suit Stayed Pending Kelly Class Cert Order ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Siegert v. Swedish Match North America, LLC et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-01606 (D. Conn., Filed Sept. 26, 2025), the Hon. Judge Victor A. Bolden entered an order granting the motion to stay under the first-filed rule. The case will be stayed until a decision regarding class certification is issued in Kelly v. Philip Morris International Inc., et al., Case No. 24-cv-60437-WPD (S.D. Fla.). The nature of suit states Contract Product Liability. Swedish manufactures tobacco products.[CC] SYNGENTA CROP: Herbicide Causes Parkinson's Disease, Gray Says -------------------------------------------------------------- TAURUS GRAY, Plaintiff v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION LLC and CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Defendants, Case No. N25C-11-023 PQT (Del. Super., November 4, 2025) is a class action 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 alleges 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. Mr. Gray was exposed to Paraquat from 2011 to 2023 while living in Louisiana where he directly sprayed paraquat on 2900 acres with a backpack sprayer. He asserts that Paraquat came into contact with his skin and/or clothes, inhaling Paraquat. He has been diagnosed with and/or treated for Parkinson's disease, Parkinsonism, and/or symptoms consistent with Parkinson's disease in the years following his exposure to Paraquat, says the Plaintiff. Syngenta Crop Protection LLC provides crop protection chemical products and agricultural services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th St. Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 656-5445 E-mail: raeann@collinslawdelaware.com - and - Fidelma Fitzpatrick, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 40 Westminster Street, 5th Floor Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: (401) 457-7728 Facsimile: (401) 457-7708 E-mail: ffitzpatrick@motleyrice.com TESLA GENERAL: Boggs Sues to Correct Auto Insurance Coverage Policy ------------------------------------------------------------------- Athena Boggs and Jared Miiller, a married couple, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Tesla General Insurance, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-04108-MTM (D. Ariz., November 4, 2025) is an action on behalf of the Plaintiff and (1) all Tesla insureds whose policies do not contain uninsured and underinsured (UM/UIM) limits equal to liability limits and (2) all Tesla insureds whose policy covers multiple vehicles but whose claims were not adjusted under their stacked UM/UIM coverages, under the Arizona Revised Statutes. The Plaintiffs bring this action to establish that Tesla General Insurance Inc.'s standard auto policy includes the amounts of UM/UIM coverages required where an insurer fails to make the written offer required under ARS. Arizona law requires every insurer to make a written offer of UM/UIM coverage with limits equal to liability limits whenever an initial policy is sold. The Plaintiffs assert that Tesla failed to do this. Each insured thus became entitled, by operation of law, to statutory UM/UIM coverage equal to the limits of their liability coverage for each vehicle. Moreover, where the insured has multiple vehicles insured under a single policy, insureds are entitled to combine (stack) these coverage limits because Tesla has failed to comply with the anti-stacking requirements of ARS. The results of both violations are clear: First, many Tesla insureds are unaware of the coverage Tesla is legally required to provide to them in the form of equalized UM/UIM limits and/or stacked UM/UIM limits. And second, many insureds who were seriously injured in auto accidents have not received the benefits to which they were entitled, the suit alleges. Through this Complaint, the Plaintiffs seek judgment that will: (1) declare each Class member's true UM/UIM coverage entitlements; (2) reform all affected policies to accurately reflect correct coverage; (3) immediately notify all Class members of their restored coverage rights; and (4) recover damages for Tesla's failure to pay contract benefits and damages, including punitive damages, for any bad faith conduct in concealing and misrepresenting coverage entitlements. Tesla General Insurance, Inc. is an insurance company with its principal place of business in California, but which does business in the state of Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert B. Carey, Esq. John M. DeStefano, Esq. E. Tory Beardsley, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 11 West Jefferson Street, Suite 1000 Phoenix, AZ 85003 Telephone: (602) 840-5900 Facsimile: (602) 840-3012 E-mail: rob@hbsslaw.com johnd@hbsslaw.com toryb@hbsslaw.com - and - Brett L. Slavicek, Esq. Justin Henry, Esq. THE SLAVICEK LAW FIRM 5500 North 24th Street Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 285-4435 Facsimile: (602) 287-9184 E-mail: brett@slaviceklaw.com justin@slaviceklaw.com TESLA INC: Dismissal of Shareholder Suit Under Appeal ----------------------------------------------------- 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 September 30, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted Tesla's motion to dismiss without prejudice and on November 26, 2024, it issued a final judgment in Tesla's favor, and on December 23, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The appeal has been fully briefed, and oral argument is scheduled for November 20, 2025. On February 27, 2023, a proposed class action was filed in said court against Tesla, Inc., Elon Musk and certain current and former Company executives. The complaint alleges that the defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions about the company's Autopilot and FSD Capability technologies and seeks money damages and other relief on behalf of persons who purchased Tesla stock between February 19, 2019, and February 17, 2023. An amended complaint was filed on September 5, 2023, naming only Tesla, Inc. and Elon Musk as defendants. On November 6, 2023, Tesla moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Tesla is an electric car manufacturer based in Palo Alto, California. TGL AIR: Faces Lin Class Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation ------------------------------------------------------------ WU XIU LIN, Plaintiff v. XIAO DONG TANG, aka ANDY TANG, and TGL AIR CONDITIONING LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-01309-G (W.D. Okla., November 5, 2025) is brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals, for Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours during any workweek; failure to pay all wages earned by her on regularly scheduled paydays; engagement in illegal retaliation by spreading false rumors through numerous associates that she had stolen all of Defendants money and left; and unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature because of her sex. The Plaintiff has worked as an hourly, non-exempt Office Clerk for Defendants since April 11, 2023 and throughout the relevant time period. TGL Air Conditioning LLC is a company that installs and repairs air conditioning units across Oklahoma.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian R. Glass, Esq. Cameron J. Glass, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF GLASS, WOOD, WANG & ASSOC. 10400 Vineyard Blvd, Suite G100 Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 849-5145 E-mail: attorneybrianglass@gmail.com TOUCHPAY HOLDINGS: Faces Manafov Suit Over TCPA Breach ------------------------------------------------------ TIYANNA MOTHERSHED MANAFOV, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. TOUCHPAY HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-03141-WBS-AC (E.D. Cal., October 29, 2025) is a class action complaint against the Defendant for making unsolicited text messages to consumers, including the Plaintiff, who have registered their telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. To promote its goods, services, and properties, the Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging to consumers that have registered their telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, asserts the complaint. Specifically, Plaintiff received on June 9, 2025, an unsolicited text message and subsequently requested to opt-out of Defendant's text messages by replying with a stop instruction. However, the Defendant ignored Plaintiff's request and continued text messaging Plaintiff on the following June 10, 2025 and June 11, 2025. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct, which has resulted in the intrusion upon seclusion, invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of Plaintiff and members of the Classes. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Classes, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Sacramento County, California. Defendant is a Texas Limited Liability Company with its headquarters located in Dallas, Texas.[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 Telephone: 754-444-7539 E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com TOYOTA MOTOR: Natale Sues Over Defective Transmission Assemblies ---------------------------------------------------------------- LILI NATALE, LAURIE CHARLTON, NATALIA YBARRA, LATOYA HANKINS, MARK ZIELINSKI, PATRICK LUCIGNANI, VICTOR GUTIERREZ, RON MCKINNON, BILL CHALFANT, KEVIN MURDAH, and ANNEMARIE PEACE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., TOYOTA MOTOR SALES U.S.A, INC., AISIN CORPORATION, Ltd. (f/k/a Aisin AW Co., Ltd., and Aisin Seiki Co., Ltd.), and AISIN WORLD CORP. OF AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-06150 (E.D.N.Y., November 4, 2025) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and as proposed class representatives on behalf of the nationwide, multi-state and/or statewide Classes, seeking redress for Defendants' (1) violations of various states consumer protection statutes; (2) violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; (3) breach of express warranty; (4) breach of implied warranty; (5) common law fraud; and (6) unjust enrichment. This class action lawsuit seeks redress for the alleged misconduct of Aisin, a multi-billion dollar global company that claims to be a leading supplier of advanced automotive technology, systems and components, and Toyota, one of the largest automobile manufacturers in the world, both of which knowingly exposed the purchasers and lessees of millions of Toyota and Lexus vehicles to a dangerous defect in their vehicles' 8-Speed Automatic Transmissions and Torque Converters (the "Transmission Assembly"). Toyota and Aisin knew or, at a minimum, acted with reckless disregard for data that showed these Transmission Assemblies were inherently defective before Toyota began installing them in the Class Vehicles, and certainly by February 2017 when customers reported that their Transmission Assemblies were suffering serious operability and safety issues, including catastrophic Transmission failure which can cost thousands of dollars to fix. The Defendants' Transmission Assemblies fail prematurely in ordinary operating conditions. The Transmission Defect creates serious drivability and safety issues, such as hyper-frequent gear shifting, failed gear engagement, slipping, lurching, shift flare, overactive torque converter engagement and disengagement, hesitated acceleration, reduced forward motive power, and transmission noise from aggressive component wear, alleges the suit. Had Plaintiffs and the other Class Members known about the Transmission Defect, they would not have purchased or leased the Class Vehicles or would have paid substantially less for them. As a result of Defendants' omissions, their active concealment, and misleading marketing, the Plaintiffs and the other Class Members have suffered an ascertainable loss of money, property, and loss in value of their Class Vehicles, asserts the suit. Toyota Motor Corp. manufactures, sells, leases, and repairs passenger cars, trucks, buses, and their related parts worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Demet Basar, Esq. W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. H. Clay Barnett, III, Esq. J. Mitch Williams, Esq. Dylan T. Martin, Esq. Trenton H. Mann, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 E-mail: Dee.Miles@beasleyallen.com Demet.Basar@beasleyallen.com Clay.Barnett@beasleyallen.com Mitch.Williams@beasleyallen.com Dylan.Martin@beasleyallen.com Trent.Mann@beasleyallen.com TRACER BULLET: Dalton Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Tracer Bullet LLC d/b/a Mugsy, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-04148 (D. Minn., October 30, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to provide the content and services of its online Website www.mugsy.com in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff was injured when she attempted to access Defendant's Website from Minnesota but encountered barriers that denied her full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content - content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. For this reason, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities. Julie Dalton is a resident of Minnesota and is a legally blind person. Tracer Bullet LLC offers clothing and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, jeans, pants, chinos, shorts, tops, outerwear, belts, hats, socks, 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 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Forces Insureds to Forfeit Policies, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT SANDERS, an individual, Plaintiff v. TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Iowa corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-09517 (N.D. Cal., November 4, 2025) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for breach of contract, bad faith denial of insurance benefits, financial elder abuse, unfair business practices, and related claims arising from Defendant's unlawful and fraudulent conduct regarding Plaintiff's life insurance policy. According to the complaint, the Defendant improperly demanded increased premiums and misrepresented the terms of the life insurance contract, causing Plaintiff significant financial harm and emotional distress. The Defendant's modus operandi appears to be to collect substantial premium payments from insureds and, when those insureds approach an age where the risk of payout on the policy increases, to cut them off through subterfuge. Specifically, the Defendant dramatically increases premium rates to unsustainable levels, citing allegedly untimely payments, despite knowing that those payments were timely made. The Defendant exploits technicalities to create a false record of default, ultimately forcing insureds to forfeit their policies, alleges the suit. The Plaintiff purchased a Universal Life Insurance Policy from Defendant Transamerica, in the face amount of $1,000,000 on May 16, 2012. Transamerica Life Insurance Company is an American holding company for various life insurance companies and investment firms operating primarily in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul T. Cullen, Esq. THE CULLEN LAW FIRM, APC 9800 Topanga Canyon Boulevard Suite D, PMB 325 Chatsworth, CA 91311-4057 Telephone: (818) 360-2529 Facsimile: (866) 794-5741 E-mail: paul@cullenlegal.com UNDER ARMOUR: Rappaport Appeals Reconsideration Order to 2nd Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- LINDA RAPPAPORT is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing the lawsuit entitled Linda Rappaport, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Under Armour, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-7558, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged employment violations. On Dec. 13, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which Judge Hector Gonzalez granted on Sept. 11, 2025. The Court ruled that the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). On Sept. 25, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration on the Court's Sept. 11 Order, which Judge Gonzalez denied on Oct. 15, 2025. The Court ruled that a motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle to correct what, in hindsight, turns out to be a tactical error in the Plaintiff's complaint. The appellate case is entitled Rappaport v. Under Armour, Inc., Case No. 25-2746, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on October 30, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant LINDA RAPPAPORT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Scott G. Braden, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 9171 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 180 Del Mar, CA 92122 Defendant-Appellee UNDER ARMOUR, INC. is represented by: Andrew Ramiro Escobar, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4700 Seattle, WA 98104 UNITED STATES: Fails to Provide Full SNAP Benefits, Perrone Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- KALI RAE PERRONE, ANIKA OKJE ERDMANN-BROWNING, and CYNTHIA DE LA MORA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BROOKE ROLLINS, Secretary, 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, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-09508 (N.D. Cal., November 4, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiffs and a proposed nationwide class of approximately 42 million recipients of federal food benefits who are harmed by Defendants' failure to provide full Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits absent a Congressional appropriation. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and the proposed class members are all very low-income individuals who are harmed by Defendants' actions delaying and reducing SNAP payments and creating uncertainty regarding when, if, or for how long they will receive necessary food benefits. Defendant Rollins subsequently authorized use of contingency funds, but no other funds, to provide 50% of the benefits normally allotted to existing SNAP households in November and no benefits at all to households newly certified as eligible in November 2025. Any action that disrupts timely issuance of SNAP benefits violates the Food and Nutrition Act, says the suit. Formerly known as the Food Stamp Program, SNAP is the nation's most important and effective anti-hunger program. It is designed to address food insecurity by supplementing the food budgets of low-income households. Brooke Rollins is sued in her official capacity as the Secretary of Agriculture. As Secretary, she is responsible for all actions taken by the United States Department of Agriculture, the federal agency responsible for SNAP, and ensuring USDA complies with the laws of the United States.[BN] 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 UNUM LIFE: Heritagemark Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 5th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ HERITAGEMARK, LLC is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment on contract interpretation and defenses in the lawsuit entitled Heritagemark, L.L.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-04513, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint is brought on behalf of similarly situated Certificate Owners of group universal life ("GUL") insurance policies and/or individual policyholders of individual universal life ("IUL") insurance policies issued by UNUM and administered by UNUM or its agent(s), for breach of contract and conversion to recover amounts that UNUM charged the Plaintiff and the proposed class in excess of the amounts authorized by the express terms of their UNUM UL Policies. The appellate case is entitled Heritagemark v. Unum Life Insurance, Case No. 25-20484, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on October 30, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant HERITAGEMARK, L.L.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Richard C. Giller, Esq. GREENSPOON MARDER, L.L.P. 1875 Century Park, E. Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (323) 880-4520 - and - Julie Marie Moeller, Esq. GREENSPOON MARDER, L.L.P. 590 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 524-4966 - and - Benjamin Eliot New, Esq. GREENSPOON MARDER, P.A. 200 E. Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 491-1120 Defendant-Appellee UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA is represented by: Carl Christopher Scherz, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE, L.L.P. 2200 Ross Avenue Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 740-8583 VISA INC: Appeal in Debit Class Suits Remain Pending with 2nd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 an appeal from a court decision in the consolidated debit class actions remains pending with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Beginning on October 1, 2024, several putative class actions were filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York or were filed in other courts and subsequently transferred to that court. The complaints in those actions, brought on behalf of merchants or cardholders, alleged that Visa has monopolized and attempted to monopolize general purpose debit network services and card-not-present debit network services in the United States through agreements with merchants, acquirers, and others and that certain agreements unreasonably restrain competition or trade in those markets. All of the complaints alleged violations of the Sherman Act and sought damages, among other relief and some of the complaints asserted violations of one or more state laws and sought injunctive relief. On December 16, 2024, an amended consolidated complaint was filed on behalf of all persons, businesses, and other entities in the United States and its territories that have incurred Visa fees for debit routing services from January 1, 2012. A subsequently filed putative class action was consolidated into this complaint. On December 27, 2024, an amended consolidated complaint was filed on behalf of any cardholder in the United States who purchased goods or services with a general purpose Visa-branded debit card from January 1, 2012, and indirectly paid Visa network fees. On February 24, 2025, Visa filed motions to dismiss the consolidated complaints by merchants and cardholders, which were granted in part and denied in part on October 29, 2025. Separately, on March 28, 2025, Visa filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York to compel dismissal of certain claims asserted by certain putative class representatives which the court denied on August 20, 2025. Visa has appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. VISA INC: ATM Access Fee Litigation 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 it continues to defend itself against the ATM access fee litigation. National ATM Council Class Action. In October 2011, the National ATM Council and thirteen non-bank ATM operators filed a purported class action lawsuit against Visa and Mastercard in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The complaint challenges Visa's rule (and a similar Mastercard rule) that if an ATM operator chooses to charge consumers an access fee for a Visa or Plus transaction, that fee cannot be greater than the access fee charged for transactions on other networks. Plaintiffs claim that the rule violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act and seek treble damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. On August 4, 2021, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On August 20, 2025, Cardtronics USA, Inc., filed an opt-out complaint against Visa and Mastercard in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees based on allegations similar to those alleged in the class complaint. WALMART INC: Appeals Arbitration Order in R. C. Suit to 9th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- WALMART INC. is taking an appeal from a court order denying its motion to compel arbitration and to stay all litigation in the lawsuit entitled R. C., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Walmart Inc., Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-02003-SRM-DTB, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendant for personal injury claims. On Feb. 7, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration, which Judge Serena R. Murillo denied on Sept. 30, 2025. The Defendant's motion to stay all litigation is likewise denied as moot. The appellate case is entitled R. C., et al. v. Walmart Inc., Case No. 25-6867, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 30, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on November 4, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on December 9, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on January 8, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees R. C., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Andrew Tate, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP 235 Peachtree Street, NE Suite 400 Atlanta, GA 30303 - and - Brandon Michael Wise, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP 1 US Bank Plaza, Suite 1950 St. Louis, MO 63101 Defendant-Appellant WALMART INC. is represented by: John A. Vogt, Esq. Ryan Ball, Esq. JONES DAY 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612 - and - Collin Vierra, Esq. Robert Edward Dunn, Esq. EIMER STAHL, LLP 1999 S. Bascom Avenue, Suite 1025 Campbell, CA 95008 WALMART INC: Underpays Company Employees, Flores Says ----------------------------------------------------- GLORIA FLORES, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. WALMART, INC. and WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-10412 (C.D. Cal., October 29, 2025) is a class and collective action to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant. According to the complaint, Walmart employed Flores as a team associate in the deli/bakery and stocking departments in Walmart's Super Center located in Porter Ranch, California from approximately August 2024 to September 2025. Walmart classified Flores as non-exempt and paid her by the hour. But Walmart did not pay her for all overtime hours she worked at the correct rate of pay. Instead, under Walmart's Regular Rate Policy, it improperly excluded various forms of remuneration from Flores's regular rate of pay, including but not limited to categories of compensation labeled as "SCHED DECREASE" and "SCHED CHANGE." By excluding these forms of remuneration from the regular rate, Walmart under-calculated Flores's overtime rate of pay and, as a result, failed to pay all overtime wages owed. Likewise, Walmart frequently did not authorize and permit Flores to take bona fide, compliant meal and rest periods. Walmart did not pay Flores the required premium pay for the first missed meal and rest period each workday. The other Hourly Employees are likewise subject to Walmart's Regular Rate Policy and did not receive compliant meal and rest periods or the requisite premium pay, asserts the complaint. As employers of Flores and the other Hourly Employees throughout the relevant time periods, Walmart, Inc. and Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., and each of them, are solely, jointly, and severally liable for penalties for violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the California Labor Code with respect to the employment of Flores and the other Hourly Employees, says the suit. Gloria Flores was Walmart's hourly employee. Walmart, Inc. and Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. operate retail stores throughout the State of California doing business as Walmart Discount Stores, Walmart Supercenters, Walmart Neighborhood Markets, and Sam's Club.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua I. White, Esq. William M. Hogg, Esq. LAUREL EMPLOYMENT LAW APC 808 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 200 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (323) 551-9221 Facsimile: (310) 564-4093 E-mail: josh@laurelemploymentlaw.com william@laurelemploymentlaw.com WISE FOODS: Faces Hussain Suit Over Mislabeled Potato Chips ----------------------------------------------------------- MO HUSSAIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WISE FOODS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06140 (E.D.N.Y., November 4, 2025) is an action brought by the Plaintiff asserting claims for Defendant's violations of New York General Business Law and for breach of express warranty. According to the complaint, the Defendant represents to Plaintiff and other consumers through its packaging that its Deep River Snacks Potato Chips in various varieties, contain "NO Artificial Flavors, Colors or Preservatives." The Defendant likewise states on its packaging that "We use only real ingredients-no funny business here!" The Defendant makes these claims in order to capitalize on consumers' preference for natural foods that do not contain synthetic ingredients. Unbeknownst to consumers, however, the Defendant's claims are false because the Products contain synthetic citric acid, alleges the suit. Wise Foods, Inc. formulates, manufactures, advertises, and sells Deep River Snacks Potato Chips throughout the United States, including in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. ARISOHN LLC 94 Blakeslee Rd. Litchfield, CT 06759 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 E-mail: josh@arisohnllc.com X CORP: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Jan. 15, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as WHITE COAT CAPTIONING, LLC, et al., v. X CORP., INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-01594-SK (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sallie Kim entered an order setting the following case deadlines: Event Deadline Motion for class certification filing Jan. 15, 2026 Close of expert discovery: Jan. 23, 2026 Deadline to file opposition to motion Feb. 16, 2026 for class certification: ADR deadline: Feb. 24, 2026 Deadline to file reply in support of Mar. 2, 2026 motion for class certification: Hearing on motion for class Apr. 6, 2026 certification: Hearing on dispositive motions: Aug. 3, 2026 Pre-trial conference: Oct. 16, 2026 Jury trial: Nov. 10, 2026 X Corp. is a social media platform company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3bq7OT at no extra charge.[CC] YOUTUBE LLC: Colombo Suit Seeks $6MM Settlement ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHAN COLOMBO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. YOUTUBE, LLC and GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-06987-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Dec. 30, 2025, will move the Court for an order awarding attorneys' fees, providing for payment of litigation expenses, and awarding a service award to Nathan Colombo. The $6 million non-reversionary settlement of this matter is a very good result for the approximately 21,000 Settlement Class members to resolve their claims under Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), the Plaintiff contends. Class Counsel's efforts on behalf of the Settlement Class resulted in an outstanding result under any measure. Based on the foregoing and upon the entire record herein, Class Counsel and Mr. Colombo request that the Court: (a) award Class Counsel attorneys' fees of 25% of the Settlement Fund; (b) award $185,420.53 in litigation expenses; and (c) award Mr. Colombo $5,000 as a service award. YouTube is an American online video sharing and social media platform headquartered in San Bruno, California, United States. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Q3E3cw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. Alexander C. Cohen, Esq. Aelish M. Baig, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com acohen@rgrdlaw.com aelishb@rgrdlaw.com - and - Gary Klinger, Esq. Alexander E. Wolf, Esq. John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 221 West Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com awolf@milberg.com jnelson@milberg.com YVES SAINT: Class & PAGA Settlement in Sabzerou Gets Final Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TITANIA SABZEROU, et al., v. YVES SAINT LAURENT AMERICA, INC., et al., Case No. 8:23-cv-01355-JLS-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Staton entered an order: (1) granting the Plaintiff's motion for final approval of class and PAGA settlement; and (2) granting in part THE plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and service payment. The Court grants in part approval of the requested attorneys' fees, costs, and service payment. The Court awards class counsel $62,500 in attorneys' fees and $15,834.53 in costs. Ten percent (10%) of such fees awarded shall be withheld pending class counsel’s submission of a Post-Distribution Status Report within 21 days after the substantial completion of distribution to Class Members and PAGA Aggrieved Employees. Class counsel shall submit a proposed order for a final distribution of attorneys' fees with its Post-Distribution Status Report. The Court also awards to Plaintiff a service payment of $5,000. Finally, the Court awards $6,500 in administration expenses to Phoenix. Additionally, the Court finds the proposed PAGA Settlement Amount to be reasonable. The Plaintiff seeks final approval of a PAGA Settlement Amount of $50,000, of which $37,500 (75%) will be distributed to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA") and the remaining $12,500 (25%) will be distributed pro rata to PAGA Aggrieved Employees based on their number of pay periods within those dates. The Court conditionally certified a "Settlement Class" including "All current and former nonexempt employees of [YSL] employed during the Class Period who did not sign an arbitration agreement or an individual release of claims." The Class Period is from April 27, 2019, to May 12, 2025. The Settlement further defines "PAGA Aggrieved Employees" as: "All current and former nonexempt employees of [YSL] employed during the PAGA Period, which begins on April 27, 2022, and ends on May 12, 2025." Yves is a French luxury fashion house. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=z94KXE at no extra charge.[CC] ZAMI INC: Faces Rodriguez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------- Eduardo Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Zami Inc. d/b/a Zami Catering, d/b/a Zami Caterers, Moise Zami, Joe Zami, Chales Zami, and Steve Polinsky, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-06154 (E.D.N.Y., November 4, 2025) arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff seeks to recover from the Defendants compensation for unpaid wages for overtime work for which he did not receive overtime premium pay as required by law; back wages for unpaid minimum wage, and overtime premium for overtime work, each of which Defendants willfully failed to pay; unpaid spread-of-hours compensation for shifts worked lasting in excess of 10 hours; liquidated damages; and statutory damages for the Defendants' violations of the Wage Theft Prevention Act. Plaintiff Rodriguez has been employed by Defendants at Zami Catering as a driver and general helper from approximately May 2022 until the present, performing duties such as driving and assisting with various tasks as needed. Zami Inc. d/b/a Zami Catering owns and operates a catering business located in Brooklyn, New York, doing business under the name Zami Catering or Zami Caterers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Samuel, Esq. THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM 1441 Broadway Suite 6085 New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 563-9884 E-mail: michael@thesamuellawfirm.com ZEALTHY INC: Perez Files Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------ SONIA PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZEALTHY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-03135-TLN-JDP (E.D. Cal., October 29, 2025) is a class action complaint against the Defendant for making unsolicited text messages to Plaintiff and the Class members, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. To promote its goods, services, and/or properties, the Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging and continues to text message consumers after they have opted out of Defendant's solicitations, the complaint says. Defendant also engages in telemarketing without the required policies and procedures, and training of its personnel engaged in telemarketing. Specifically, the Plaintiff requested on June 12, 2025, to opt-out of Defendant's text messages by replying with a stop instruction. But the Defendant ignored Plaintiff's request and continued text messaging Plaintiff. Overall, the Defendant sent Plaintiff approximately two marketing text messages after Plaintiff's initial stop request. The Defendant's text messages caused Plaintiff and the Class members harm, including statutory damages, inconvenience, invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance, and violation of their statutory privacy rights, asserts the suit. Sonia Perez is a citizen and resident of Lake County, Illinois. Zealthy, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters located in Sacramento, California.[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 Telephone: 754-444-7539 E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com ZILLOW GROUP: Plaintiffs Allowed Leave to Amend Class Complaint --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Perkins et al v. Zillow Group Inc et al. (re: ZILLOW GROUP, INC. SESSION REPLAY SOFTWARE LITIGATION), Case No. 2:22-cv-01282-JLR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge James Robart entered an order 1. The court grants the Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint in light of the Ninth Circuit's Popa decision. The Plaintiffs shall file their amended complaint by no later than 30 days after entry of this order. The Defendants shall answer or respond to the amended complaint by no later than 60 days after the date the Plaintiffs file their amended complaint. 2. The court stays discovery pending the close of the pleading stage of this action. The court will issue a schedule for discovery, motions for class certification, and dispositive motions after it resolves any motions to dismiss filed by the Defendants. On Jan. 2024, the court stayed this consolidated class action matter pending the resolution of the appeal in Popa v. PSP Grp., LLC, Case No. C23-0294JLR (W.D. Wash.). On October 31, 2025, the parties filed a joint statement in which they present separate positions on how this case should proceed. The Plaintiffs seek leave to amend their complaint in light of the Ninth Circuit’s guidance in Popa regarding the types of allegations that are sufficient to satisfy Article III standing. Zillow is an American tech real-estate marketplace company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wUFABV at no extra charge.[CC] ZYNGA INC: Fitzer Files Suit Over Illegal Online Gambling Losses ---------------------------------------------------------------- JILL FITZER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZYNGA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01262-JLG-CMV (S.D. Ohio., October 28, 2025) is a state-wide class action that seeks recovery of illegal gambling losses by Ohio residents who played Zynga's illegal online gambling games. The complaint relates that Zynga's games operate with virtual coins that are available for purchase. These virtual coins cannot be redeemed for real-world currency. However, when users play with and win more coins, the coins won can be used to extend their playing time without having to purchase more coins, and thus users obtain more amusement, a valuable consideration under Ohio gambling law. Zynga's games are games of chance that simulate casino gambling such as slot machines. Ohio law bans both games of chance and schemes of chance, and Zynga's games fit this definition. Plaintiff Jill Fitzer spent money to purchase virtual coins, played Zynga's gambling games, and lost money on the games within the six months preceding the filing of this complaint. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks, among other things, (i) a ruling that Zynga's gambling games, when plaid in Ohio, constitute an "illegal gambling business"; (ii) a ruling that the gambling is conducted pursuant to the terms and conditions on Zynga's apps and that these contracts are void under Ohio law and cannot be enforced; and (iii) a final judgment against Zynga awarding plaintiff and the class members a refund of their net losses on Zynga's illegal gambling games in the period between six months prior to the filing of the complaint and the entry of judgment under Ohio's gambling loss recovery statute. Plaintiff Jill Fitzer is resident citizen of Franklin County, Ohio and played the illegal gambling games. Defendant Zynga, Inc. is a game developer that has created games that simulate slot machines and other gambling games, including Wizard of Oz Slots, Hit it Rich, Game of Thrones Slots, Black Diamond Casino and Willy Wonka Casino, which it makes available to the public through apps available on the Apple App Store and Google Play Store.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua D. Rockwell, Esq. ROCKWELL LLC 47 East Wilson Bridge Road Worthington, OH 43085 Telephone: (614) 806-7672 E-mail: jrockwell@lawrockwell.com ********* 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 ***