251121.mbx

251121.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, November 21, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 233 Headlines ABBOTT LAB: Renewed Bid for Class Cert Extended to Dec. 18 ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Seeks to Seal Excerpts of Opposition AGA SERVICE: Must File Class Cert Response by Nov. 25 AI DEVELOPMENT: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Illegal Gambling in NY AMERICAN HONDA: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert Hearing Date ANDEN ONLINE: Garnder Sues Over Illegal Online Gambling APPLE COMMUTER: Court Withdraws Prior Class Cert Bids APRIA HEALTHCARE: Jury Trial Dates Vacated ARIZONA: Patients Seeks to Certify Class AUTOZONE INC: Class Cert Bid Response Extended to Dec. 5 BEVERLY HILLS: Filing for Class Certification Due May 26, 2026 BLOCKDANCE BV: Faces Jones Suit Over Illegal Online Gambling BLOOMBERG LP: Skolarus Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit BRAND I101: Fact Discovery in Campbell Due March 4, 2026 CACI INTERNATIONAL: Kuentz Appeals Suit Dismissal to D.C. Circuit CAPITAL ONE: Bid for Final OK of Settlement in Bellantoni Nixed CAPITAL ONE: Bid for Final OK of Settlement in Hopkins Nixed CAPITAL ONE: Bid for Final OK of Settlement in Pitts Tossed CAPITAL ONE: Bid for Final OK of Settlement in Port Tossed CAPITAL ONE: Bid for Final OK of Settlement in Sim Nixed CAPITAL ONE: Bid for Final OK of Settlement in Wise Junked CARSON'S OF MALTA: Conrick Seeks Conditional Cert of Collective CENTRAL MAINE: Discovery in Gagnon Suit Due Dec. 8 CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA: Bayles Suit Seeks Class Certification CIGNA HEALTH: Seeks Leave to File Sur-Reply in Stewart Suit CITADEL SECURITIES: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit CIVITAS RESOURCES: New Jersey Court Closes "Lin" Suit CONDUENT BUSINESS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Bianco Alleges CONDUENT BUSINESS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Burwell Alleges CONDUENT INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Cromer Suit Says CRH HEALTHCARE: Doe Suit Alleges Data Privacy Violations DANIELLE OUTLAW: Flacco Files Bid to Compel Discovery DANIELLE OUTLAW: Flacco Loses Bid for Class Certification DOMESTIC AIRLINE: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due April 23, 2026 DURANBAH LTD: Ludlow Sues Over Illegal Online Gambling EQT CORP: Ross Seeks OK of Amended Class Cert Bid EXP WORLD: Awaits Final Court OK of Settlement in Antitrust Suit EXP WORLD: Continues to Defend "McFall" in Canada EXPENSIFY INC: Continues to Defend "Wilhite" in Oregon FEDERAL BUREAU: Banks Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action FEDERAL SAVINGS: Sapan Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action FEDEX CORP: Case Management Deadlines Order Entered in Almonte FIVE BELOW: Class Cert Bid Filing in Tyler Due Jan. 16, 2026 FLEET QUEST: Scott Loses Bid for Class Certification FLY-E GROUP: Suit Seeks to Appoint Lazzaretti as Lead Plaintiff GAMBALE INSURANCE: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Bid GENERAL MOTORS: Judge Appoints DiCello Levitt as Lead Counsel GEORGE WASHINGTON: Hafez Appeals Suit Dismissal to D.C. Circuit GRACE KNUTSON: Bid for Class Certification Held in Abeyance GROUP HEALTH: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $3.5MM HORIZON FINANCIAL: Scheduling Order Entered in Hromek Class Suit HP INC: Bid for Judgement on the Pleadings Partly OK'd HRTC I LLC: Property Inaccessible to Disabled People, Suit Says HUNTER WARFIELD: Bids for Class Certification Due Dec. 19 HYUNDAI MOTOR: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal INOTIV INC: Deadline to File Claim in Securities Suit Set March 2 IOVANCE BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Securities Class Suits Remain Pending ISM VUZEM: Maslic Bid for Attys' Fees Partly OK'd KEVIN COPPINGER: Parties Seek to Stay Class Certification Briefing LANTHEUS HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend "Margolis" in New York LEAFFILTER NORTH: Bid to Alter Judgment in Christian Suit Tossed LENS.COM INC: Bid for Leave to File Class Cert Exhibits OK'd LENS.COM INC: Parties Seek Leave for Plaintiff to File Exhibits LOS ANGELES: Sued Over Jail's Abusive Shower Facility Practices LYNTON LIMITED: Ecklund Sues Over Illegal Online Gambling MAPFRE DATA: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due August 3, 2026 MDL 3111: Bid for Final OK of Class Settlement Tossed MEDICREDIT INC: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Sur-Reply MR. COOPER: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert Scheduling Order NAVIENT CORPORATION: Ballard Seeks to File Class Cert Brief NVIDIA CORP: Seeks Leave to File Opposition Sur-Reply NVIDIA CORP: Seeks to File Class Exhibits Under Seal ORLANDO HEALTH: Must File Class Cert Response by Jan. 16, 2026 OSHKOSH CORP: Onalaska Sues Over Fire Truck Monopoly PARAMOUNT SKYDANCE: Diaz Sues Over Data Privacy Violations PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Case Management Order Entered in Browser Suit PHARMAVITE LLC: Douglass Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind PREMIER EVENTS: Rawls Seeks Conditional Cert. of Collective Actions PRIME NOW: Class Cert Filing in Quintero Extended to April 7, 2026 PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED: Rodriguez Wins Bid for Class Certification RICOH USA: Mike the Printer Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ROCKET CLOSE: Mangle Seeks Class Certification ROCKET MORTGAGE: Faces Class Suit Over Ignored Opt-Out Requests SALESFORCE INC: Alexander Suit Alleges Copyright Infringement SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Anderson Seeks Class Settlement Final Approval SELENE FINANCE: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Dec. 15, 2026 SELLAN STRUCTURAL: More Time to File Class Cert Response Sought SEYBOTH TEAM: Seeks More Time to File Class Objection in Iudiciani SIX FLAGS: City of Livonia Sues Over Drop in Share Price SOUTHERN OREGON: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due March 16, 2026 SPOTIFY USA: Capolongo Sues Over Deceptive Business Practices SPROUT SOCIAL: Awaits Court Ruling on Bid to Junk Securities Suit SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: To Pay $112MM Over Detention of Immigrants TALL TIMBERS: Must File Class Cert Opposition by Dec. 5 TALL TIMBERS: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid TARGET CORPORATION: Kelly Seeks Class Cert Briefing Schedule TASKUS INC: Court Recommends Final OK of Settlement in Lozada TOP QUALITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Donato Alleges TRANS UNION: Files Renewed Bid to Seal Certain Exhibits TRIUMPH CONSTRUCTION: Fact Discovery in Lamarco Due May 12, 2026 TRONOX HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Suit in Connecticut TRUE FINANCE: Faces Class Suit Over "Predatory" Payday Loans TUSHY INC: Hogge Files Suit Over False Discount Prices UNITED STATES: Oregon Nonprofits Seek Immigration Suit Class Cert. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Bersani Sues Over Alleged Data Breach UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Braund Sues Over Unprotected Info VAUGHAN MCLEAN: DeMetro Appeals Suit Dismissal to D.C. Circuit VIEW INC: Class Settlement in Mehedi Suit Gets Final Nod VJC HOSPITALITY: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Ferguson Says VOYA FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Ravarino" WARNER BROS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit WENDY'S OF COLORADO: Cervantes Seeks ok of Renewed Class Cert Bid XPO LAST: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert Briefing Schedule YESCARE CORP: Darpoh Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Defends 1,233 Exposure Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Otis Worldwide Estimates $11MM Total Liabilities ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Tech. Faces Product Liability Lawsuits L'OREAL: Colley Files Suit Over Asbestos-linked Mesothelioma ********* ABBOTT LAB: Renewed Bid for Class Cert Extended to Dec. 18 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LeGrand, et al., v. Abbott Laboratories, Case No. 3:22-cv-05815 (N.D. Cal., Filed Oct. 6, 2022), the Hon. Judge Thomas S. Hixson entered an order that the hearing on Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Class Certification is continued to Dec. 18, 2025. Briefing deadlines are unchanged. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Diversity-Fraud. Abbott is an American multinational medical devices and health care company.[CC] ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Seeks to Seal Excerpts of Opposition --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONDALISA LEGRAND on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Case No. 3:22-cv-05815-TSH (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order sealing excerpts of Abbott's opposition to the Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5, Defendant Abbott Laboratories submits this Administrative Motion to File Certain Materials Under Seal relating to its Opposition to Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Class Certification and related exhibits. Abbott is an American multinational medical devices and health care company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JHb6gD at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Mark McKane, Esq. Tracie L. Bryant, Esq. Gregg F. LoCascio, Esq. Michael A. Glick, Esq. Terence J. McCarrick, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 555 California Street, 27th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 439-1400 Facsimile: (415) 439-1500 E-mail: mark.mckane@kirkland.com tracie.bryant@kirkland.com glocascio@kirkland.com michael.glick@kirkland.com tj.mccarrick@kirkland.com AGA SERVICE: Must File Class Cert Response by Nov. 25 ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Herssein v. AGA Service Company et al., Case No. 0:25-cv-60256 (S.D. Fla., Filed Feb. 12, 2025), the Hon. Judge Rodney Smith entered an order granting the Defendants' unopposed motion for extension of time to file their response to plaintiff's motion to certify class. The Defendants shall file their response to Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class by Nov. 25, 2025. No further extensions will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances. AGA operates as a travel insurance carrier.[CC] AI DEVELOPMENT: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Illegal Gambling in NY --------------------------------------------------------------- The South Shore Pres reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed against a company accused of operating an illegal online gambling platform under the guise of a "free" social casino. The complaint targets AI Development, LLC, which operates under the name No Limit Coins. The lawsuit alleges that No Limit Coins presents itself as a social casino but functions as an unlicensed gambling site in violation of New York law. Users can purchase virtual currency to play traditional casino games like slots and jackpots on No Limit Coins' website. These virtual currencies include Gold Coins for free play and Super Coins that can be redeemed for cash or prizes. The plaintiff claims this setup misleads consumers into believing they are engaging in risk-free entertainment when they are actually participating in unlawful gambling activities. The plaintiff argues that No Limit Coins exploits its users by bundling Gold Coins with Super Coins, disguising real-money gambling as a free-to-play experience. The lawsuit highlights that players often purchase additional coin bundles when they run out of Super Coins, even if they have unused Gold Coins. The complaint states that New York law prohibits such online gambling operations unless conducted by licensed operators in physical locations. The plaintiff is seeking damages, restitution, and injunctive relief to halt what she describes as deceptive practices by AI Development LLC. She alleges the company violates several New York laws designed to protect consumers from illegal gambling and misleading advertising, including the New York Loss Recovery Act and New York General Business Law sections 349 and 350. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York under Case ID 1:25-cv-06061. [GN] AMERICAN HONDA: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert Hearing Date -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE ELIAS MORALES AGUIRRE, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-06909-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order modifying class certification hearing date. The Plaintiff's reply in support of class certification shall be filed by no later than Nov. 23, 2025. The hearing On the Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be rescheduled to Dec. 11, 2025 at 2:00 p.m. American is the North American subsidiary of Japanese Honda Motor Company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6QHkYn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Y. Basser, Esq. Jordan L. Lurie, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 432-8492 E-mail: jllurie@pomlaw.com abasser@pomlaw.com - and - Robert L. Starr, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR 23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 2072 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 225-9040 Facsimile: (818) 225-9042 E-mail: robert@starrlaw.com - and - Manny Starr, Esq. Adam Rose, Esq. FRONTIER LAW CENTER 23901 Calabasas Road, #2074 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 914-3433 E-mail: manny@frontierlawcenter.com adam@frontierlawcenter.com The Defendant is represented by: Amir Nassihi, Esq. Ryan M. Sandrock, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY, & BACON L.L.P. 555 Mission Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 544-1900 Facsimile: (415) 391-0281 E-mail: anassihi@shb.com rsandrock@shb.com ANDEN ONLINE: Garnder Sues Over Illegal Online Gambling ------------------------------------------------------- BAILEY GARDNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANDEN ONLINE N.V.; ANDEN HOLDINGS LIMITED; and PAN DIGITAL NETWORK LIMITED, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01012 (D. Utah, Nov. 5, 2025) alleges violation of the Utah's Gambling Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants violated the Utah's Gambling Act by accepting wagers and collecting losses from Utah residents through the illicit operation of the Brango Gambling Platform -- which is comprised of "fringe gambling devices," "video gaming devices," and "gambling devices or records" within the meaning of Utah's Gambling Act. Anden Online N.V. is a holding company behind several casinos, including Casino Brango, Casino Adrenaline, and Casino Extreme. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elliot O. Jackson, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140 Miami, FL 33131-3302 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 E-mail: ejackson@hedinllp.com - and - David W. Scofield, Esq. PETERS ❘ SCOFIELD A Professional Corporation 7430 Creek Road, Suite 303 Sandy, UT 84093-6160 Telephone: (801) 322-2002 E-mail: dws@psplawyers.com - and - Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. GUCOVSCHI LAW FIRM, PLLC 140 BROADWAY, FL 46 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 E-mail: adrian@gr-firm.com APPLE COMMUTER: Court Withdraws Prior Class Cert Bids ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAKHA ABULADZE, et al., v. APPLE COMMUTER, INC., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-08684-MMG-RFT (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Tarnofsky entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed request to withdraw its prior motions for class certification. The Plaintiffs shall have until Dec. 19, 2025, to file a renewed motion for class certification if that motion is unopposed by Hotel Defendants, the motion shall so indicate; and if the motion is opposed, Hotel Defendants shall have until Dec. 29, 2025, to file their opposition. Apple is a transportation service provider. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UqxLOC at no extra charge.[CC] APRIA HEALTHCARE: Jury Trial Dates Vacated ------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELA TISDALE, an individual; TERRENCE PRATT, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. APRIA HEALTHCARE LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2:24-cv-09620-AH-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Anne Hwang entered an order as follows: 1. The final pretrial conference and jury trial dates are vacated. 2. The parties are ordered to file a joint status report or stipulation within 30 days from issuance of the Ninth Circuit mandate. The report or stipulation should set forth the parties' joint proposals with respect to re-setting dates in this matter, including the class certification motion hearing and briefing, and also the pretrial and trial dates in this matter. Apria is a provider of home medical equipment delivery and clinical support. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iVyQNP at no extra charge.[CC] ARIZONA: Patients Seeks to Certify Class ---------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Patients of the Arizona State Hospital by Matthew Phillip Solan; Nicholase Philip Oakes; David Joshua Burstein; Robert Lee Dunn; and Bobby Gene Blansett, v. The State of Arizona, and Michael R. Sheldon, Case No. 2:25-cv-04179-JJT--DMF (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class of: "All patients currently confined in the Arizona State Hospital, including its Forensic Hospital, Civil Hospital, and ACPTC, and will include all patients committed to any if these facilities during the continuance of these proceedings." Arizona is a landlocked state situated in the southwestern United States, bordering Mexico in the south. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2v7gnT at no extra charge.[CC] AUTOZONE INC: Class Cert Bid Response Extended to Dec. 5 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAPLLO v. AUTOZONE, INC., Case No. 9:25-cv-80770, (S.D. Fla., Filed June 18, 2025), the Hon. Judge Donald M Middlebrooks entered an order granting in part Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time. The Defendant seeks an extension of time to respond to the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class from Nov. 5, 2025, to Dec. 5, 2025. The nature of suit states Statutory Actions. AutoZone is an American retailer of automotive parts and accessories.[CC] BEVERLY HILLS: Filing for Class Certification Due May 26, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ian Greene et al., v. City of Beverly Hills et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-05916-FMO-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Olguin entered an order as follows: 1. The Stipulation is granted as set forth in this Order. 2. The deposition of the Defendants' witness pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) shall be completed no later than Dec. 5, 2025. 3. All expert discovery shall be completed by March 31, 2026. The parties must serve their initial expert witness disclosures no later than Jan. 12, 2026. Rebuttal expert witness disclosures shall be served no later than Feb. 10, 2026. 4. Any motion for class certification shall be filed no later than May 26, 2026, and noticed for hearing regularly under the Local Rules.2 Any untimely or non-conforming motion will be denied. 5. The court will set dates and deadlines for summary judgment, trial, the pretrial conference, and the parties' pretrial filings after the resolution of the motion for class certification. Beverly is an enclaved city in Los Angeles County in Southern California, surrounded almost entirely by Los Angeles. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0y8enC at no extra charge.[CC] BLOCKDANCE BV: Faces Jones Suit Over Illegal Online Gambling ------------------------------------------------------------ JERRIS JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLOCKDANCE B.V.; TWOCENT TECHNOLOGY LTD.; and SMALL HOUSE B.V., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00176-DAO (D. Utah, Nov. 5, 2025) alleges violation of the Utah's Gambling Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants violated Utah's Gambling Act by accepting wagers and collecting losses from Utah residents through the illicit operation of the BC Gambling Platform -- which is comprised of "fringe gambling devices," "video gaming devices," and "gambling devices or records" within the meaning of Utah's Gambling Act. BlockDance BV is a company that operates in the iGaming industry, owning and operating the popular online casino BC.Game Casino. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elliot O. Jackson, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140 Miami, FL 33131-3302 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 E-mail: ejackson@hedinllp.com - and - David W. Scofield, Esq. PETERS ❘ SCOFIELD A Professional Corporation 7430 Creek Road, Suite 303 Sandy, UT 84093-6160 Telephone: (801) 322-2002 E-mail: dws@psplawyers.com - and - Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. GUCOVSCHI LAW FIRM, PLLC 140 BROADWAY, FL 46 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 E-mail: adrian@gr-firm.com BLOOMBERG LP: Skolarus Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------ EDWARD SKOLARUS, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss in the lawsuit entitled Edward Skolarus, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bloomberg, LP, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-4375, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case arises from the Defendants' conduct of misclassifying Recovery Bonds, causing millions of electricity consumers, including Plaintiffs, to pay inflated interest rates. On Sept. 26, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Dec. 6, 2024. On Dec. 6, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to stay discovery. On Sept. 30, 2025, Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Defendants' motion to stay discovery is denied as moot. Accordingly, the case is closed. The appellate case is entitled Skolarus v. Bloomberg, L.P., Case No. 25-2763, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on October 31, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants EDWARD SKOLARUS, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Roger N. Heller, Esq. LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Defendants-Appellees BLOOMBERG, L.P., et al. are represented by: Dana M. Seshens, Esq. DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 BRAND I101: Fact Discovery in Campbell Due March 4, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tawana Campbell, v. Brand i101, LLC d/b/a, Case No. 1:25-cv-07725-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Schofield entered a civil case management plan and scheduling order: No additional parties may be joined after Dec. 22, 2025. On May 5, 2026 at 3:15 P.M., a pre-motion conference will be held for any anticipated class certification. Fact discovery relating to the merits of the Plaintiff's claims only and class certification-related issues shall be completed by Mar. 4, 2026. The parties shall propose a discovery schedule for remaining issues following adjudication of class certification, if necessary. By Feb. 18, 2026 (two weeks before the close of fact discovery on the Plaintiff's claims and class certification), the parties shall file a joint letter proposing a schedule for expert discovery on those issues A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YZCxQ1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. GUCOVSCHI LAW FIRM PLLC 140 Broadway, FL 46, New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 E-mail: adrian@gucovschilaw.com The Defendant is represented by: William A. Ruskin, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM A. RUSKIN, PLLC 800 Westchester Avenue, Suite N-641 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: (914) 231-0360 Facsimile: (914) 231-0361 E-mail: wruskin@wruskinlaw.com CACI INTERNATIONAL: Kuentz Appeals Suit Dismissal to D.C. Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- EMILIA KUENTZ, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing the lawsuit entitled Emilia Kuentz, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CACI International Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-02496-DLF, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, District of Columbia Wage Payment and Collection Law and Washington D.C. Minimum Wage Act. On Oct. 22, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Nov. 5, 2024. On Sept. 30, 2025, Judge Dabney L. Friedrich entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice. The appellate case is entitled Emilia Kuentz, et al. v. CACI International Inc., et al., Case No. 25-7171, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, filed on October 31, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants EMILIA KUENTZ, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Michael K. Amster, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 812-4744 Defendants-Appellees CACI INTERNATIONAL INC., et al. are represented by: Bryan Michael Killian, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 373-6000 CAPITAL ONE: Bid for Final OK of Settlement in Bellantoni Nixed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bellantoni v. Capital One Financial Corporation et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01076 (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge David Novak entered an order denying motion for final approval of class action settlement. The Court directs the parties to engage in further settlement negotiations to remedy the flaws in the proposed settlement highlighted by the Court. Let the Clerk file a copy of this Order electronically and notify all counsel of record to include counsel for the New York Attorney General's Office, as well as the Special Master. The Court further notes that, even if it accepted Capital One's contrary position that the continuing 360 Savings account holders knowingly remain in these accounts despite the significantly lower interest income available to them, the proposed settlement would still fail Rule 23 muster. Capital is an American bank holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pghlK7 at no extra charge.[CC] CAPITAL ONE: Bid for Final OK of Settlement in Hopkins Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hopkins et al v. Capital One , N.A. et, al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00292 (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge David Novak entered an order denying motion for final approval of class action settlement. The Court directs the parties to engage in further settlement negotiations to remedy the flaws in the proposed settlement highlighted by the Court. Let the Clerk file a copy of this Order electronically and notify all counsel of record to include counsel for the New York Attorney General's Office, as well as the Special Master. The Court further notes that, even if it accepted Capital One's contrary position that the continuing 360 Savings account holders knowingly remain in these accounts despite the significantly lower interest income available to them, the proposed settlement would still fail Rule 23 muster. Capital is an American bank holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uq1ptZ at no extra charge.[CC] CAPITAL ONE: Bid for Final OK of Settlement in Pitts Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pitts v. Capital One Financial Corporation et al. (re: CAPITAL ONE 360 SAVINGS ACCOUNT INTEREST RATE LITIGATION), Case No. 1:24-cv-01087 (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge David Novak entered an order denying motion for final approval of class action settlement. The Court directs the parties to engage in further settlement negotiations to remedy the flaws in the proposed settlement highlighted by the Court. Let the Clerk file a copy of this Order electronically and notify all counsel of record to include counsel for the New York Attorney General's Office, as well as the Special Master. The Court further notes that, even if it accepted Capital One's contrary position that the continuing 360 Savings account holders knowingly remain in these accounts despite the significantly lower interest income available to them, the proposed settlement would still fail Rule 23 muster. Capital is an American bank holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JYWqeR at no extra charge.[CC] CAPITAL ONE: Bid for Final OK of Settlement in Port Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PORT v. CAPITAL ONE, N.A., Case No. 1:24-cv-01028 (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge David Novak entered an order denying motion for final approval of class action settlement. The Court directs the parties to engage in further settlement negotiations to remedy the flaws in the proposed settlement highlighted by the Court. Let the Clerk file a copy of this Order electronically and notify all counsel of record to include counsel for the New York Attorney General's Office, as well as the Special Master. The Court further notes that, even if it accepted Capital One's contrary position that the continuing 360 Savings account holders knowingly remain in these accounts despite the significantly lower interest income available to them, the proposed settlement would still fail Rule 23 muster. Capital is an American bank holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4rWUH6 at no extra charge.[CC] CAPITAL ONE: Bid for Final OK of Settlement in Sim Nixed -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jay Sim v. Capital One Financial Corporation et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01031 (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge David Novak entered an order denying motion for final approval of class action settlement. The Court directs the parties to engage in further settlement negotiations to remedy the flaws in the proposed settlement highlighted by the Court. Let the Clerk file a copy of this Order electronically and notify all counsel of record to include counsel for the New York Attorney General's Office, as well as the Special Master. The Court further notes that, even if it accepted Capital One's contrary position that the continuing 360 Savings account holders knowingly remain in these accounts despite the significantly lower interest income available to them, the proposed settlement would still fail Rule 23 muster. Capital is an American bank holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4oCQ60 at no extra charge.[CC] CAPITAL ONE: Bid for Final OK of Settlement in Wise Junked ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wise v. Capital One Financial Corporation et, al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01080 (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge David Novak entered an order denying motion for final approval of class action settlement. The Court directs the parties to engage in further settlement negotiations to remedy the flaws in the proposed settlement highlighted by the Court. Let the Clerk file a copy of this Order electronically and notify all counsel of record to include counsel for the New York Attorney General's Office, as well as the Special Master. The Court further notes that, even if it accepted Capital One's contrary position that the continuing 360 Savings account holders knowingly remain in these accounts despite the significantly lower interest income available to them, the proposed settlement would still fail Rule 23 muster. Capital is an American bank holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ojM1vq at no extra charge.[CC] CARSON'S OF MALTA: Conrick Seeks Conditional Cert of Collective --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AIDAN CONRICK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. CARSON'S OF MALTA, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00585-AMN-DJS (N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion for conditional certification of FLSA Collective pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) and NDNY Local Rule 7.1 and for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yi58d4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Miller, Esq. Jordan Richards, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS – JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 1800 SE 10th Ave. Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com michael@usaemploymentlawyers.com The Defendant is represented by: John B. DuCharme, Esq. DUCHARME CLARK, LLP 346 Plank Road, Suite 204 Clifton Park, NY 12065 Telephone: (518) 373-1482 Facsimile: (518) 373-8758 E-mail: jducharme@nycap.rr.com CENTRAL MAINE: Discovery in Gagnon Suit Due Dec. 8 -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHERINE GAGNON, v. CENTRAL MAINE HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, Case No. 2:25-cv-00423-LEW (D. Me.), the Hon. Judge John Nivison entered a scheduling order as follows: The parties shall not initiate discovery until December 8, 2025. Deadline for initial disclosure pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.26(a)(1): Dec. 8, 2025. Deadline for amendment of the pleadings and joinder of parties: Feb. 4, 2026. The Plaintiff shall designate her experts required to be disclosed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(A) and, with respect to each expert, provide a complete statement of all opinions to be expressed and the basis and reasons therefor by: June 4, 2026. The Defendant shall designate its experts required to be disclosed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(A) and, with respect to each expert, provide a complete statement of all opinions to be expressed and the basis and reasons therefor by: June 4, 2026. The Deadline for the Plaintiff to file motion for class certification: July 7, 2026. Deadline for the Defendant to file response to motion for class certification: Aug. 6, 2026. Deadline for the Plaintiff to file reply in support of motion for class certification: Aug. 20, 2026. Central is an integrated healthcare delivery system. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=D37W6r at no extra charge.[CC] CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA: Bayles Suit Seeks Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERRY BAYLES; KERRY WELBORN; AUSTIN CLAYLON; CALEB BACON; TONY BLAKE; MISTY CAMPBELL; BILLY CHASE; JEREMIAH COLBERT; GEORGE DAVENPORT; CHRISTOPHER GRAY; JAMES HENSON; PEYTON JONES; JAMES GEOFFREY; SAWYER LOPEZ; ADELBY MARTINEZ; JAMES MCKIBBEN; v. THE CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA; CHOCTAW COUNTY SHERIFF, TERRY PARK, EX. REL. COUNTY JAIL, Case No. 6:25-cv-00370-RAW-JAR (E.D. Okla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for class certification on the facts and authorities set forth in the following Memorandum of Law. The Petitioners propose to certify the following Class: "All persons who (1) have been deemed indigent and have had the Choctaw Nation Public Defender's Office (CNPDO) appointed to represent him or her in their criminal case, and (2) are either currently facing criminal charges in the Choctaw Nation or who have been sentenced, and have not yet exhausted their appeals." Excluded from this Class are (1) CNO defendants who are represented by private counsel, or (2) went to trial and were exonerated, or (3) are no longer considered in the custody of the Choctaw Nation. As used in this context, "custody" means that the individual is in the physical custody of the CNO and serving time, or out on bond, or serving a suspended sentence or probationary or otherwise rehabilitative time. The Choctaw Nation is the third-largest Indian Nation in the United States with nearly 212000 tribal members and more than 12000 employees. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GtyA1f at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Garrett Eller, Esq. ELLER LEGAL 539 W Commerce St, STE 1386 Dallas, TX 75208 E-mail: garrett@ellerlegal.com - and - Dale Ellis, Esq. Durant, OK 74702 Telephone: (918) 557-5415 E-mail: insurancelaw@msn.com - and - Tiffani J. Shipman, Esq. Telephone: (405) 312-2231 Durant, OK 74702 E-mail: tiffanijshipman@gmail.com CIGNA HEALTH: Seeks Leave to File Sur-Reply in Stewart Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JILL STEWART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:22-cv-00769-OAW (D. Conn.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting leave to file sur-reply and sur-rebuttal to sur-reply concerning the plaintiff's reply in support of motion for class certification. Accordingly, Cigna requests that the Court grant Cigna leave to file a sur-reply of 10 pages to address Plaintiff's amended class definition due on or before Nov. 18, 2025, and Plaintiff leave to file a sur-rebuttal of five pages due on or before Dec. 5, 2025. On July 1, 2025, Plaintiff filed her motion for class certification On Oct. 3, 2025, Cigna filed its opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class certification. On Nov. 4, 2025, the Plaintiff filed her class certification reply, containing the following amended putative class definition: "All participants or beneficiaries in ERISA health plans administered by Cigna ("Plans"), or their valid assignees, who, after June 10, 2016, and prior to Jan. 1, 2024, received covered services from a MultiPlan Provider and where: (i) the written terms of their Plan defined "Participating Provider" to include providers with "indirect" contracts with Cigna and "Benefit Schedules" that require the Plan to pay "in-network" benefits based on that contract rate, and does not include any of the following: (A) a definition of "Non-Participating Provider" that refers to "discount arrangements with vendors that Cigna is able to access"; (B) a reference to the "Network Savings Program; (C) a definition of MRC that refers to "cost containment program"; or (D) a definition of "Shared Savings Program"; (ii) Cigna did not apply the MultiPlan Contract rate and instead set a lower amount of benefits based on an MRC Remark Code or Repricing Remark Code; and (iii) the service (as distinct from the plan's basis for reimbursement) was not subject to another statute that prescribed the basis for the allowed amount or capped patient liability, such as Medicare, the No Surprises Act, the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, or the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act." Cigna offers health insurance plans. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9tyTdU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth K. Acee, Esq. BARCLAY DAMON LLP 545 Long Wharf Drive, Ninth Floor New Haven, CT 06511 Telephone: (203) 672-2659 Facsimile: (203) 654-3260 E-mail: eacee@barclaydamon.com - and - Andrew N. Goldfarb, Esq. R. Miles Clark, Esq. Alyssa Howard Card, Esq. Jason S. Cowart, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 2100 L Street, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (202) 778-1800 Facsimile: (202) 822-8106 E-mail: agoldfarb@zuckerman.com mclark@zuckerman.com acard@zuckerman.com jcowart@zuckerman.com - and - Leslie Howard, Esq. COHEN HOWARD, LLP 331 Newman Springs Road Building 2, Suite 236 Red Bank, NJ 07701 Telephone: (732) 747-5202 E-mail: lhoward@cohenhoward.com The Defendants are represented by: Joshua B. Simon, Esq. Warren Haskel, Esq. Richard W. Nicholson, Jr., Esq. Chelsea Cosillos, Esq. Cindy D. Ham, Esq. MCDERMOTT WILL & SCHULTE LLP One Vanderbilt Avenue New York, NY 10017-3852 Telephone: (212) 547-5400 Facsimile: (212) 547-5444 E-mail: jsimon@mwe.com whaskel@mwe.com rnicholson@mwe.com ccosillos@mwe.com cham@mwe.com - and - Theodore J. Tucci, Esq. Gregory J. Bennici, Esq. ROBINSON & COLE LLP One State Street Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 275-8210 Facsimile: (860) 275-8299 E-mail: ttucci@rc.com gbennici@rc.com CITADEL SECURITIES: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- Genius Group Limited (NYSE American: GNS) ("Genius Group" or the "Company"), a leading AI-powered, Bitcoin-first education group, announced it has filed a Class Action Complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that Citadel Securities LLC, and Virtu Americas LLC (the "Defendants") engaged in a long-running market manipulation scheme that includes spoofing and naked short selling of the Company's shares and related acts in violation of Section 10(b), Sections 9(a)(2) and 9(e) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Company believes the lawsuit sets a number of precedents with regards to the protection of shareholder interests and the Company. As such, the Company is taking action to recover damages caused due to alleged market manipulation: -- This lawsuit is a Class Action Complaint filed on behalf of the Company and ALL of its investors who sold Genius Group stock at artificially deflated prices as a result of Defendants' alleged abuses. -- Pursuing a class action will help the Company facilitate a recovery not just for Genius Group's losses, but for all its harmed shareholders as well. -- The Company will ask the Court to appoint it "lead plaintiff" in the class action, so that the Company can effectively manage the litigation and diligently work to protect its shareholders' interests. The class action complaint alleges that Defendants engaged in longstanding and widespread manipulative trading scheme centered on repeatedly "spoofing" Genius Group stock. "Spoofing" is a manipulative and illegal trading practice that involves submitting and then cancelling buy or sell orders without any genuine intent to execute them. The purpose of these "baiting orders" is to mislead other market participants about the level of supply and/or demand for a security, or about the degree of price volatility associated with a security, and thereby influence market prices for that security. The complaint alleges that for a period of at least three years -- between April 12, 2022 and May 30, 2025 (the "Class Period") -- Defendants repeatedly entered thousands of spoofing trades designed to create the false impression that there was both excess supply and excess volatility in Genius stock. The Company has confirmed that the lawsuit seeks at least the previously reported no less than $250 million in damages. These manipulative orders were calculated to (and successfully did) deceive or induce other investors to sell their holdings at artificially deflated prices. In particular, the complaint alleges: On 98% of all trading days during the Class Period, Defendants repeatedly entered spoofing trades designed to manipulate the price of Genius stock. Defendants entered dozens -- sometimes thousands -- of such trades on a given trading day, canceling them within milliseconds of placement. Defendants repeatedly built massive short positions through off-exchange trading over a few trading days, and then bombarded the market with spoofing trades (baiting orders canceled within 100 milliseconds of placement) causing significant declines in the price of Genius Group stock. Less than a minute after these baiting orders were placed, Defendants sold significant volumes of Genius stock short through off-exchange trading. Defendants also engaged in significant naked short-selling, i.e., improper short sales that are unsupported by existing market inventory. Indeed, major declines in Genius Group stock were also accompanied by large spikes in evidence of such activity. In filing this class action, Genius Group is demonstrating its commitment to its shareholders and the Company intends to work diligently to protect their interests. Roger James Hamilton, CEO of Genius Group, said "We have been consistent in calling for fair markets and taking actions to protect our shareholders. The filing of this lawsuit is an important milestone for the company in what has been a long, multi-year fight to protect the company and its shareholders and expose unfair and illegal practices that our investors have dealt with." "Even today, multiple brokers have taken away the buy button on Genius shares while leaving the sell button, making it hard to buy but easy to sell our stock without providing adequate explanation as to why they are choosing to target our company. We give notice to any and all bad actors seeking to profit at the expense of our shareholders that we will continue to take forceful, proactive action to defend our company." The Company and its legal team will continue to provide updates to its shareholders on this case as appropriate. The Company also reminds shareholders of the record date of November 28, 2025 to transfer shares via the Direct Registration System (DRS) to book entry with the Company's transfer agent, VStock in order to benefit from the Bitcoin Loyalty Payment program, designed to reduce the number of Company shares available to short sellers. Full details of the program can be found here. About Genius Group Genius Group (NYSE: GNS) is a Bitcoin-first business delivering AI powered, education and acceleration solutions for the future of work. Genius Group serves 6 million users in over 100 countries through its Genius City model and online digital marketplace of AI training, AI tools and AI talent. It provides personalized, entrepreneurial AI pathways combining human talent with AI skills and AI solutions at the individual, enterprise and government level. To learn more, please visit https://www.geniusgroup.ai/ Forward-Looking Statements Statements made in this press release include forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of words such as "may," "will", "plan," "should," "expect," "anticipate," "estimate," "continue," or comparable terminology. Such forward-looking statements are inherently subject to certain risks, trends and uncertainties, many of which the Company cannot predict with accuracy and some of which the Company might not even anticipate and involve factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from those projected or suggested. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements and are advised to consider the factors listed above together with the additional factors under the heading "Risk Factors" in the Company's Annual Reports on Form 20-F, as may be supplemented or amended by the Company's Reports of a Foreign Private Issuer on Form 6-K. The Company assumes no obligation to update or supplement forward-looking statements that become untrue because of subsequent events, new information or otherwise. No information in this press release should be construed as any indication whatsoever of the Company's future revenues, results of operations, or stock price. [GN] CIVITAS RESOURCES: New Jersey Court Closes "Lin" Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Civitas Resources, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that a New Jersey court has entered an order closing the putative class action filed by Jeremy Lin. "On May 2, 2025, Jeremy Lin (the "Plaintiff"), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint for violation of federal securities laws against us, our former Chief Executive Officer, and our Chief Financial Officer (collectively, the "Defendants") in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "Complaint"). The Complaint purported to bring a federal securities class action on behalf of a class of persons and entities other than the Defendants who acquired our securities between February 27, 2024 and February 24, 2025 and asserted violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Complaint alleged, among other things, that the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements related to our business, operations and prospects, including our anticipated production volumes and financial condition in 2025. The Plaintiff sought, among other things, certification of a class, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees and expert fees. "On October 27, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice and, on October 28, 2025, the court entered an order closing the case," the Company stated. CONDUENT BUSINESS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Bianco Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- DEBRA BIANCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONDUENT BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-17177 (D.N.J., Nov. 4, 2025) seeks to hold the Defendant responsible for the injuries the Defendant inflicted on Plaintiff and over 10 million others due to the Defendant's egregiously inadequate data security, which resulted in the private information of Plaintiff and those similarly situated to be exposed to unauthorized third parties (the "Data Breach"). The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and negligently failing to implement reasonable measures to safeguard Private Information and by failing to take necessary steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of that information. Conduent's woefully inadequate data security measures made the Data Breach a foreseeable, and even likely, consequence of its negligence, says the Plaintiff. As a direct and proximate result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered actual and present injuries. Conduent Business Services, LLC offers digital payments, claims processing, benefit administration, automated tolling, regulatory compliance, and distributed learning services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander Bylinkin, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN PHILADELPHIA, PLLC 30 Montgomery Street, Suite 410 Jersey City, NJ 07302 Telephone: (917) 344-7038 Email: ABylinkin@forthepeople.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Ronald Podolny, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, Florida 33602 Telephone: (813) 275-5272 Facsimile: (813) 222-4736 Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com CONDUENT BUSINESS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Burwell Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- JORDAN BURWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONDUENT BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-17170 (D.N.J., Nov. 4, 2025) alleges violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"). The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant failed to implement industry-standard cybersecurity measures, including failing to meet the minimum Defendant violated its duty to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices. Defendant could have prevented this Data Breach by properly securing and encrypting the files and file servers containing the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members. The Defendant did not use reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate to the nature of the sensitive information they were maintaining for Plaintiff and Class Members, such as encrypting the information or implementing adequate access controls and monitoring systems, says the suit. Conduent Business Services, LLC offers digital payments, claims processing, benefit administration, automated tolling, regulatory compliance, and distributed learning services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Javier L. Merino, Esq. THE DANN LAW FIRM, PC 825 Georges Road, 2nd Floor North Brunswick, NJ 08902 Telephone: (201) 355-5440 Email: notices@dannlaw.com CONDUENT INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Cromer Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ KERRI CROMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONDUENT INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-17188-MEF-MAH (D.N.J., Nov. 4, 2025) alleges violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that cybercriminals were able to breach the Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity, failed to adequately monitor its agents, contractors, vendors, and suppliers in handling and securing the Private Information of Plaintiff, and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's Private Information -- rendering it an easy target for cybercriminals. The Defendant knew or should have known that each victim of the Data Breach deserved prompt and efficient notice of the Data Breach and assistance in mitigating the effects of Private Information misuse. In failing to adequately protect its customers' information and obfuscating the nature of the breach, Defendant violated state law and harmed an unknown number of its current and former customers, asserts the suit. Conduent Inc operates as a business process services company. The Company specializes in transaction-intensive processing, analytics, and automation. Conduent serves the commercial industries, healthcare, and public sectors. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark K. Svensson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 405 East 50th Street, Suite 408 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: msvensson@milberg.com - and - Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Brandon P. Jack, Esq. EMERY REDDY, PC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (916) 823-6955 Facsimile: (206) 441-8711 Email: anderson@emeryreddy.com gregory@emeryreddy.com brandon@emeryreddy.com CRH HEALTHCARE: Doe Suit Alleges Data Privacy Violations -------------------------------------------------------- JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CRH HEALTHCARE, LLC d/b/a PEACHTREE IMMEDIATE CARE; PEACHTREE IMMEDIATE CARE UC, LLC; PEACHTREE IMMEDIATE CARE FP, LLC; and CRH GEORGIA, LLC; Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-06353-TWT (N.D. Ga., Nov. 5, 2025) alleges that the Defendants violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants are engaged in illegal and widespread practice of disclosing patients' confidential information including protected health information ("PHI") (collectively referred to as "Private Information") to Alphabet Inc. d/b/a Google ("Google"). The Defendants installed Google tracking and data collection tools on the Website to share patients' PII and PHI with Google and other unauthorized third parties in violation of federal and state laws (the "Google Collection Tools"). Despite the Defendants' express promise to patients that Defendants "will not disclose your PHI other than with a written authorization from you or your personal representative," Defendants used the Google Collection Tools to divulge patients' Private Information for marketing and analytic purposes, says the suit. RH Healthcare, LLC owns and operates urgent care centers. The Company provides primary care facilities, testing laboratories, and hospitals. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark E. Silvey, Esq. Justin Day, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (786) 206-8291 Email: msilvey@brysonpllc.com jday@brysonpllc.com - and - James R. DeMay, Esq. Laura Godly, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 900 West Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (704) 941-4648 Email: jdemay@brysonpllc.com lgodly@brysonpllc.com DANIELLE OUTLAW: Flacco Files Bid to Compel Discovery ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER FLACCO, et al., v. DANIELLE OUTLAW, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-04374-MAK (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to compel discovery as follows: The Plaintiffs' TAC pleads a PWPCL claim against the City and Individual Defendants and a 14th Amendment procedural due process claim against the Individual Defendants. These claims relate back to 2013 based on Plaintiffs’ allegations around Defendant D'Attilio's November 13, 2013 distribution of a memo to all City offices, boards and commissions circulating the full text of CSR 31.06, advising recipients to insert the pages into their "copy of the Civil Service Regulations," and advising "These Regulations have been approved by the Civil Service Commission and all other persons whose approval is required under the provisions of the Home Rule Charter" so the recipients could take all steps needed to effectuate them. Because Defendants' actions since 2013, and documents created since 2013, are relevant to Plaintiffs' claims, the City should have to supplement its Responses and production to include discovery for this entire period. In response to the Plaintiffs' request for DAR, the City produced City21-8871, 8891-10622, and 46516-46733. These documents are OT Code reports for certain codes, so do not reveal how many hours the Class members worked on any day, or confirm they performed emergency work on a day they also worked a full shift, issues the Court determined to be relevant at class certification. Because Plaintiffs’ claims involve proving facts about all the hours they worked, which is only found in DAR, these documents should be produced. Communications about emergency activations (Request 11). Plaintiffs requested all communications sent by any PPD Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, OHR, OEM, or the Philadelphia Employee Alert System requiring any PPD ranking officer to report for duty or work extra hours during an emergency. Danielle is an American former law enforcement officer. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eXC1op at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David J. Cohen, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. Catherine Mitchell Duffy, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS LLC 604 Spruce Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 873-4836 E-mail: dcohen@stephanzouras.com jzouras@stephanzouras.com cmitchell@stephanzouras.com - and - Patricia V. Pierce, Esq. GOLDSHAW GREENBLATT PIERCE 1500 John F. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1230 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 978-9090 E-mail: ppierce@ggplawfirm.com DANIELLE OUTLAW: Flacco Loses Bid for Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER FLACCO, WINTON SINGLETARY v. DANIELLE OUTLAW, CHARLES RAMSEY, RICHARD ROSS, JR., KEVIN BETHEL, MICHAEL ZACCAGNI, PEDRO RODRIGUEZ, ALBERT D'ATTILIO, JOHN STANFORD, JR., CANDI JONES, CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, Case No. 2:24-cv-04374-MAK (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Kearney entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification under Rule 23(b)(3). A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aGhTwg at no extra charge.[CC] DOMESTIC AIRLINE: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due April 23, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE: DOMESTIC AIRLINE TRAVEL ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 1:15-mc-01404-CKK (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly entered a scheduling order regarding class certification: -- Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file motion April 23, 2026 for class certification and any supporting -- Deadline for the Defendants to Depose Oct. 29, 2026 the Plaintiff's experts and to file opposition to class certification and any supporting expert reports -- Deadline for the Defendants to Depose Feb. 11, 2026 the Plaintiff's experts regarding rebuttal reports A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Yg466Z at no extra charge.[CC] DURANBAH LTD: Ludlow Sues Over Illegal Online Gambling ------------------------------------------------------ NICHOLAS LUDLOW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DURANBAH LTD. N.V.; and GAMING SERVICES PROVIDER N.V., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01015-JCB (D. Utah, Nov. 5, 2025) alleges violation of the Utah's Gambling Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants violated the Utah's Gambling Act by accepting wagers and collecting losses from Utah residents through the illicit operation of the Brango Gambling Platform -- which is comprised of "fringe gambling devices," "video gaming devices," and "gambling devices or records" within the meaning of Utah's Gambling Act. Duranbah Ltd. N.V. is a company that operates in the iGaming industry, owning and operating MyBookie Gambling Platform at mybookie.ag, XBet.ag, bigspincasino.com, mybcasino.ag, BUSR.com, and love2play.com. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elliot O. Jackson, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140 Miami, FL 33131-3302 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 E-mail: ejackson@hedinllp.com - and - David W. Scofield, Esq. PETERS ❘ SCOFIELD A Professional Corporation 7430 Creek Road, Suite 303 Sandy, UT 84093-6160 Telephone: (801) 322-2002 E-mail: dws@psplawyers.com - and - Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. GUCOVSCHI LAW FIRM, PLLC 140 BROADWAY, FL 46 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 E-mail: adrian@gr-firm.com EQT CORP: Ross Seeks OK of Amended Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD A. ROSS and FIELDSTONE VENTURES, LLC, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EQT CORPORATION; EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY; RICE DRILLING B, LLC; VANTAGE ENERGY APPALACHIA LLC; and VANTAGE ENERGY APPALACHIA II LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-01585-WSS (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: -- granting their amended motion for class certification, -- certifying the proposed Class under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) defined as: "All persons (natural or fictitious) who owned a real property interest in a natural gas mineral estate in Pennsylvania during the statutory period, wherein— (1) such owner is not a party to a lease with any of the Defendants for such interest; and (2) such natural gas mineral estate was at least partially situated within a "drilling unit," as set forth in 25 Pa. Code section 79.1; and (3) one or more Defendants extracted natural gas from such drilling unit; and (4) the Defendants failed to pay such persons for those persons' pro rata shares of the natural gas extracted from such drilling unit (the "Class")"; and -- appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives and the undersigned as Class Counsel Class certification is warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) because EQT has acted in a manner that applies generally to the Class, and final injunctive or declaratory relief is appropriate with respect to the whole Class. As detailed in the Supporting Brief, the Plaintiffs and the putative Class are natural gas owners who have not been compensated by EQT for EQT's extraction of their natural gas, which compensation is required under Pennsylvania statutory and common law. EQT has also failed to provide an accounting to the Plaintiffs for their interests in the extracted natural gas, to which the Plaintiffs and the putative Class are entitled under Pennsylvania law. EQT engages in the production, gathering, and transmission of natural gas. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IH83UQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William Pietragallo, II, Esq. P. Brennan Hart, Esq. Matthew R. Barnes, Esq. PIETRAGALLO GORDON ALFANO BOSICK & RASPANTI, LLP Telephone: (412) 263-1818 E-mail: wp@pietragallo.com pbh@pietragallo.com mrb@pietragallo.com - and - Scott M. Hare, Esq. Anthony T. Gestrich, Esq. RAINES FELDMAN LITTRELL LLP 11 Stanwix Street, Suite 750 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone (412) 899-6454 E-mail: share@raineslaw.com agestrich@raineslaw.com - and - Matthew T. Logue, Esq. QUINN LOGUE LLC Telephone: (412) 765-3800 200 First Avenue, Third Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 E-mail: matt@mattlogue.com - and - Alex J. Dravillas, Esq. KELLER POSTMAN LLC 150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 4470 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone (312) 948-8474 E-mail: ajd@kellerpostman.com EXP WORLD: Awaits Final Court OK of Settlement in Antitrust Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Exp World Holdings, 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 final court approval of the settlement in the antitrust litigation. "The Company and its affiliated brokerage entities were among several defendants in eight U.S. and one Canadian putative class action lawsuits alleging that the Company participated in a system that resulted in sellers of residential property paying inflated buyer broker commissions in violation of U.S. federal and state antitrust laws and federal Canadian antitrust laws, as applicable, and one U.S. putative class action lawsuit alleging that the Company participated in a system that resulted in buyers of residential property paying inflated home prices as a result of sellers paying inflated buyer broker commissions in violation of federal and Illinois antitrust laws (collectively, the "antitrust litigation"). "On December 9, 2024, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries entered into a Settlement Agreement (the "Settlement") with plaintiffs in the U.S. antitrust lawsuit 1925 Hooper LLC, et al. v. The National Association of Realtors et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-05392- SEG (United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division), which was filed on November 22, 2023 against the Company and other U.S. brokerage defendants (the "Hooper Action"). "The Settlement resolves all claims set forth in the Hooper Action and similar claims on a nationwide basis against the Company (collectively, the "Claims") and releases the Company, its subsidiaries and affiliates, and their independent contractor real estate agents in the U.S. from the Claims. By the terms of the Settlement, the Company agreed to make certain changes to its business practices and to pay a total settlement amount of $34.0 million (not in thousands) (the "Settlement Amount") into a qualified settlement escrow fund (the "Settlement Fund"). The Settlement Amount is expected to be deposited into the Settlement Fund in installments, of which 50% of the settlement (or $17.0 million (not in thousands)) is to be deposited into the Settlement Fund within 30 business days after preliminary court approval of the Settlement and the final 50% (or $17.0 million (not in thousands)) is to be deposited on or before the one-year anniversary of the initial settlement payment. On May 23, 2025, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted preliminary approval of the Settlement. In accordance with the Settlement terms, the Company funded the first $17.0 million (not in thousands) installment into the Settlement Fund during the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2025. The Company intends to use available cash to pay the remaining Settlement Amount. Management has determined that a remaining $17.0 million (not in thousands) loss is probable and has included a $17.0 million (not in thousands) litigation contingency accrual recorded for the quarter ended September 30, 2025. While management has determined that loss in excess of the accrual is reasonably possible, it is currently unable to reasonably estimate the possible additional loss or range of possible additional loss because, among other reasons, (i) the settlement is subject to court approval and appeals processes, (ii) further developments in the legal proceedings, including but not limited to motions or rulings, could impact the Company’s exposure; and/or (iii) potential changes in law or precedent could affect the final determination of liability. "The Settlement remains subject to final court approval and will become effective following any appeals process, if applicable. The Settlement and any actions taken to carry out the Settlement are not an admission or concession of liability, or of the validity of any claim, defense, or point of fact or law on the part of any party. The Company continues to deny the material allegations of the complaints in the antitrust litigation. The Company entered into the Settlement after considering the risks and costs of continuing the litigation," the Company stated. EXP WORLD: Continues to Defend "McFall" in Canada ------------------------------------------------- Exp World Holdings, 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 putative class action antitrust lawsuit styled Kevin McFall v. Canadian Real Estate Association, et al., Case No. T-119-24-ID 1 (Federal Court of Canada). "The Company continues to vigorously defend against the claims in the Canadian putative class action antitrust lawsuit Kevin McFall v. Canadian Real Estate Association, et al., Case No. T-119-24-ID 1 (Federal Court of Canada), filed on January 18, 2024. Management is currently unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of possible loss for the Canadian antitrust litigation because, among other reasons, (i) the proceeding is in preliminary stages, (ii) specific damage amounts have not been sought, (iii) damages sought are, in our opinion, unsupported and/or exaggerated, (iv) there are significant factual issues to be resolved; and/or (v) there are novel legal issues or unsettled legal theories presented. For the Canadian antitrust litigation, we have not recorded any accruals as of September 30, 2025. "While the Company does not expect such litigation to have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows or financial condition, due to the complexities inherent in such litigation, including the uncertainty of legal processes and potential developments in the cases, the ultimate liability may differ from current expectations," the Company stated. EXPENSIFY INC: Continues to Defend "Wilhite" in Oregon ------------------------------------------------------ Expensify, 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 the putative securities class action captioned Wilhite v. Expensify, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01784-JR, pending before an Oregon court. "On November 29, 2023, a putative securities class action (the "Putative Class Action") was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon captioned Wilhite v. Expensify, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01784-JR, naming us, two of our executive officers and two of our former directors as defendants (collectively, the "Defendants"). The lawsuit is purportedly brought on behalf of all those who purchase or acquired our stock pursuant or traceable to our initial public offering ("IPO"). The complaint alleges claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on allegedly false or misleading statements in the offering documents filed in connection with our IPO. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and other relief. On January 29, 2024, three shareholders moved to be appointed lead plaintiff in the Putative Class Action. The court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel on March 11, 2024. Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the lead plaintiff’s amended complaint was filed May 10, 2024, naming six of our current board members as additional defendants (together with the Defendants, the "Amended Defendants"). Amended Defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint was filed on July 9, 2024. The lead plaintiff’s opposition was filed on September 6, 2024, and the Amended Defendants’ reply was filed on October 18, 2024. On December 30, 2024, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendation that the Amended Defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part. The lead plaintiff and Amended Defendants each filed objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation on January 21, 2025, and responses to the objections on February 4, 2025. On March 24, 2025, the court adopted, with certain modifications, the magistrate judge's findings and recommendation. "The defendants intend to deny the allegations of wrongdoing and vigorously defend against the claims in the Putative Class Action," the Company stated. FEDERAL BUREAU: Banks Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FREDERICK BANKS, v. WARDEN R. THOMPSON and the FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Case No. 1:25-cv-16338-CPO (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to certify class action and appoint class counsel. Petitioner Frederick Banks moves the Court to certify this matter as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and to appoint class counsel. The motion seeks relief not only for Petitioner, but for all similarly situated federal inmates nationwide who have suffered injury due to the Bureau of Prisons' systemic failure to properly calculate First Step Act (FSA) earned-time credits: Petitioner requests that the Court 1. Certify this matter as a nationwide class action under Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2); 2. Appoint qualified class counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g); 3. Grant any further relief the Court deems just and proper Petitioner seeks certification of the following class: "All federal inmates in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons who have earned First Step Act time credits but whose release or prerelease placement dates have not been correctly calculated or applied in accordance with 18 U.S.C. section 3624(g) and Cox v. Rarden." The Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") has consistently failed to calculate and apply FSA earned-time credits in accordance with 18 U.S.C. sectopm 3624(g). The holding of Cox v. Rarden, No. 2:24-cv-00076 (S.D. Ohio 2024), confirms that the BOP's methodology is unlawful. This failure results in widespread and ongoing unlawful detention of federal inmates across all BOP facilities. The issues raised herein are systemic, uniform, and affect tens of thousands of inmates. Class certification is the only mechanism capable of providing comprehensive and equitable relief BOP provides for the care, custody, and control of federal prisoners. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sWmLmo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff appears pro se Frederick Banks Register No. 05711068 Box 2000 Joint Base MDL, NJ 0864 FEDERAL SAVINGS: Sapan Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL SAPAN, individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. THE FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK, Case No. 8:23-cv-00075-CV-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Jan. 9, 20261, will move the Court pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of civil Procedure for an order certifying a class action on an amended class definition. The Defendant is a veteran-owned, federally chartered bank. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qqLiYN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Reichman, Esq. Justin Prato, Esq. PRATO & REICHMAN, APC 3675 Ruffin Road, Suite 220 San Diego, CA 92123 Telephone: (619) 886-0252 E-mail: ChrisR@Parto-Reichman.com FEDEX CORP: Case Management Deadlines Order Entered in Almonte -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARRERA ALMONTE, et al., v. FEDEX CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-03224 (D.N.J., Filed June 13, 2023), the Hon. Judge Karen M. Williams entered an order that the case management deadlines in the Order docketed as entry no. 50 remain place, including the next deadline of March 13, 2026 for plaintiffs' motion for class certification and for plaintiffs' class certification expert reports. There will be a telephone status conference on Jan. 12, 2026 at 11:00 a.m. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Fraud-Motor Vehicle (Odometer). FedEx is an American multinational conglomerate holding company specializing in transportation, e-commerce, and business services.[CC] FIVE BELOW: Class Cert Bid Filing in Tyler Due Jan. 16, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYLER HIMES, ET AL. v. FIVE BELOW, INC., ET AL., Case No. 2:24-cv-03638-GAM (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Gerald Austin McHugh entered a case management order as follows: Event Date Deadline for substantial completion of Feb. 6, 202 all rolling document production: Deadline for Lead Plaintiffs to move Jan. 16, 2026 for class certification and file expert disclosures and reports relating to class certification: Deadline to make Lead Plaintiffs' Feb. 2, 2026 expert available for deposition: Deadline to file any opposition to class March 13, 2026 certification and file rebuttal expert disclosure and reports relating to class certification: Deadline to file reply in support of April 30, 2026 class certification and file reply expert disclosure and reports relating to class certification: Hearing for class certification To be specified by the Court Fact discovery cutoff: June 30, 2026 Expert discovery cutoff: Nov. 13, 2026 Five is an American chain of specialty discount gift shops. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TNqGip at no extra charge.[CC] FLEET QUEST: Scott Loses Bid for Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAYVON SCOTT, et al., v. FLEET QUEST LOGISTICS, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00770-PLM-RSK (W.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Paul L. Maloney entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs drove trucks for the Defendants and allege that certain expenses were deducted from their pay, without those expenses being spelled out beforehand in a written document, in violation of federal regulations. Fleet is a transportation and logistics company. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Nov. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0IOZ7m at no extra charge.[CC] FLY-E GROUP: Suit Seeks to Appoint Lazzaretti as Lead Plaintiff --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DINO KURT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. FLY-E GROUP, INC., ZHOU OU, and SHIWEN FENG, Case No. 1:25-cv-05017-CHK (E.D.N.Y.), the Lead Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to Section 21D of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: (a) Appointing Lazzaretti as Lead Plaintiff; and (b) Approving Lazzaretti's selection of Bernstein Liebhard LLP as lead counsel for the litigation. Fly-E is an electric vehicle company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UeNxzO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence J. Hasson, Esq. Joseph R. Seidman, Jr., Esq. BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP 10 East 40th Street New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 779-1414 Facsimile: (212) 779-3218 E-mail: lhasson@bernlieb.com seidman@bernlieb.com GAMBALE INSURANCE: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Collins v. Gambale Insurance Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-00705 (M.D. Fla., Filed Nov. 6, 2025), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order directing the parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report. The deadlines should include a deadline for (1) disclosure of expert reports - class action, plaintiff and defendant; (2) discovery - class action; (3) motion for class certification; (4) response to motion for class certification; and (5) reply to motion for class certification. The nature of suit states Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Gambale offers personal lines insurance for home, auto, boat, umbrella, and recreational vehicles.[CC] GENERAL MOTORS: Judge Appoints DiCello Levitt as Lead Counsel ------------------------------------------------------------- On November 13, 2025, Judge Shalina D. Kumar of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan appointed DiCello Levitt, alongside Hagens Berman, Lieff Cabraser, and Miller Law, as Lead Counsel in a consolidated class action involving catastrophic engine failures in GM vehicles equipped with the 6.2L "L87" V8 engine. In choosing DiCello Levitt and its co-counsel over a competing leadership applicant, the Court noted that DiCello Levitt, Hagens Berman, Lieff Cabraser, and Miller Law are "best able to represent the interests of the putative class" and cited our team's substantial investigation, retention of experts, and extensive experience leading automotive defect cases as key factors in its decision. This litigation brings together twelve separate actions, representing vehicle owners nationwide who have experienced low mileage engine failures allegedly caused by a defect in GM's 6.2L engines. DiCello Levitt's team includes Adam Levitt, John Tangren, Dan Ferri, and Madeline Hills. "We are honored by the Court's confidence in our team and look forward to fighting for consumers who have suffered significant losses due to these engine defects," said DiCello Levitt Founding Partner Adam Levitt. "Our firm is committed to holding manufacturers accountable and securing meaningful relief for consumers." The case is James S. Powell, II, et al. v. General Motors, LLC, Case 4:25-cv-10479-SDK-KGA (E.D. Mich.) [GN] GEORGE WASHINGTON: Hafez Appeals Suit Dismissal to D.C. Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- FARID HAFEZ is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled DR. FARID HAFEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DR. LORENZO VIDINO, individually and in his respective corporate capacities, THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, THE PROGRAM ON EXTREMISM AT THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, ALP SERVICES, S.A. DILIGENCE SARL, MARIO BRERO, MURIEL CAVIN, LIONEL BADAL, ARIAF STUDIES AND RESEARCH LLC and JOHN DOE NOS. 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00873, Case No. 1:24-cv-00873-AHA, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff asserts claims for violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, as well as for mail and wire fraud and money laundering. On Apr. 16, 2024, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim on Oct. 18, 2024. On Sept. 30, 2025, Judge Amir H. Ali entered an Order granting the Defendants' motions to dismiss without prejudice. The appellate case is entitled Farid Hafez v. Lorenzo Vidino, et al., Case No. 25-7172, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, filed on October 31, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant FARID HAFEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: David M. Schwartz, Esq. AIDALA, BERTUNA & KAMINS, PC 546 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 641-0499 Defendants-Appellees LORENZO VIDINO, et al. are represented by: Jacob Thomas Spencer, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1700 M. Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 955-8500 - and - Scott L. Winkelman, Esq. CROWELL & MORING LLP 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 624-2500 - and - Igor Victor Timofeyev, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M. Street, NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 551-1700 GRACE KNUTSON: Bid for Class Certification Held in Abeyance ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEAN ROBILLARD and SARA DOMRES, v. GRACE KNUTSON and TROY ENGER, Case No. 2:24-cv-01077-JPS (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge J.P. Stadtmueller entered an order that the Plaintiffs Sean Robillard and Sara Domres' motion for class action certification be and the same is held in abeyance. The Court further enter an order that, on or before Jan. 5, 2026, the parties file a joint memorandum, addressing the number of individuals that have been or are likely to be harmed or otherwise affected by the alleged "tamper" and "strap" alert policies and the frequency of "tamper" and "strap" alert malfunctions In July 2025, Plaintiffs Sean Robillard and Sara Domres filed an amended putative class action complaint against Defendants Grace Knutson, the Director of Sex Offender Programs for the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, and Troy Enger, administrator of the Division of Community Corrections of the WDOC. The Plaintiffs move to certify a class defined as follows: "All individuals subject to GPS monitoring by the [WDOC] who are on extended supervision, parole[,] or another form of criminal supervision." A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1d8lP0 at no extra charge.[CC] GROUP HEALTH: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $3.5MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that a $3.5 million class action settlement with the Group Health Cooperative of South Central Wisconsin (GHC-SCW) will offer cash payments and identity theft protection services for customers affected by the January 25, 2024 data breach. Did you know that some class action settlements require no proof to submit a claim? Check out the latest top class action settlements. The $3,500,000 GHC-SCW class action settlement was given preliminary approval by the court on September 22, 2025, and covers all United States residents who received a notice about the data breach, or whose private information may have been impacted in the incident. Settlement documents state that the GHC-SCW data breach impacted up to 533,809 people. The court-approved website for the Group Health Cooperative of South Central Wisconsin settlement can be found at https://GHCSCWsettlement.com/. According to the website, GHC-SCW settlement class members who file a valid, timely claim form are eligible to receive up to $5,000 in reimbursement for reasonable, documented losses related to the data breach. Acceptable documentation to submit with a claim form includes telephone records, correspondence such as emails, or receipts, the settlement site states. Alternatively, a Group Health Cooperative of South Central Wisconsin settlement class member can opt for a pro rata cash payment estimated to be approximately $100. The settlement website adds that all GHC-SCW class members are eligible to receive three years of CyEx Medical Data Monitoring, which includes, among other benefits, real-time, one-bureau credit file monitoring, dark web scanning, security freeze assistance and $1 million in identity theft insurance with no deductible. Cash payments from the class action settlement may be increased or decreased so each class member receives a pro rata (equal share) cash payment from the settlement fund. To submit a claim form online, class members can visit this page on the GHC-SCW settlement website and log in with the unique ID provided in the data breach notice. All claims and appropriate supporting documentation must be submitted by January 20, 2026. The final approval hearing is scheduled for February 4, 2026. Payments will begin to be distributed to class members only after the deal has received final approval and any appeals are resolved. The settlement agreement also notes that the cost of any additional security measures implemented by GHS-SCW after the data breach is solely the responsibility of GHS-SCW and will not come out of the settlement fund. The $3.5 million settlement brings an end to a lawsuit filed against GHC-SCW after members' personal health information was accessed by an unauthorized third party. [GN] HORIZON FINANCIAL: Scheduling Order Entered in Hromek Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SYLVIA HROMEK, v. HORIZON FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00356-HAB-ALT (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Andrew L. Teel entered a scheduling order and memorandum of preliminary pretrial conference. The parties will exchange the information required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) by Dec. 5, 2025. The last date for the completion of all discovery is Aug. 2, 2027. Non-expert witness discovery and discovery relating to liability issues shall be completed by Oct. 9, 2026. Expert witness discovery and discovery relating to damages shall be completed by Aug. 2, 2027. The parties must disclose the identity of any class certification witness pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2) and the witness’s written report (if applicable): -- Plaintiff(s) by Sept. 9, 2026; and -- Defendant(s) by Oct. 9, 2026. The serving of reports from retained, non-class certification related experts under Rule 26(a)(2) are due from Plaintiff(s) by June 1, 2027; and from Defendant(s) by June 1, 2027. The last date to seek leave of Court to amend the pleadings as to Plaintiff(s) is Jan. 9, 2026; as to Defendant(s) is Jan. 9, 2026. The Plaintiff shall move for class certification on or before Nov. 9, 2026. Horizon operates as a healthcare revenue-cycle outsourcing agency. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1LZKiO at no extra charge.[CC] HP INC: Bid for Judgement on the Pleadings Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY PATTISON, v. HP INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-02752-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Chesney entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings as follows: 1. To the extent Pattison's claims are based on damages resulting from the time and opportunity allegedly lost when she attempted to obtain a rebate, the motion is granted and HP is entitled to judgment. 2. In all other respects, the Motion is denied. The putative class here, however, is not defined as persons who submitted requests for rebates, but, rather, persons who purchased a computer and Care Pack―impliedly, like Pattison, in reliance on HP's representations regarding a potential rebate―and, as set forth above, Pattison asserts she and the class members "sustained" several types of damages, including "the cost of their computer equipment and their Care. Consequently, looking solely to the record currently presented, the Court finds the interests of persons who did not actually apply for a rebate are "fairly encompassed within the named plaintiff's claim[s]." Accordingly, the Court finds HP has failed to show the claims Pattison seeks to bring on behalf of putative class members who have not applied for a rebate are subject to dismissal. The proposed class, as defined in the SAC is, "All individuals and entities residing within the United States and its territories who have (a) purchased computer equipment along with a Care Pack from HP Inc. that covered the computer equipment; and (b) not experienced a service event involving the computer equipment for three years since the purchase of the Care Pack." HP is an American multinational information technology company that develops personal computers, printers, and 3D printing solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ktzFuR at no extra charge.[CC] HRTC I LLC: Property Inaccessible to Disabled People, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- CAROLYN BALDWIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HRTC I, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03527 (D. Colo., Nov. 5, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants' commercial property located at 1051 Mayberry Drive, Highlands Ranch, CO 80129, is not accessible to mobility-impaired individuals in violation of ADA. HRTC I, LLC owns and operates commercial and business establishments in Colorado. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas S. Schapiro, Esq. THE SCHAPIRO LAW GROUP, P.L. 7301-A W. Palmetto Park Rd., #100A Boca Raton, FL 33433 Telephone: (561) 807-7388 Email: schapiro@schapirolawgroup.com HUNTER WARFIELD: Bids for Class Certification Due Dec. 19 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW BLIZZARD, et al., v. HUNTER WARFIELD, INC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-03374-ABA (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Adam Abelson entered an order setting a Dec. 19, 2025, hearing for motions for class certification and summary judgment. The Defendant is a debt collection company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tQEaIz at no extra charge.[CC] HYUNDAI MOTOR: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brenda Hageman, Richard Price, Timothy Sage, Lisa Page, David Kostka, Mark Schofield, Louella Wilson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Hyundai Motor America, Case No. 8:23-cv-01045-HDV-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting application for leave to file portions of its opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification under seal pursuant to L.R. 79 5.2.2(a). Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 79-5.2.2(a), Defendant Hyundai Motor America (HMA) applies for leave to file under seal portions of its Opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On Oct. 27, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiffs' Application for Leave to File Under Seal Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification and Exhibits in Support. HMA now seeks to seal only those portions of its Opposition Brief that reflect materials already sealed by the Court. The Parties have conferred, and Plaintiffs do not oppose this Application. HMA's Application is narrowly tailored to include only information that has already been sealed by the Court. Good cause therefore exists to grant the requested sealing. Hyundai is the operating subsidiary that oversees all operations of Hyundai Motor Company in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gHBppm at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: William A. Delgado, Esq. Shilpa A. Coorg, Esq. Destiny R. Lopez, Esq. Richard Z. Lee, Esq. DTO LAW 915 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1950 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 335-6999 Facsimile: (213) 335-7802 E-mail: wdelgado@dtolaw.com scoorg@dtolaw.com drlopez@dtolaw.com rlee@dtolaw.com INOTIV INC: Deadline to File Claim in Securities Suit Set March 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------- If you (A) purchased or otherwise acquired Inotiv, Inc. common stock during the period between September 21, 2021 and May 20, 2022, inclusive, or (B) held Inotiv common stock as of October 4, 2021 and were entitled to vote on matters necessary to effectuate Inotiv's acquisition of Envigo RMS at a special meeting of Inotiv shareholders on November 4, 2021, you should read this Notice of Class Action Settlement as it may impact your legal rights. A federal court authorized this Notice. It is not a solicitation from a lawyer. You must file a Claim Form by March 2, 2026 to receive cash benefits from this Settlement. To file a Claim, or for more information about the Settlement, please visit www.InotivSecuritiesSettlement.com. A Settlement has been reached with Inotiv, Inc. and certain of its officers (collectively, "Inotiv") to resolve the claims asserted in the federal securities class action In re Inotiv, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 4:22-cv-00045-PPS-JEM (N.D. Ind.) (the "Action") for $8,750,000. If the Settlement is approved, it will resolve all claims in the Litigation. This Summary Notice provides only a summary of matters, and a detailed Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement (the "Long Form Notice") describing the Litigation, the Proposed Settlement, and the rights of the Settlement Class Members is available at www.InotivSecuritiesSettlement.com. If you would like to receive a copy of the Long Form Notice or the Proof of Claim and Release form, you may obtain copies by writing to Inotiv, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o Claims Administrator, 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210, Philadelphia, PA 19103. Your options are to: (1) stay in the Settlement Class and submit a claim; (2) ask to be excluded from the Settlement Class (opt out); or (3) object to the Settlement. The Court has appointed Lead Counsel to represent you and will decide whether to approve the Settlement at a Final Approval Hearing currently scheduled for January 27, 2026. That date is subject to change without further notice. If there is any change to the Final Approval Hearing date, it will be noted on the Settlement Website. Lead Counsel intends to ask the Court for an award of attorneys' fees of up to 25% of the $8,750,000 settlement amount, and costs not to exceed $127,500. The Court will determine the amounts to be paid, which will come from the Settlement Amount. If you are a Settlement Class Member, you have the right to appear in Court at the Final Approval Hearing to object to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses, and/or the application by Lead Plaintiff for any costs or expenses. You must submit a written objection in accordance with the procedures described in the Notice, which must be filed and served so that it is received no later than January 6, 2026. To learn more about your options, please visit the Settlement Website: www.InotivSecuritiesSettlement.com or call the Claims Administrator at (888) 788-4204. The deadline to file a claim is March 2, 2026, and the deadline to object or to opt out of the Settlement is January 6, 2026. [GN] IOVANCE BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Securities Class Suits Remain Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the securities class action lawsuits against it remain pending. On May 15, 2025, two putative securities class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Sundaram v. Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc., et al., No. 25-cv-04177 ("Sundaram") and Farberov v. Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc., et al., No. 25-cv-04199 ("Farberov"), naming the Company and certain of the Company's officers as defendants. The complaints purport to assert claims against the defendants under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934 Act"), SEC Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act. The Sundaram action is on behalf of persons or entities who acquired the Company's common stock between August 8, 2024 and May 8, 2025, and the Farberov action is on behalf of persons or entities who acquired the Company's common stock between May 9, 2024 and May 8, 2025. Each putative class action arises out of the Company's quarterly disclosure of financial results on May 8, 2025, and the decline in the price of the Company's common stock the following day, and involve allegations that during the respective class periods, defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's expected revenue for fiscal year 2025, which the plaintiffs claim artificially inflated the price of the Company's common stock. The actions seek compensatory damages and costs and expenses incurred in the actions, including attorneys' fees. ISM VUZEM: Maslic Bid for Attys' Fees Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SASA MASLIC, individually and on behalf of a certified class; IVAN DRZAIC; ROBERT HERNAUS; LEOPOLD HUBEK; LEON HUDOLETNJAK; ELVIS KOSCAK; TOMICA PANIC; STJEPAN PAPES; ŽELJKO PULJKO; DARKO ŠINCEK; DAVID ŠTANTE; NEDELJKO ŽIVANIC; GOGO REBIC; and MITJA POGOREVC, v. ISM VUZEM D.O.O.; ISM VUZEM USA, INC.; VUZEM USA, INC.; HRID-MONT D.O.O.; IVAN VUZEM; ROBERT VUZEM; EISENMANN CORPORATION; and TESLA, INC., Case No. 5:21-cv-02556-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order granting in part the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees. (1) The Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees is granted in part. The Plaintiffs are awarded total attorneys' fees in the amount of $438,275, as follows: (a) The Court awards attorneys fees' in the amount of $388,325 against Defendants ISM Vuzem, d.o.o., Ivan Vuzem, Robert Vuzem, and HRID- Mont, d.o.o., and Eisenmann Corporation, jointly and severally; (b) The Court awards additional attorneys' fees in the amount of $26,250 against Defendants ISM Vuzem, d.o.o., Ivan Vuzem, Robert Vuzem, and HRID-Mont, d.o.o. only, jointly and severally; and (c) The Court awards additional attorneys' fees in the amount of $23,700 against Eisenman Corporation only. (2) The Plaintiffs shall file a proposed amended default judgment, incorporating this award of attorneys' fees, as soon as is practicable. The Court observes that at first blush, the 220 hours of attorney time and 660 hours of paralegal time spent on the motion for default judgment appear to be excessive. However, that motion required proof of damages for the individual Plaintiffs and the class in a complicated case involving wage theft and human trafficking. The record shows that Plaintiffs submitted thousands of pages of documents to support default judgment on those claims. Accordingly, although the hours claimed in connection with the motion for default judgment are high, the Court is satisfied that the time expended was reasonable for the tasks performed. And the Court notes with approval that Mr. Dresser assigned the bulk of those tasks to paralegals who billed at a modest hourly rate. Based on the foregoing, the Court will award attorneys' fees to Plaintiffs for 863 hours of attorney time (1,023 claimed hours – 160 hours billed on Tesla's summary judgment motion) and 1,241 hours of paralegal time (1,326 claimed hours -- 85 hours billed on Tesla's summary judgment motion). The suit was brought on behalf of fourteen individual Plaintiffs and a class of workers who were transported to the United States from their home countries of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Slovenia, and Croatia to provide cheap labor for American companies. The corrected first amended complaint (FAC) alleged that: the Vuzem Defendants employed Plaintiffs and contracted their labor to American companies such as Defendant Tesla, Inc. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oH99gS at no extra charge.[CC] KEVIN COPPINGER: Parties Seek to Stay Class Certification Briefing ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHAN CARON and ADAM COCHRANE, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, v. KEVIN COPPINGER, in his official capacity as Essex County Sheriff, Case No. 1:25-cv-11075-GAO (D. Mass.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order staying further briefing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification by 90 days, or until Feb. 5, 2026. The parties believe they may be able to reach agreement on the issue of class certification. Additionally, the parties have begun to engage in settlement discussions, and believe it is more efficient, and in the interest of judicial economy, to stay further briefing on the Plaintiff's motion, to permit the parties to explore agreement on the issue of class certification, or resolution of the case more generally. No party will be prejudiced by the allowance of this Motion, nor will any other pretrial deadlines will be affected. The Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on April 23, 2025. On that same day, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. On Sept. 8, 2025, the parties filed a joint motion for enlargement of time for the Defendant to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and for the Plaintiffs to file any reply, by 60 days, to Nov. 7, 2025. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dZHIeI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Milton, Esq. Michael Horrell, Esq. Ada Lin, Esq. PRISONERS' LEGAL SERVICES OF MASSACHUSETTS 50 Federal Street, 4th Fl. Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 482-2773 E-mail: dmilton@plsma.org mhorrell@plsma.org alin@plsma.org The Defendant is represented by: Katherine M. Fahey, Esq. Rauvin A. Johl, Esq. GOVERNMENT BUREAU One Ashburton Place, Room 1813 Boston, MA 02108 Telephone: (617) 963-2078 Facsimile: (617) 963-2441 E-mail: Katherine.Fahey@mass.gov Rauvin.Johl@mass.gov LANTHEUS HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend "Margolis" in New York ------------------------------------------------------------- Lantheus Holdings, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against a s putative securities class action styled Margolis v. Lantheus Holdings, Inc., et al., pending in a New York court. On September 9, 2025, an alleged stockholder of the Company initiated a putative securities class action against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, styled Margolis v. Lantheus Holdings, Inc., et al. The operative complaint also asserts claims against certain of the Company's named executives. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made materially false or misleading statements (or omitted material facts) in violation of the Exchange Act. Under the operative scheduling order in the case, members of the putative class of stockholders have an opportunity to move the court for appointment as lead plaintiff, after which there is an opportunity for the lead plaintiff to file an amended complaint. Because the outcome of litigation is uncertain, the Company cannot predict how or when this matter will ultimately be resolved. LEAFFILTER NORTH: Bid to Alter Judgment in Christian Suit Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUNE CHRISTIAN, et al., v. LEAFFILTER NORTH, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-02866-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Breyer entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to alter judgment denying the defendant's motion to alter judgment. The Defendant moves to alter this Court's order dismissing the case for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. While Defendant points to potential tension between the Court's decision and Ninth Circuit law regarding jurisdiction conferred by the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), the Court's decision that it lacked jurisdiction was not manifest error and is in accord with both circuit precedent and CAFA. Accordingly, the Court denies the motion. Accordingly, the Court finds the Defendant has failed to demonstrate the Court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was manifest error. Because the Court did not commit manifest error, it would be more efficient for Plaintiffs to continue seeking appellate review. The Plaintiffs brought a purported class action against Defendant arguing that its sales and marketing tactics violated the Federal Trade Commission Act and California law. LeafFilter provides gutter protection solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hUV4cE at no extra charge.[CC] LENS.COM INC: Bid for Leave to File Class Cert Exhibits OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICKEY MARTIN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. LENS.COM, INC., Case No. 0:24-cv-60489-DSL (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Leibowitz entered an order granting the parties' joint motion for leave for the Plaintiff to file certain exhibits in support of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification under seal. The Plaintiff may file the exhibits in support of his motion for class certification under seal as set forth in this Order. The Plaintiff may redact "highly-confidential" information from the publicly-filed documents as set forth in this Order. The Plaintiff must provide unredacted hard copies of all documents filed under seal to Chambers no later than Monday, Nov. 17, 2025. Contact Sarah Montgomery at Sarah Montgomery@flsd.uscourts.gov to arrange for delivery of the documents to Chambers for in camera review. Lens.com operates as a specialty online retailer. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3VkXcX at no extra charge.[CC] LENS.COM INC: Parties Seek Leave for Plaintiff to File Exhibits --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICKEY MARTIN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. LENS.COM, INC., Case No. 0:24-cv-60489-DSL (S.D. Fla.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting joint motion for leave for the Plaintiff to file certain exhibits in support of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification under seal. Accordingly, the Parties request leave for Plaintiff to file the following exhibits under seal as well as redact such information contained in the sealed exhibits from the publicly-filed version of Plaintiff's motion for class certification. a. Lens.com's fourth supplemental discovery responses b. Lens.com's Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Transcript c. Lens.com's Financial Statements d. Lens.com's Pricing Algorithm/Source Code e. Cary Samourkachian's Deposition Transcript f. Non-Party Speed Commerce, Inc.'s Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Transcript g. Non-Party Speed Commerce, Inc.’s Fulfillment Agreement The Parties request that Plaintiff be permitted to file the above-referenced materials under seal, that Plaintiff be permitted to redact references to such sealed information in his publicly filed motion for class certification, and that such sealed material remain under seal indefinitely. Lens.com operates as a specialty online retailer. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=K36K54 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Matthew Stephens, Esq. Robert G. Methvin, Jr., Esq. Courtney C. Gipson, Esq. METHVIN, TERRELL, YANCEY, STEPHENS & MILLER, P.C. 2201 Arlington Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 939-0199 Facsimile: (205) 939-0399 E-mail: mstephens@mtattorneys.com rgm@mtattorneys.com cgipson@mtattorneys.com - and - Joshua A. Migdal, Esq. LEVIN MIGDAL & GIBBS 7301 SW 57th Ct., Suite 515 Miami, FL 33143 Telephone: (305) 374-6617 E-mail: josh@lmgllp.com - and - Matthew Herman, Esq. MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC 3 N. Second Street, Suite 300 St. Charles, IL 60174 Telephone: (630) 797-6333 E-mail: mh@meyers-flowers.com The Defendant is represented by: James W. Lee, Esq. Laselve E. Harrison, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 100 SE Second Street, Suite 2800 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 539-8400 E-mail: jwlee@bsfllp.com lharrison@bsfllp.com - and - Mark M. Bettilyon, Esq. Jed H. Hansen, Esq. Joseph M. Harmer, Esq. THORPE NORTH & WESTERN, LLP The Walker Center 175 S. Main Street, Suite 900 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 566-6633 E-mail: mark.bettilyon@tnw.com hansen@tnw.com joseph.harmer@tnw.com LOS ANGELES: Sued Over Jail's Abusive Shower Facility Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- DAWN THALACHER, BRIANNA AVILA, XOCHIKETZALL BAEZ, DEONA BRAGGS, DESIREE BORJON, JADE BROOKFIELD, MELISSA CARILLO, JESSICA COSTELLO, SHANICE DYER, BRIANNA ESPINOZA, ESPERANZA FARFAN, BRIANNA GARCIA, DESIREE GARCIA, DESIREE FOSSETT, SANDY GONZALEZ, KAMIESHA HAGGENS, JASMINE IBARRA, HEATHER JOHNSON, CACHETT LINZY, STEPHANIE LOERA, BRENDA LOPEZ, MAVIS MANUFEKAI, KIANDRA MITCHELL, ALEASHA MOODY, HEATHER MULKEY, DIANA ONTIVEROS, HEAVEN PARKER, ZUSSETH PENA, BRITTANY POWELL, ANGELICA QUINONES, MYKIERA ROWLES, KIMBERLY SALAZAR, ALINA SAVADIAN, MARIA SORIANO, OPHELIA TIMMONS, GABRIELLA TOVAR, GRACE VELASQUEZ, AND FELICIA VILLA, individually and as class representatives, Plaintiffs vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; SHERIFF ROBERT LUNA, individually, and in his official capacity; SHERIFF ALEX VILLANUEVA, individually, and in his official capacity; SHERIFF JIM MCDONNELL, individually, and in his official capacity; SHERIFF LEE BACA, individually, and in his official capacity; JORGE PADILLA, individually, and in his official capacity; TRAVIS NELSON, individually, and in his official capacity; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-10318 (C.D. Cal., October 27, 2025) is a class action complaint against the Defendants for creating, maintaining, and otherwise facilitating a policy, practice or custom which caused Plaintiffs' injuries in violation of one or more federal constitutional guarantees. The Plaintiffs also bring state law claims based on respondeat superior under California Government Code. The complaint relates that since March of 2006, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department has designated the Century Regional Detention Facility ("CRDF"), located at 11705 S. Alameda Street, in Lynwood CA as an all-female jail. The action challenges the systemic and ongoing practice which concerns the cross-gender viewing of completely nude female inmates by male correctional officers in shower facilities located in the CRDF's administrative segregation module, commonly known as "the hole". Specifically, the challenged practice concerns male correctional officers' acts of voyeurism in the CRDF's shower facilities, which historically and routinely involves the unobstructed viewing of the entire bodies of completely female inmates when they are taking showers in shower stalls located in or around the administrative segregation module. This systemic and ongoing practice has become so widespread within the CRDF that there is a historically designated area adjacent to the shower stalls located in the administrative segregation module which is commonly referred to as the "cop shop" by both female inmates and correctional officers, which allows a completely unobstructed view of the entire bodies of female inmates taking showers. This practice deprived Plaintiffs of their rights; and they, therefore, seek injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and the class of similarly situated individuals, adds the complaint. Plaintiffs and class representatives Dawn Thalacher, Jessica Costello, Brianna Espinoza, Esperanza Farfan, Desiree Fossett, Sandy Gonzales, Heather Johnson, and Heaven Parker are women who were formerly incarcerated at the Century Regional Detention Facility. Plaintiffs and class representatives Brianna Avila, Xochiketzall Baez, Deona Braggs, Desiree Borjon, Jade Brookfield, Melissa Carillo, Shanice Dyer, Brianna Garcia, Desiree Garcia, Kamiesha Haggens, Jasmine Ibarra, Cachett Linzy, Stephanie Loera, Brenda Lopez, Mavis Manufekai, Kiandra Mitchell, Aleasha Moody, Heather Mulkey, Diana Ontiveros, Zusseth Pena, Brittany Powell, Angelica Quinones, Mykiera Rowles, Kimberly Salazar, Alina Savadian, Maria Soriano, Ophelia Timmons, Gabriella Tovar, Grace Velasquez, and Felicia Villa, as of the filing of this Complaint, remain incarcerated at the Century Regional Detention Facility. Defendant County of Los Angeles is a public entity organized and existing under the laws of the State of California. Defendants Robert Luna, Jim McDonnell, Leroy Baca, Jorge Padilla, Travis Nelson were employed in the CRDF. DOES 1 through 10 are Defendants under fictitious names. DOES 6 through 10 are LASD Supervisory Defendants.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian T. Dunn, Esq. THE COCHRAN FIRM CALIFORNIA 4929 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1010 Los Angeles, CA 90010-3856 Telephone: (323) 435-8205 Facsimile: (323) 282-5280 E-mail: bdunn@cochranfirm.com -and - Leslie Ann Boyce, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF LESLIE ANN BOYCE 1505 4th Street, Suite 208 Santa Monica, CA 90401-2334 Telephone: (310) 334-9044 E-mail: leslieannboyce@aya.yale.edu LYNTON LIMITED: Ecklund Sues Over Illegal Online Gambling --------------------------------------------------------- KENNY ECKLUND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LYNTON LIMITED; BEAUFORT MEDIA B.V.; ARACHIS MEDIA B.V.; BAMBOO MEDIA LTD.; and STAR JAR (IOM) LIMITED, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00175-RJS (D. Utah, Nov. 5, 2025) alleges violation of the Utah's Gambling Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants violated the Utah's Gambling Act by accepting wagers and collecting losses from Utah residents through the illicit operation of the Brango Gambling Platform -- which is comprised of "fringe gambling devices," "video gaming devices," and "gambling devices or records" within the meaning of Utah's Gambling Act. Lynton Limited is a company that operates in the iGaming industry, owning and operating Lynton Gambling Platform at www.ignitioncasino.eu, www.cafecasino.lv, and slots.lv. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elliot O. Jackson, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140 Miami, FL 33131-3302 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 E-mail: ejackson@hedinllp.com - and - David W. Scofield, Esq. PETERS ❘ SCOFIELD A Professional Corporation 7430 Creek Road, Suite 303 Sandy, UT 84093-6160 Telephone: (801) 322-2002 E-mail: dws@psplawyers.com -and- Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. GUCOVSCHI LAW FIRM, PLLC 140 BROADWAY, FL 46 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 E-mail: adrian@gr-firm.com MAPFRE DATA: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due August 3, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re MAPFRE Data Disclosure Litigation, Case No. 1:23-cv-12059 (D. Mass., Filed Sept. 6, 2023), the Hon. Judge Indira Talwani entered an order adopting the parties' proposed schedule. -- Substantial completion of document production responsive to RFPs and ROGs served prior to mediation: December 15, 2025. -- Deadline for Fact Discovery Requests: April 1, 2026 -- Close of Fact Discovery: June 1, 2026 -- Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification: August 3, 2026 -- Plaintiffs Rule 26(b)(2) Expert Disclosures: August 3, 2026 -- Defendants Opposition to Motion for Class Certification: October 5, 2025 -- Defendants Rule 26(b)(2) Expert Disclosure: October 5, 2026 -- Plaintiffs Reply ISO Motion for Class Certification: November 16, 2026 -- Plaintiffs Expert Rebuttal: November 16, 2026 -- Dispositive Motion Deadline: within 60 days after order on class certification. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Personal Property Damage.[CC] MDL 3111: Bid for Final OK of Class Settlement Tossed ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned Re: Capital One 360 Savings Account Interest Rate Litigation, Case No. 1:24-md-03111 (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge David Novak entered an order denying motion for final approval of class action settlement. The Court directs the parties to engage in further settlement negotiations to remedy the flaws in the proposed settlement highlighted by the Court. Let the Clerk file a copy of this Order electronically and notify all counsel of record to include counsel for the New York Attorney General's Office, as well as the Special Master. The Court further notes that, even if it accepted Capital One's contrary position that the continuing 360 Savings account holders knowingly remain in these accounts despite the significantly lower interest income available to them, the proposed settlement would still fail Rule 23 muster. Capital is an American bank holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gKSBkV at no extra charge.[CC] MEDICREDIT INC: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Sur-Reply -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON SAGGIO and JUDE FURR, v. MEDICREDIT, INC, Case No. 4:22-cv-01005-JAR (E.D. Mo.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for leave to file sur-reply to the Plaintiff's reply in support of motion for class certification. Medicredit requests that the Court grant the Motion for Leave to file sur-reply and consider the arguments raised therein in making a determination on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The sur-reply would highlight the Plaintiffs' own admission that the Court should conduct individual mini-trials for each prospective class member so that they can provide "proof of the date that they were assigned their telephone numbers." The sur-reply would also address the Plaintiff's statement that, "even Medicredit must itself concede the Plaintiffs' proposed process passes muster." The Plaintiffs’ argument is disingenuous given that it references an unchallenged "settlement class," which is not binding on the Court or Medicredit in this case. The Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification under Rule 23 on May 29, 2025. Medicredit is a medical debt collection agency. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OYFCrV at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Scott J. Dickenson, Esq. Megan D. Meadows, Esq. Mitchell Martin, Esq. SPENCER FANE LLP 1 N. Brentwood Blvd., Suite 1200 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 863-7733 Facsimile: (314) 862-4656 E-mail: sdickenson@spencerfane.com mmeadows@spencerfane.com mmartin@spencerfane.com MR. COOPER: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert Scheduling Order -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER CABEZAS et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. MR. COOPER GROUP, INC., and NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC d/b/a MR. COOPER, Case No. 3:23-cv-02453-N (N.D. Tex.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting joint motion to modify class certification scheduling order: Event Deadline Deadline for the Plaintiffs to serve 90 days after Order motion for class certification on the on pending motion to Defendants (and any expert reports compel. in support thereof): Class certification discovery closes: 126 days after the Plaintiffs serve motion for class certification Deadline for the Defendants to serve 141 days after opposition to motion for class the Plaintiffs certification on Plaintiffs (and any serve motion for expert reports in support thereof): class certification Deadline for the Plaintiffs to serve 171 days after reply in support of class certification the Plaintiffs (and any rebuttal experts in support serve motion for thereof): class certification Class certification briefing 186 days after submission date: the Plaintiffs serve motion for class certification On July 22, 2025, the Court issued an order denying in part and granting in part Mr. Cooper's Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On July 25, 2025, the Court issued its Class Certification Scheduling Order. On Aug. 19, 2025, at Plaintiffs' request, the Court entered an order modifying its Class Certification Scheduling order by extending certain deadlines. Mr. Cooper is an American home loan servicer. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=p14HnO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek, Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (877) 744-3728 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Bruce W. Steckler, Esq. STECKLER WAYNE & LOVE, PLLC 12720 Hillcrest Suite 1045 Dallas, TX 75230 Telephone: (972) 387-4040 E-mail: bruce@swclaw.com - and - Norman E. Siegel, Esq. J. Austin Moore, Esq. Tanner J. Edwards, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com moore@stuevesiegel.com tanner@stuevesiegel.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 - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION 201 N. Franklin St., 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 275-5272 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com The Defendant is represented by: W. Kyle Tayman, Esq. Allison J. Schoenthal, Esq. Allison M. Funk, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 1900 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 346-4245 Facsimile: (202) 204-7309 E-mail: ktayman@goodwinlaw.com aschoenthal@goodwinlaw.com afunk@goodwinlaw.com - and - Thomas G. Yoxall, Esq. Roger B. Cowie, Esq. M. Taylor Levesque, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2800 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 740-8000 Facsimile: (214) 740-880 E-mail: Tom.Yoxall@troutman.com Roger.Cowie@troutman.com Taylor.Levesque@troutman.com NAVIENT CORPORATION: Ballard Seeks to File Class Cert Brief ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JILL BALLARD, REBECCA VARNO, and MARK POKORNI, on behalf of themselves and the class members described herein, v. NAVIENT CORPORATION, NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, INC. and NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-00121-JFS-PJC (M.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to file a brief in support of class certification exceeding the word count limit. The Plaintiffs Jill Ballard, Rebecca Varno, and Mark Pokorni, by and through their undersigned counsel, seek leave to file a brief of no more than 15,000 words in support of their Motion for Class Certification, and in support thereof, state as follows: A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ruOZAy at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony Fiorentino, Esq. 6119 North Kenmore Ave., Ste. 410 Chicago, IL 60660 Telephone: (312) 305-2850 E-mail: anthony@fiorentinolaw.com - and - Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 20 South Clark Street, Suite 1800 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 739-4200 E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com - and Carlo Sabatini, Esq. SABATINI LAW FIRM, LLC 216 N. Blakely St. Dunmore, PA 18512 Telephone: (570) 341-9000 E-mail: carlo@sabatinilawfirm.com NVIDIA CORP: Seeks Leave to File Opposition Sur-Reply ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:18-cv-07669-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for leave to file sur-reply in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class, appointing class representatives, and appointing class counsel. The Court should grant the Defendants leave to file a sur-reply here. First, as in Pardi and FibroGen, Defendants have the burden to rebut the Basic presumption. The Defendants rebutted that presumption in their opposition brief by showing the absence of price impact, the Defendants contend. Second, Plaintiffs' Reply raises new arguments not found in their operative Complaint, their Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiffs did not address individualized reliance in their opening brief. Nvidia is a multinational technology company known for its pioneering work in GPU-accelerated computing and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KVqVv3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Patrick E. Gibbs, Esq. Amanda A. Main, Esq. John C. Bostic, Esq. Brett De Jarnette, Esq. Sarah M. Lightdale, Esq. COOLEY LLP 3175 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130 Telephone: (650) 843-5000 Facsimile: (650) 849-7400 E-mail: pgibbs@cooley.com amain@cooley.com jbostic@cooley.com bdejarnette@cooley.com slightdale@cooley.com - and - Scott A. Edelman, Esq. Jed M. Schwartz, Esq. Andrew B. Lichtenberg, Esq. Olivia S. Choe, Esq. MILBANK LLP 55 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 530-5000 Facsimile: (212) 530-5219 E-mail: sedelman@milbank.com jschwartz@milbank.com alichtenberg@milbank.com ochoe@milbank.com NVIDIA CORP: Seeks to File Class Exhibits Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:18-cv-07669-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting administrative motion to file under seal certain exhibits filed in support of the Defendants' sur reply in support of opposition to motion to certify class, appoint class representatives, and appoint class counsel. The Defendants have tailored their sealing requests as narrowly as possible, and seek to seal only that information which, if publicly disclosed, could cause competitive and business harm to Defendants, or reveal personally identifiable information. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants request the following information be sealed from the public record: Exhibits CCC, DDD, and EEE which were produced pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order in this case, are internal emails and presentations containing NVIDIA's highly sensitive, confidential, and non-public business and financial information, which detail and discuss NVIDIA's business and product development process, financial information, product and sales data, customer usage and demand analyses, and marketing and pricing strategies. The Defendants have narrowly applied redactions only to the confidential portions of these documents, disclosure of which could cause harm to NVIDIA's business and competitive interests. Specifically, the confidential information Defendants seek to seal was derived from non-public data and proprietary methodologies, and disclosure of this granular level of detail would expose NVIDIA's strategic priorities, judgments, and assumptions, which would allow competitors to assess and exploit this information to NVIDIA's detriment. Nvidia is a multinational technology company known for its pioneering work in GPU-accelerated computing and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JGcHQl at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Patrick E. Gibbs, Esq. Amanda A. Main, Esq. John C. Bostic, Esq. Brett De Jarnette, Esq. Sarah M. Lightdale, Esq. COOLEY LLP 3175 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130 Telephone: (650) 843-5000 Facsimile: (650) 849-7400 E-mail: pgibbs@cooley.com amain@cooley.com jbostic@cooley.com bdejarnette@cooley.com slightdale@cooley.com - and - Scott A. Edelman, Esq. Jed M. Schwartz, Esq. Andrew B. Lichtenberg, Esq. Olivia S. Choe, Esq. MILBANK LLP 55 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 530-5000 Facsimile: (212) 530-5219 E-mail: sedelman@milbank.com jschwartz@milbank.com alichtenberg@milbank.com ochoe@milbank.com ORLANDO HEALTH: Must File Class Cert Response by Jan. 16, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as W.W. v. Orlando Health, Inc., Case No. 6:24-cv-01068 (M.D. Fla., Filed June 10, 2024), the Hon. Judge Julie S. Sneed entered an order granting the Defendant's unopposed motion for an extension of time to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and disclose class certification rebuttal experts. The Defendant shall respond on or before Jan. 16, 2026. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Other Personal Injury. The Defendant is a private, not-for-profit network of community and specialty hospitals.[CC] OSHKOSH CORP: Onalaska Sues Over Fire Truck Monopoly ---------------------------------------------------- CITY OF ONALASKA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OSHKOSH CORPORATION; REV GROUP, INC.; ROSENBAUER AMERICA LLC; and FIRE APPARATUS MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01717-BBC (E.D. Wis., Nov. 4, 2025) alleges violation of the Sherman Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants are engaged in a continuous and multi-faceted exchange of competitively sensitive information through Fire Apparatus Manufacturers' Association, which suppressed supply and price competition and permitted the Defendants to monitor each other's adherence to the conspiracy. FAMA collects nonpublic, competitively sensitive information from members and then shares that information with other members in a give-to-get information sharing scheme. The Defendants facilitated, adhered to, participated in, aided and abetted, and otherwise acted in concert with Defendants in order to advance the objectives of the scheme to benefit Defendants and themselves by artificially inflating the prices of Fire Trucks. Not only have customers paid supercompetitive prices for Fire Trucks, but fire fighters and communities across the United States have suffered due to Defendants' anticompetitive conduct, says the suit. Oshkosh Corporation designs, manufactures, and markets fire and emergency apparatuses, specialty commercial, and military trucks. The Company provides products, such as pumpers, aerial and ladder trucks, tankers, rescue vehicles, snow removal vehicles, refuse truck bodies, and concrete mixers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian G. Weber, Esq. JOHNS, FLAHERTY & COLLINS, S.C. Exchange Building 205 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 600 La Crosse, WI 54602 Telephone: (608) 784-5678 Email: brian@johnsflaherty.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. Joshua J. Rissman, Esq. Gabrielle M. Kolb, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 So. Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com jrissman@gustafsongluek.com gkolb@gustafsongluek.com PARAMOUNT SKYDANCE: Diaz Sues Over Data Privacy Violations ---------------------------------------------------------- RAQUEL DIAZ, on behalf of her minor child, B.E.; LISA MEDINA, on behalf of her minor child, G.C; OSCAR RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of his minor child, F.R.; STACY RADER, on behalf of her minor child, S.C.; and KATRINA MONTGOMERY, on behalf of her minor children, J.M., J.A., and J.M.; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PARAMOUNT SKYDANCE CORPORATION; and PLUTO INC., Defendants, Case 5:25-cv-02945 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 4, 2025) alleges violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act, the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and the California Invasion of Privacy Act. According to the complaint, each of the Plaintiffs' Children and Class Members visited the Platform and had their Private Children's Data tracked by Defendants using the Tracking Tools. However, the Defendants never obtained authorization from Plaintiffs or Class Members to share the Private Children's Data they collect with third parties. The Defendants collect personally identifying information from minor users of the Platform without obtaining parental consent, and simultaneously share that information with third parties, including Google and Microsoft, in exchange for compensation in the form of advertising, analytics, and marketing services. Then, that data is subsequently used to make data profiles for advertising purposes, says the suit. Paramount Skydance Corporation operates as a mass media and entertainment company. The Company provides broadcast of content through studios, networks, streaming services, live events, and merchandise. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 468 N. Camden Dr. Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 Email: daniel@slfla.com PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Case Management Order Entered in Browser Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as In re PayPal Honey Browser Extension Litigation, Case No. 5:24-cv-09470-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered a case management order as follows: The deadline for the parties to meet, confer, and submit a stipulation and order setting all deadlines not set by the Court below, including discovery cut-offs and expert disclosure deadlines, is twenty-one days after entry of this order unless stated otherwise by the Court on the record at the Case Management Conference. All disputes with respect to disclosures or discovery are referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge. Unless previously ordered or stipulated, the parties shall meet and confer further in order to reach an agreement on an ADR process within 15 days of the date of this Order. Within that same time frame, the parties shall file the form entitled "Stipulation and (Proposed) order Selecting ADR Process". The parties shall comply with the Court's standing orders, which are available on 28 the Court’s website and in the Clerk's Office. The following schedule and deadlines shall apply to this case: Event Date Or Deadline Last day file motion class certification: Sept. 1, 2026 Last day for hearing on summary judgment June 3, 2027 or dispositive motions: Final pretrial conference: Sept. 16, 2027 Jury trial begins: Oct. 18, 2027 A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7Mkax4 at no extra charge.[CC] PHARMAVITE LLC: Douglass Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------------- BLAIR DOUGLASS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PHARMAVITE LLC; FOODSTATE, INC.; PHARMAVITE DIRECT LLC; and BONAFIDE HEALTH LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01721 (W.D. Pa., Nov. 4, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants' Web sites, www.pharmavite.com, www.naturemade.com, www.uqora.com, www.equelle.com, www.hellobonafide.com, and www.megafood.com, are not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Pharmavite LLC manufactures and distributes dietary supplement products. The Company offers tablets, capsules, softgels, vitamins, minerals, herbs, supplements, and nutrition bars. [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 Email: ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com csteiger@eastendtrialgroup.com smoore@eastendtrialgroup.com kconahan@eastendtrialgroup.com jliu@eastendtrialgroup.com PREMIER EVENTS: Rawls Seeks Conditional Cert. of Collective Actions ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jason Rawls and Wayne Mayers, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated individuals, v. Premier Events, LLC, Phoenix Concessions, LLC, Collegiate Concessions, LLC, City Park Concessions, LLC, PTC Concessions, LLC, and Chastain Concessions, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-06145-VMC (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their conditional certification for two collective actions: Specifically, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (1) conditionally certifying the following collective action to recover the half-time overtime premium that the Defendants failed to pay hourly, non-exempt employees: "All current and former non-exempt employees who worked for the Defendants in the last three years preceding this lawsuit through the entry of judgment who were not paid one- and-a-half their regular rate of pay for hours worked over forty in a work week." (2) conditionally certifying the following collective action to remedy the improper inclusion of supervisors and managers in tip pools: "All current and former Barbacks who worked for the Defendants in the last three years preceding this lawsuit through the entry of judgment who participated a tip pool that included a distribution to managerial or supervisory personnel." Premier is a full-service event production company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fAryZU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jackie Lee, Esq. Alex Meier, Esq. LEE MEIER 695 Pylant Street NE, Suite 105 Atlanta, GA 30306 Telephone: (404) 999-4798 E-mail: jlee@leemeier.law ameier@leemeier.law PRIME NOW: Class Cert Filing in Quintero Extended to April 7, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIDGET SIBYL QUINTERO, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PRIME NOW LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-03382-MWF-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald entered an order continuing motion for class certification filing deadline and related deadlines: (1) The Plaintiff's deadline to file and serve a Motion for Class Certification is extended 60 days to April 7, 2026, or a date thereafter convenient for the Court; and (2) All other deadlines set forth in the Court’s Order regarding the previous Joint Stipulation to Continue Case Schedule dated September 25, 2025 including Defendant's deadline to file an Opposition to the Motion for Class Certification, are extended by an equal amount of time. Prime is a subsidiary of Amazon that oversees its same-day grocery shopping and delivery service. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=amWXFc at no extra charge.[CC] PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED: Rodriguez Wins Bid for Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:25-cv-01086-SKC-STV (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Accordingly, the case is suitable for class treatment: The Plaintiff's claims are based on (1) identical contract language and (2) uniform practices. The Plaintiff claims Progressive breached its promise to "determine" the ACV of their vehicles based on "the market value, age, and condition of the vehicle."Progressive breached this obligation by applying a discrete deduction -- the PSA -- to reduce insureds' total-loss payments below market value. The case challenges Progressive's uniform use of so-called "Projected Sold Adjustment" ("PSA"), a fabricated deduction applied to the valuations of comparable vehicles used to calculate actual case value payments for total-loss vehicles. Thus, the Plaintiffs seek certification of a class of Colorado insured whose total-loss claims were reduced by the invalid PSA deduction. Progressive provides insurances services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bCoYhV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. Edwin E. Elliott, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 N.E. 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com edwine@shamisgentile.com - and - R. Keith Fuicelli, Esq. FUICELLI & LEE, P.C. 1731 Gilpin St. Denver, CO 80218 Telephone: (720) 664-5703 - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (786) 289-9471 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com - and - Hank Bates, Esq. Lee Lowther, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC One Allied Drive, Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 Facsimile: (501) 312-8505 E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com llowther@cbplaw.com RICOH USA: Mike the Printer Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIKE THE PRINTER, INC., a California corporation, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RICOH USA, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:24-cv-08192-JFW-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Dec. 8, 2025, will move under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for class certification. The Plaintiff seeks an order: 1. Certifying a class action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rules") 23 on the grounds that the Class (1) is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are common questions and answers of law and fact to the Class, (3) the class representative's claims are typical of the claims of the Class, and (4) the class representative and proposed Class Counsel will fairly and adequately protect and represent the interests of the Class. 2. Determining that the class treatment is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(3) because common questions of law and fact to the class predominate, the class method is superior, and class treatment is manageable. 3. Certifying the following Class and Subclass: "All customers of Ricoh in the United States where (1) their contract contains an Annual Price Increase limit using the API Form Provision and (2) Ricoh charged the customer an annual price increase percentage greater than the percentage stated in the customer’s contract." The Subclass: "All members of California who are located in California according to Ricoh's records." A California subclass bringing the California section 17200 claim will be California-based customers. 4. Finding the Plaintiff to be an adequate representative of the Class and Subclass and certifying Plaintiff as the class representative herein. 5. Finding the Plaintiff's counsel, namely Panish Shea Ravipudi LLP, as adequate class counsel and certifying them as class counsel. 6. Ordering Ricoh to disclose Class and Subclass contact information to Plaintiff's counsel. 7. Ordering the Parties to submit a class notice for approval by the Court under Rule 23(c)(2)(B). This class action arises out of allegations that Ricoh breached a form provision in a form contract regarding its right to increase rates after a fixed period of fixed service charges. Ricoh is an information management and digital services company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=t7X5pO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Panish, Esq. Jesse Creed, Esq. PANISH | SHEA | RAVIPUDI LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 477-1700 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 E-mail: panish@panish.law jcreed@panish.law ROCKET CLOSE: Mangle Seeks Class Certification ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALLISON MANGLE, AMY BRYAN, CRAIG BRYAN, AMANDA HUTCHINSON, and DANIEL HUTCHINSON, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. ROCKET CLOSE, LLC, Case No. 5:24-cv-06025-JFL (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for class certification. In support, the Plaintiffs submit the accompanying memorandum of law and the exhibits attached thereto. For the reasons set forth in Plaintiff’s memorandum of law, the Plaintiff requests the Court: (1) Certify a class consisting of: "All persons who purchased, sold or refinanced residential real estate in the State of Pennsylvania within, at a minimum, six years prior to and including the date of filing of the complaint and who were charged by Rocket Close and paid notary fees to Rocket Clos] in connection with such purchase, sale or refinance that were in excess of the fees fixed by the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania." (2) Appoint Allison Mangle, Amy Bryan, Craig Bryan, Amanda Hutchinson, and Daniel Hutchinson as Class Representatives; and (3) Appoint Jonathan Andres and Aaron Rihn as Class Counsel. Rocket provides title insurance, property appraisals and settlement services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6pxSzk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: D. Aaron Rihn, Esq. ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 707 Grant Street, Suite 125 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 281-7229 Facsimile: (412) 281-4229 E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.co - and - Jonathan F. Andres, Esq. JONATHAN F. ANDRES P.C. 1127 Hoot Owl Rd. St. Louis, MO 63005 Telephone: (636) 633-1208 E-mail: andres@andreslawpc.com ROCKET MORTGAGE: Faces Class Suit Over Ignored Opt-Out Requests --------------------------------------------------------------- Tez Romero, writing for MPA, reports that Rocket Mortgage faces fresh allegations it ignored a consumer's opt-out request, continuing telemarketing calls despite confirming she had been unsubscribed from further contact. A lawsuit filed November 12 in federal court in Florida claims the nation's largest mortgage lender violated federal and state telemarketing laws by calling a consumer twelve times after she explicitly asked to stop receiving communications. Hillary Wissart of Kissimmee, Florida, visited RocketMortgage.com on October 9 to check current mortgage rates. Hours later, her phone rang. A Rocket representative named Miguel Rodriguez left a voicemail identifying himself as an executive banker who worked with a partnership with Woodforce and wanted to go over incentives and discounts. Two minutes after the call, at 3:50 PM, Wissart received a text from Rodriguez introducing himself as her dedicated team member throughout her home financing journey. The message included instructions to reply "STOP" to opt out. She did exactly that, replying one minute later at 3:51 PM. Rocket immediately sent a confirmation: "You have successfully been unsubscribed. You will not receive any more messages from this number." But the calls kept coming, the lawsuit alleges. Over the next three weeks, Wissart claims she received calls from the same Rocket number on October 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, and 29. Rodriguez left another voicemail on October 23. The alleged pattern raises questions about internal compliance systems at one of the industry's most prominent lenders. Federal regulations require telemarketers to honor a residential subscriber's do-not-call request within a reasonable time not to exceed ten business days. Multiple calls allegedly continued well beyond that window. The lawsuit asserts Rocket failed to institute proper procedures for maintaining a list of persons who request not to receive telemarketing calls. All the calls, voicemails, and text messages came from the same phone number, suggesting the opt-out request failed to propagate through Rocket's contact systems. Wissart is not and never has been a Rocket customer. She uses her cellular number solely for personal calls and messages at her home. The filing notes Rocket has been sued fifty-five other times in federal court for TCPA violations. That litigation history suggests either widespread consumer complaints or concentrated plaintiff attorney focus on the lender's marketing practices. Wissart seeks to represent two classes of similarly situated individuals. The first would include all people nationwide who are not Rocket customers, who sent an opt-out text, and who received more than one subsequent call within twelve months during the four years from filing through class certification. The second focuses on Florida residents meeting similar criteria who received any calls after opting out during the same timeframe. The lawsuit estimates the classes likely exceed ten thousand members. The case invokes both the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Florida's Telephone Solicitation Act. Under those statutes, violations carry penalties of five hundred dollars per unlawful call, rising to fifteen hundred dollars if a court finds the conduct was knowing or willful. For mortgage lenders, the case underscores persistent compliance challenges in an industry heavily reliant on telephone and text message outreach for lead generation. As marketing technology grows more sophisticated, maintaining accurate suppression lists across multiple communication channels remains a regulatory concern. No court has yet made any determination on the allegations. Rocket Mortgage has not filed a response. [GN] SALESFORCE INC: Alexander Suit Alleges Copyright Infringement ------------------------------------------------------------- TASHA ALEXANDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SALESFORCE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-09560 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 5, 2025) is an action alleging that the Defendant infringed millions of registered copyrighted works to build its CodeGen and xGen Large Language Models ("LLMs") and commercial artificial intelligence ("AI") products, including Agentforce. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, Salesforce downloaded pirated copies of their works, copied and stored these works, and used them to train its models to generate human-like text and images, which has and is displacing and diluting the market for the Plaintiff's works. Salesforce did not seek permission or pay for the copyrighted works it uses, rather Salesforce willfully exploits the works without authorization to build and train its LLMs and power its Agentforce AI product, says the suit. Salesforce, Inc. operates as a cloud-based software company. The Company develops customer relationship management software and applications focused on sales, customer service, marketing automation, analytics, and application development. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq. Brian Danitz, Esq. Gia Jung, Esq. Caroline Yuen, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 840 Malcom Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Email: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com bdanitz@cpmlegal.com gjung@cpmlegal.com cyuen@cpmlegal.com - and - Karin B. Swope, Esq. Thomas Loeser, Esq. Andrew Fuller, Esq. Jacob Alhadeff, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 1809 7th Avenue, Suite 1600 Seattle WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 802-1272 Email: kswope@cpmlegal.com tloeser@cpmlegal.com afuller@cpmlegal.com jalhadeff@cpmlegal.com - and - Lesley E. Weaver, Esq. Anne K. Davis, Esq. Joshua D. Samra, Esq. BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP 1330 Broadway, Suite 630 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 445-4003 Email: lweaver@bfalaw.com adavis@bfalaw.com jsamra@bfalaw.com SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Anderson Seeks Class Settlement Final Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEVON ANDERSON and BEVERLY L. SWEENEY on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, and SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY, Case No. 4:20-cv-01149-DMR (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs , on Dec. 11, 2025, will move the Court to enter an order: 1. Entering final approval of the Class Action Settlement pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 2. Approving the Plaintiffs' versions of the Military Leave Forms and FAQs; 3. Entering final judgment only on the Class Claims (Counts I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, XII, XII, and XIV)1 pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 4. Retaining jurisdiction as to the Class Claims with respect to (a) enforcement, interpretation and implementation of the Settlement Agreement; (b) distribution of the Settlement payments to the Class; (c) disputes about the payment of, division of or claims for additional attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses to the Plaintiff's counsel, (d) enforcement and administration the Settlement, including the non-monetary terms (i.e. the prospective relief), including the Claims Process and administration of the Settlement; and (e) enforcement of any order of this Court. San Francisco is a commercial, financial, and cultural center of Northern California. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XtehYA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: R. Joseph Barton, Esq. THE BARTON FIRM LLP 1633 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 200 Washington DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 734-7046 E-mail: jbarton@thebartonfirm.com - and - Michael J. Scimone, Esq. Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 E-mail: mscimone@outtengolden.com jsagafi@outtengolden.com SELENE FINANCE: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Dec. 15, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICK S DOMINGUEZ, v. SELENE FINANCE, LP, Case No. 3:23-cv-06225-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered a pretrial order no. 2: case schedule through class certification: Initial Disclosures: Nov. 7, 2025 Move to Amend Pleadings: Jan. 9, 2026 Fact Discovery: Aug. 14, 2026 Expert Reports: Aug. 28, 2026 Rebuttal Expert Reports: Oct. 14, 2026 The Plaintiffs' motion for class Dec. 15, 2026 certification: Selene operates as a residential mortgage company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HZz9Bm at no extra charge.[CC] SELLAN STRUCTURAL: More Time to File Class Cert Response Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONEJO et al., v. SELLAN STRUCTURAL ERECTORS, LLC et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-02930-SKC-STV (D. Colo.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their third joint motion to allow the Parties to engage in settlement discussion and extend the deadline for the Defendants to file their response to the Rule 23 Motion to Jan. 9, 2026. If the Parties are unable to reach settlement during this time, Defendants will then file their Response to the Rule 23 Motion on or before Friday, Jan. 9, 2026. Sellan specializes in the fabrication, erection, and installation of steel structure. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rFmcYL at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Penn A. Dodson, Esq. ANDERSON DODSON, P.C. 14143 Denver West Pkwy., Suite 100-50 Golden, CO 80401 Telephone: (212) 961-7639 E-mail: penn@andersondodson.com The Defendants are represented by: Stacey A. Campbell, Esq. Bayan Biazar, Esq. CAMPBELL LITIGATION, P.C. 1410 N. High Street Denver, CO 80218 Telephone: (303) 536-1833 E-mail: stacey@campbell-litigation.com bayan@campbell-litigation.com SEYBOTH TEAM: Seeks More Time to File Class Objection in Iudiciani ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Louis Iudiciani, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. The Seyboth Team Real Estate Inc. d/b/a Century 21 Limitless, Case No. 1:23-cv-00443-MSM-AEM (D.R.I.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its motion for extension of time and allowing the Defendant up to and including Nov. 21, 2025 to file its objection to the motion for class certification. Seyboth is in the real estate business. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PvdwYn at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Michael J. Lepizzera, Jr., Esq. Allan W. Fung, Esq. Robert A. D'Alfonso, Jr., Esq. LEPIZZERA & LAPROCINA COUNSELLORS AT LAW, LTD. 117 Metro Center Blvd., Suite 2001 Warwick, RI 02886 Telephone: (401) 739-7397 Facsimile: (401) 691-3538 E-mail: MLepizzera@LepLap.com SIX FLAGS: City of Livonia Sues Over Drop in Share Price -------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF LIVONIA EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIX FLAGS ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION; RICHARD A. ZIMMERMAN; SELIM BASSOUL; GARY MICK; LOUIS CARR; MICHELLE FRYMIRE; DANIEL HANRAHAN; CHIEH HUANG; JENNIFER MASON; ENRIQUE RAMIREZ MENA; D. SCOTT OLIVET; ARIK RUCHIM; and MARILYN SPIEGEL, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-02394 (N.D. Ohio, Nov. 5, 2025) alleges violation of the Securities Act of 1933. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Class purchased or acquired Six Flags common stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the July 1, 2024 merger of legacy Six Flags Entertainment Corporation ("Legacy Six Flags") with Cedar Fair, L.P. ("Cedar Fair"), and their subsidiaries and affiliates. Cedar Fair and Legacy Six Flags combined two amusement park behemoths in a "merger of equals" to create North America's largest regional amusement park operator with a property portfolio of approximately 40 amusement parks and water parks, along with several resort properties (the "Merger"). The press release and reporting of the Defendants were materially false and misleading when made because they failed to disclose the following adverse facts that existed at the time of the Merger: (a) that Legacy Six Flags had underinvested in its parks and operations, deferring or foregoing basic park maintenance, operational improvements, infrastructure repairs, and ride design and development for several years prior to the Merger; (b) that Legacy Six Flags needed to make millions of dollars' worth of undisclosed capital and operational expenditures above the company's historical cost trends in order to maintain or grow Legacy Six Flags' share in the intensely competitive amusement park market; (c) that, due to the massive, undisclosed capital needs of Legacy Six Flags and the deleterious effects of years of chronic disinvestment by the company, the revenue, earnings, cash flow, capital and operational investments, cost reductions, balance sheet improvements, and debt reduction plans presented to investors in the Registration Statement were not reasonably achievable or rooted in facts existing at the time of the Merger; and (d) that, as a result, the ostensible rationale for the Merger and its purported benefits lacked any reasonable factual basis. On the Merger closing date, July 1, 2024, Six Flags stock traded above $55 per share. The price of Six Flags stock subsequently fell as low as $20 per share, a nearly 64% decline, the suit asserts. Six Flags Entertainment Corporation operates regional theme parks. The Company has parks comprised of theme, water, and zoological parks. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph F. Murray, Esq. MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP 1114 Dublin Road Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 488-0400 Facsimile: (614) 488-0401 Email: murray@mmmb.com - and - Brian E. Cochran, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 Email: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com - and - Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com - and - Robert J. Robbins, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 Facsimile: (561) 750-3364 Email: rrobbins@rgrdlaw.com - and - Thomas C. Michaud, Esq. VANOVERBEKE, MICHAUD & TIMMONY, P.C. 79 Alfred Street Detroit, MI 48201 Telephone: (313) 578-1200 Facsimile: (313) 578-1201 Email: tmichaud@vmtlaw.com SOUTHERN OREGON: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due March 16, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILSON v. Southern Oregon Credit Service, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-02087 (D. Or., Filed Dec. 17, 2024), the Hon. Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai entered an order granting motion for extension of discovery & PTO deadlines: The Court finds good cause to allow the parties to dedicate their resources to pending mediation proceedings. Discovery deadline is March 20, 2026. Motion for Class Certification is due March 16, 2026. Other deadlines are to be set after ruling on Plaintiff's class certification motion. The nature of suit states Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Southern offers debt collection services.[CC] SPOTIFY USA: Capolongo Sues Over Deceptive Business Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- GENEVIEVE CAPOLONGO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SPOTIFY USA INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09216 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 4, 2025) alleges violation of the New York General Business Law. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that Spotify is engaged in deceptive acts and practices by misrepresenting that its playlists and recommendations were neutral, merit-based, and personalized to users' tastes, when in reality they were shaped by undisclosed commercial incentives and pay-for-play arrangements. Spotify further engaged in deceptive practices by marketing its playlists as "personalized," "made just for you," and "based on your listening habits" while concealing that major-label tracks and commercially prioritized songs would be favored regardless of user preference, alleges the suit. The Plaintiff and Class members reasonably relied upon Spotify's false advertising in deciding to subscribe to and use Spotify. Had Plaintiff and Class members known the truth, they would not have paid for the service or would have paid less, the suit added. Spotify USA Inc. provides an entertainment software. The Company offers platform that enables users to find music on their phones, computers, and tablets. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Innessa M. Huot, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 Email: ihuot@faruqilaw.com - and - James B. Zouras, Esq. Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. Justin M. Caparco, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLC 222 West Adams Street, Suite 2020 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 Email: jzouras@stephanzouras.com rstephan@stephanzouras.com jcaparco@stephanzouras.com SPROUT SOCIAL: Awaits Court Ruling on Bid to Junk Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sprout Social, 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 ruling from an Illinois court of its motion to dismiss a consolidated securities fraud class action. Beginning on May 13, 2024, the Company and certain of its executives were named in two putative securities fraud class action cases filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5. The first action, captioned Munch v. Sprout Social, Inc., et al. was filed on May 13, 2024 and alleged that the defendants made false or misleading statements and omissions of fact relating to the Company's business, operations and prospects, including (i) purported integration challenges arising from the Company's August 2023 acquisition of Tagger Media, Inc. ("Tagger"), (ii) the Company's ability to service (and the viability of its strategic plan to focus on) the enterprise market, and (iii) as a result, the Company's 2024 financial guidance was required to be adjusted downward. The Munch complaint sought damages and costs on behalf of a putative class of Company stockholders from November 3, 2023 through and including May 2, 2024. The second case, captioned City of Hollywood Police Officers' Retirement System v. Sprout Social, Inc., et al (the "City of Hollywood Action"), was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July 2, 2024. It asserted claims under the same statutory provisions based on substantially similar allegations of misconduct as its predecessor, but alleged a class period beginning on November 3, 2021 and ending on May 2, 2024. On November 12, 2024, the court appointed the Employees' Retirement System for the City of Baltimore (the "City of Baltimore"), who had been substituted as the named plaintiff in the City of Hollywood action, as the Lead Plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"). The court subsequently consolidated the two cases (the "Consolidated Securities Action") on December 13, 2024. On January 24, 2025, the City of Baltimore filed an amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "AC"). The AC retains the original defendants, but adds Jason Rechel, Sprout Social's former head of Investor Relations, as an individual defendant. The AC makes similar allegations to those asserted in the City of Hollywood Action and adds additional allegations, including purported statements attributed to 15 anonymous confidential witnesses. Most of these individuals are described in the AC as former Sprout Social sales representatives. It claims that the defendants failed to disclose that the Company lacked the infrastructure to successfully implement its strategic shift to the enterprise business market, which purportedly rendered positive statements about enterprise business generation and prospects, and Sprout Social's financials, misleading. More specifically, the AC alleges that (1) Sprout Social's "inbound" sales strategy model, which it also applied to enterprise sales efforts, was not effective for generating enterprise business; (2) Sprout Social's platform lacked certain features valued by large clients; (3) Sprout Social's partnership with Salesforce would not necessarily increase Sprout Social's enterprise business; and (4) Sprout Social's emphasis on ARR as a key metric for financial performance was misleading, given Sprout Social's own abandonment of the metric as a viable performance indicator. The AC alleges a slightly longer class period than that alleged in the City of Hollywood Action, beginning on September 22, 2021, and ending on May 2, 2024 (the City of Hollywood Action alleged class period that began on November 3, 2021 and ended on May 2, 2024). On March 25, 2025, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss (the "Motion") the AC in its entirety. On May 23, 2025, Lead Plaintiff filed a brief in opposition to this Motion. Defendants filed a reply brief in further support of the Motion on July 17, 2025. The court has yet to issue any ruling on the Motion. Under the PSLRA, discovery and other proceedings in the Consolidated Securities Action are automatically stayed pending such a ruling. SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: To Pay $112MM Over Detention of Immigrants -------------------------------------------------------------- Denise Civiletti, writing for Riverhead Local, reports a federal jury has ordered Suffolk County to pay $112 million in damages to hundreds of immigrants who were unlawfully detained in county jails at the request of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement between July 2014 and November 2018. The jury verdict reached last Friday, November 14, found the county liable for $75 million in connection with the unlawful detention in violation of constitutional protection against detention without probable cause or a warrant signed by a judge. The jury last week also found that the plaintiffs were denied adequate procedural due process in connection with their detention and fixed damages for that claim at $37 million. Federal District Court Judge William Kuntz II ruled in January that Suffolk County's practice of holding detainees based only on federal civil detainer requests violated both the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the New York State Constitution. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs. Suffolk County appealed and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed the appeal ruling that the judgment being appealed from was not a final order. Now that there is a final order, an appeal is possible and will likely be taken. The case, Orellana Castañeda et al. v. County of Suffolk and Suffolk County Sheriff's Office et al., is a class-action lawsuit filed in 2017 on behalf of 674 plaintiffs by LatinoJustice PRLDEF and the law firm Winston & Strawn. It challenged Suffolk County's practice of unlawfully holding individuals in county jails after they should have been released -- because their bail had been posted or their case had been resolved -- for the sole purpose of facilitating a direct handover to immigration enforcement authorities. "This decision brings long-overdue accountability," Jose Perez, deputy general counsel at LatinoJustice PRLDEF said in a statement. "The jury confirmed what we have argued all along, that Suffolk County's actions trampled the basic due process rights guaranteed under the 14th Amendment." The lawsuit does not address current county policy. Former Suffolk County Sheriff Vincent DiMarco directed that the Suffolk County jail would honor ICE detainers accompanied by a Department of Homeland Security warrant of arrest/removal/deportation and that prisoners subject to the ICE detainers would be "held for up to 48 hours after the time the prisoner would otherwise be released." A 2018 New York State appellate court decision determined that the Suffolk Sheriff lacked the authority to detain the prisoners pursuant to ICE detainers and administrative warrants. DeMarco's successor, Sheriff Errol Toulon Jr. directed that the practice be immediately discontinued. [GN] TALL TIMBERS: Must File Class Cert Opposition by Dec. 5 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STACIE SMITH, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, v. TALL TIMBERS PIZZA HUT, INC., Case No. 6:24-cv-00349-JCB-JDL (E.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Love entered an order granting the Defendant's unopposed motion for additional time to submit its opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for certification, for disclosure of contact information, and to send notice. Accordingly, the Defendant's opposition shall be due by and including Dec. 5, 2025. Tall is a local franchise of Pizza Hut. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kBIzQA at no extra charge.[CC] TALL TIMBERS: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as STACIE SMITH, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, v. TALL TIMBERS PIZZA HUT, INC., Case No. 6:24-cv-00349-JCB-JDL (E.D. Tex.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting the unopposed motion and extending the deadline to file its opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for certification, disclosure of contact information, and notice to Dec. 5, 2025. Good cause exists for this extension. Plaintiff’s motion raises complex factual and legal issues, and the proposed class encompasses delivery drivers from over forty (40) distinct store locations across Texas, subject to various factors that impact each location and/or the individual potential drivers. Defendant requires additional time to evaluate the motion, compile relevant data, and prepare a thorough response that will assist the Court in its consideration. This additional time also allows the Counsels to discuss the information garnered for possible agreement on certain terms for proceeding in the litigation. 6. Additionally, the requested extension accounts for the upcoming Thanksgiving holiday, which will impact the availability of personnel and resources necessary to prepare the response. Granting this extension will not affect any other deadlines in the case. The Amended Docket Control Order (Doc. 33) remains in effect, and trial is not scheduled until September 21, 2026. The Plaintiff does not oppose this request. The Plaintiff initiated this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") on behalf of all delivery drivers employed by Defendant, seeking recovery of alleged unpaid minimum wages and other damages. The Plaintiff seeks to proceed as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) and has moved to certify the following class: "All current and former delivery drivers employed by the Defendant at any time during the three years preceding the filing of the Complaint to the present." Tall is a local franchise of Pizza Hut. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FXaDnT at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Janice S. Parker, Esq. KAUFMAN DOLOWICH, LLP 14643 Dallas Parkway, Suite 550 Dallas, TX 75254 Telephone: (972) 781-2400 Facsimile: (972) 781-2401 E-mail: janice.parker@kaufmandolowich.com TARGET CORPORATION: Kelly Seeks Class Cert Briefing Schedule ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDEN KELLY, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. TARGET CORPORATION, Case No. 2:23-cv-01301-RBS (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting revised proposed class certification briefing schedule: Dec. 19, 2025: The Plaintiff's motion for class certification Jan. 26, 2025: The Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification March 2, 2026: The Plaintiff's reply in support of motion for class certification. Target is a major American retailer, known for its big box general merchandise stores. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iZExYr at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. Krysten Connon, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (267) 256-9973 E-mail: ssb@llrlaw.com kconnon@llrlaw.com - and - Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 335 18th Pl NE Washington, D.C. 20002 Telephone: (202) 830-2016 E-mail: sabrahamson@flsalaw.com - and - Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq. WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON 1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 656-3600 Facsimile: (215) 567-2310 E-mail: rhancock@wwdlaw.com TASKUS INC: Court Recommends Final OK of Settlement in Lozada ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HUMBERTO LOZADA and OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS PENSION AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TASKUS, INC, BRYCE MADDOCK, JASPAR WEIR, BALAJI SEKAR, AMIT DIXIT, MUKESH MEHTA, SUSIR KUMAR, JACQUELINE D. RESES, and BCP FC AGGREGATOR L.P., Case No. 1:22-cv-01479-JPC-GS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Stein recommends that Judge Cronan: (1) grant the Plaintiffs' final approval of Class Action Settlement and Approval of Plan of Allocation motion; (2) grant the Plaintiffs' fees and expenses motion; and (3) sign the proposed final judgment, the proposed plan of allocation order, and the proposed fee award order in the form attached hereto. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs' counsel's requested fee of $5.25 million is fair and reasonable under the percentage method as analyzed under the Goldberger factors and as confirmed by a lodestar cross-check. As the Court finds that the requested payments for attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs and expenses of the Class Representatives, respectively, are reasonable, it recommends that the Fees and Expenses Motion be granted. This is a federal securities class action brought on behalf of shareholders of TaskUs. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants made misrepresentations in registration statements issued in connection with TaskUs's initial public offering in June 2021 (the "IPO") and in connection with a secondary offering in October 2021 (the "Secondary Offering"). The Plaintiffs seek approval to distribute the following amounts from the $17.5 million settlement fund: (1) $5.25 million in attorneys' fees to the Plaintiffs' counsel; (2) $924,556 in litigation expenses incurred by the Plaintiffs' counsel; and (3) $16,750 in awards to the two Class Representatives pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(4). TaskUs is a digital service outsourcing company. A copy of the Court's report & recommendation dated Nov. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=msXfYp at no extra charge.[CC] TOP QUALITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Donato Alleges ------------------------------------------------------ ORLANDO DONATO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOP QUALITY MANAGEMENT INC.; T Q MANAGEMENT INC.; and MENACHEM DEUTSCH, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-06193 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 5, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Donato was employed by the Defendants as a porter. Top Quality Management Inc. specializes in property management and maintenance services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicole Grunfeld, Esq. KATZ MELINGER PLLC 370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1512 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 460-0047 Facsimile: (212) 428-6811 - and - Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq. STEVENSON MARINO LLP 445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 1500 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (212) 939-7229 TRANS UNION: Files Renewed Bid to Seal Certain Exhibits ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LESLEY KAPLAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. TRANS UNION, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-02438-WB (E.D. Pa.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their renewed motion to seal certain exhibits and related memoranda of law. The Defendant submits this Renewed Motion to place under seal six documents identified as exhibits to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and the Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, as well as to redact confidential information from an additional seven exhibits and two memoranda of law. The Defendant's memorandum of law in support of its renewed motion to seal, enclosed with this submission, identifies the exhibits proposed to be sealed, the legitimate public or private interests that warrant sealing those documents, the clearly defined and serious injury that would result if not sealed, and why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is not available. These submissions thereby comply with Local Rule 5.1 and Avandia, as required per the Protective Order (See ECF No. 32), which requires a showing of good cause to overcome the common law presumption of public access. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(a), a proposed order granting this motion is attached hereto. TransUnion is an American consumer credit reporting agency. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=otQnSA at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Samantha L. Southall, Esq. Patrick D. Doran, Esq. Argia J. DiMarco, Esq. BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC Two Liberty Place 50 S. 16th Street, Suite 3200 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 665-8700 Facsimile: (215) 665-8760 E-mail: samantha.southall@bipc.com patrick.doran@bipc.com argia.dimarco@bipc.com TRIUMPH CONSTRUCTION: Fact Discovery in Lamarco Due May 12, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michael Lamarco et al., v. Triumph Construction Corp. et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-03404-JHR-OTW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge entered a case management order plan. -- Fact Discovery: May 12, 2026 -- Settlement conference: April 6, 2026 -- Trial: Aug. 14, 2026 A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4vJS6t at no extra charge.[CC] TRONOX HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Suit in Connecticut ----------------------------------------------------- Tronox Holdings PLC 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 named a defendant in a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. On September 3, 2025, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against the Company and certain individual defendants. The complaint alleges that defendants violated the U.S. federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements in public filings and other public statements during the period February 12, 2025 and July 30, 2025 with respect to the Company's financial outlook and demand for its pigment and zircon products. The case is in its very early stages. No specific amount of damages has been alleged. The Company and the individual defendants intend to defend themselves vigorously against this lawsuit. TRUE FINANCE: Faces Class Suit Over "Predatory" Payday Loans ------------------------------------------------------------ Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that True Finance's earned-wage access payday loan product saddles active-duty servicemembers and their dependents with triple- or quadruple-digit finance charges that, on average, yield annual percentage rates well in excess of the legal limit set by the federal Military Lending Act. The 32-page lawsuit accuses True Finance of making no effort to fulfill its obligation to determine whether it is extending a payday loan to covered active-duty military servicemembers, or to provide mandatory protections for such borrowers. According to the case, the defendant's business model relies on "high-frequency, short-term, and high-cost loans" to individuals living paycheck to paycheck, and borrowers often incur "exorbitant finance charges" that ultimately worsen their financial position. The filing explains that earned-wage access (EWA) loans, such as those offered by True Finance, like traditional payday loans, can trap a borrower into a cycle of reborrowing and debt, all in serve of generating revenue for predatory lenders. The suit contends that the "substance of the transactions" between the defendant and borrowers means the company's cash advances amount to consumer credit. The case alleges that True Finance's consumer credit agreements run afoul of the Military Lending Act because the company charges interest above the statutory 36 percent military annual percentage rate cap, fails to provide certain requisite disclosures, and requires access to borrowers' deposit accounts as security for the loans. According to the complaint, True Finance advertises its cash advance products as "help[ing] millions of Americans who need a few dollars in between paydays." Like most EWA providers, the case says, True Finance promotes its products as "free" or with "no interest." However, the filing alleges that, while True Finance doesn't expressly charge interest on its loans, the fintech company's expedite fees and subscription costs are functionally the same as a traditional payday loan's high interest rate, as they enable the defendant to extract similar sums of money from already economically vulnerable users, often trapping them in cycles of debt. The filing says that the fees associated with True Finance's cash advance products, when viewed as costs of credit, reach an annual percentage rate (APR) of 334 percent, comparable to that of the extremely high interest rates associated with payday loans. The expedite fees, the complaint explains, are charged on instant-access loan funds, which True Finance calls Rapid Advances. The fees are generally between $2.99 and $5.99, with larger fees associated with larger loans, the suit says. While these fees are technically optional, as customers are not required to request a Rapid Advance to receive EWA services from True Finance, the lawsuit argues that they are still incredibly common among True Finance consumers, who are often living paycheck to paycheck and cannot afford to wait the one to two business days the other Cash Advance products would take to deliver the loaned money. On the other hand, the subscription fees, the complaint states, are required to use any of True Finance's services, and are charged regardless of whether a borrower's Cash Advance requests are approved. True Finance expressly states that it does not guarantee the approval of any cash advance requests, the filing notes. To determine a borrower's eligibility for a loan, True Finance uses a third-party service called Plaid, which allows users' bank accounts to be directly linked to True Finance and provides the fintech company with, per the filing, "real time insights into a borrower's income and employment… with a breakdown of earnings from salaries, gig work and more." The lawsuit contends that True Finance's eligibility assessment is nearly identical to that of traditional payday loans, ensures that True Finance is able to collect on cash advance repayment and fees at least 97 percent of the time, and, due to the subscription-based nature of the service, allows the fintech company to profit off of both eligible and ineligible users. Even with this eligibility screening process, the complaint alleges that True Finance's EWA loan service still "traps consumers in cycles of debt, worsens their financial circumstances, leads to more overdraft fees and [brings them to] an ever-increasing reliance on emergency funds from—and the fees that come with—EWA loans." The lawsuit cites an analysis from the Center for Responsible Lending (CRL), which found that 33 percent of EWA product users reborrow within two weeks of a loan the vast majority of the time, suggesting that the reduction in their paycheck caused by loan repayments and fees caused them to need yet another advance, or loan, within the following pay period. Even outside this subset, analysis determined that in general, EWA product users, such as True Finance subscribers, repeatedly take out advances, often on the same day as or the day after they've repaid their previous advance, which puts them at much higher risk of overdrafting their accounts and having to pay the subsequent fees, the complaint relays. Specifically, the filing says, another CRL study found that, on average, consumers who used an EWA product saw a 56 percent increase in overdrafts of their checking accounts. Finally, the lawsuit alleges that, due to the near-identical similarities between True Finance's services and traditional payday loans, the rendering of its services to active-duty members of the U.S. military is illegal under the Military Lending Act and the Truth in Lending Act, and predatory in nature, preying on the financial vulnerability of military servicemembers. The True Finance class action lawsuit seeks to represent any active-duty United States servicemembers and their dependents who used a True Finance cash advance (or similar) product in which the borrower incurred a finance charge, including a subscription charge or a Rapid Advance fee. [GN] TUSHY INC: Hogge Files Suit Over False Discount Prices ------------------------------------------------------ Bradford Hogge, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals; Natalie Hilburg, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals; and Tatiana Burnett, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs vs. Tushy, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and Does 1-10, inclusive; Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-10419 (C.D. Cal., October 29, 2025) is a class action complaint against the Defendants for unfair, misleading, false, and deceptive business practices in violation of California's False Advertising Law, California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and California's Unfair Competition Law. The complaint relates that Defendant Tushy, Inc. advertises, markets, and sells easy-to-install bidet attachments for toilets and other related products directly to consumers. Most, if not all, of Defendant's products are privately branded (i.e., Tushy products), and almost all are sold by Defendant through its website (www.hellotushy.com) or its Amazon storefront (www.amazon.com/tushy). Like many businesses, Defendant often advertises its products for sale with "discounts" off higher list prices (or "Reference Prices") that it represents to be prices formerly offered to the public on a regular basis for a reasonably substantial period of time. According to the complaint, Plaintiffs Hogee purchased one of Defendant's products on February 18, 2023; Hilburg on June 16, 2024; and Burnett on April 16, 2024. They purchased the products based on Defendant's false and misleading advertisement that the product was discounted from a former or regular price that it was never actually sold at during the relevant period. Thus, Plaintiffs' and Class Members' reasonable expectations were not met. Instead of receiving significant discounts as advertised, Plaintiffs and Class Members received little to no discounts because the "discounted" prices were actually the regular prices. So, instead of receiving Products with market values equal to Defendant's Reference Prices, they received items worth far less. The Defendant's illegal advertisements have harmed consumers by depriving them of their reasonably expected bargains, asserts the complaint. Plaintiffs Bradford Hogge, Natalie Hilburg, and Tatiana Burnett are citizens of the State of California who purchased Defendant's products. Defendant Tushy, Inc. is the manufacturer and/or owner of its privately branded Products. It is also the primary seller of the Products and sets prevailing market prices for the Products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Elliot J. Siegel, Esq. Julian Burns King, Esq. Brent R. Boos, Esq. KING & SIEGEL LLP 724 South Spring Street, Suite 201 Los Angeles, CA 90014 Telephone: (213) 465-4802 Facsimile: (213) 465-4803 E-mail: elliot@kingsiegel.com julian@kingsiegel.com brent@kingsiegel.com UNITED STATES: Oregon Nonprofits Seek Immigration Suit Class Cert. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Mia Maldonado of Oregon Capital Chronicle reports that the two Oregon nonprofits that sued federal immigration agencies last month have added another plaintiff to their suit and are asking the court to stop federal agencies from blocking all people detained in Oregon from access to their lawyers. The Clear Clinic, a Portland-based legal nonprofit, and Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste, Oregon's largest Latino labor union, sued the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the ICE field office in Seattle, as well as the leaders of each agency, in October alleging they are purposefully denying people in detention centers access to their lawyers before transferring them from Oregon to facilities in Washington, New Mexico, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. The groups argue that under the U.S. Constitution, all detained people regardless of their immigration status have the right to speak with a lawyer before getting transferred. The groups amended their complaint on Wednesday, November 12, adding plaintiff Leon X, a 32-year-old resident of Oregon who came to the United States from Mexico when he was 6 years old. He grew up in Oregon's farmworker community, and he is using a pseudonym in court documents to protect the details of his own immigration case, according to the filing. The plaintiffs' lawyers argue Leon X represents a class of people who have been detained by ICE or are at risk of arrest for alleged civil immigration violations in the District of Oregon. He and the other plaintiffs are asking the court to stop federal immigration authorities from blocking him, and others who might be detained by ICE, from meeting with an attorney. Innovation Law Lab Director of Legal Advocacy Tess Hellgren said plaintiffs are asking the court to require that federal immigration authorities give detainees access to their lawyers before they are transferred out of the District of Oregon. Innovation Law Lab is a nonprofit law firm representing the plaintiffs. “Meaningful access to counsel requires notice, time and space to actually consult with attorneys,” Hellgren said. Immigration authorities detained more than 300 people in Oregon in October, and there have been at least 150 detentions in November so far, according to Innovation Law Lab. Attorneys at Innovation Law Lab have filed 13 habeas corpus petitions since June. These are court orders forcing law enforcement authorities to justify a person's continued detention. Many of those detained have been freed from ICE detention under these petitions, including people who were detained outside their immigration hearings, a wildland firefighter who was detained while working at a remote and active fire and a wreath maker detained on her way to work, according to Innovation Law Lab. Hundreds of lawsuits have been filed since President Donald Trump took office a second time, including 45 suits that the state of Oregon is a part of challenging his executive orders that cut federal funding historically meant for states, attempt to remove birthright citizenship and impose tariffs. This lawsuit is one of at least 72 suits that has been filed against the Trump administration for its immigration enforcement policies, according to the Associated Press' lawsuit tracker. [GN] UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Bersani Sues Over Alleged Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTIAN BERSANI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-06265 (E.D. Pa., Nov. 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to protect and safeguard Plaintiff's and the Class's highly sensitive personally identifiable information. The Plaintiffs alleges in the complaint that as a result of the Defendant's negligence and insufficient data security, cybercriminals easily infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected email accounts on or around October 31, 2025, and accessed the PII of Plaintiff and the Class. The Defendant breached its duty and betrayed the trust of the Plaintiff and Class Members by failing to properly safeguard and protect their personal information, thus enabling cybercriminals to access, acquire, appropriate, compromise, disclose, encumber, exfiltrate, steal, misuse, and/or view it, says the suit. The University of Pennsylvania is a private Ivy League research university in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas Sandercock, Esq. Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Neil P. Williams, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Email: nsandercock@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com nwilliams@sirillp.com UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Braund Sues Over Unprotected Info ------------------------------------------------------------- WENDY BRAUND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-06291 (E.D. Pa., Nov. 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII –– and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive data. This unencrypted, unredacted PII was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and careless acts and omissions, and its utter failure to protect the sensitive data of its students, alumni, faculty, and donors. The harm resulting from a cyber-attack like this Data Breach manifests in numerous ways, including identity theft and financial fraud, and the exposure of an individual's PII due to a data breach ensures that the individual will be at a substantially increased and certainly impending risk of identity theft crimes compared to the rest of the population, potentially for the rest of his or her life, says the suit. The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania operates as an educational institute. The Institute provides undergraduate and graduate programs. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C. 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 Email: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. SHUB JOHNS & HOLBROOK LLP Four Tower Bridge 200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 477-8380 Email: bjohns@shublawyers.com VAUGHAN MCLEAN: DeMetro Appeals Suit Dismissal to D.C. Circuit -------------------------------------------------------------- KATHERINE DEMETRO, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing the lawsuit entitled Katherine DeMetro, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Vaughan McLean, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-02199-APM, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit, which was removed from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, is brought against the Defendants for violations of the District of Columbia's Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act of 1980 (TOPA). On Jan. 6, 2025, the Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss. On Feb. 7, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class, which the Defendants jointly moved to strike on Feb. 21, 2025. On Feb. 28, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file. On Sept. 30, 2025, Judge Amit P. Mehta entered an Order granting the Defendants' joint motion to dismiss. The Court ruled that the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as to their TOPA claim. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, the Defendants' joint motion to strike, and the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to late-file their motion to certify class are accordingly denied as moot. The appellate case is entitled Katherine DeMetro, et al. v. Vaughan McLean, LLC, et al., Case No. 25-7175, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, filed on October 31, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants KATHERINE DEMETRO, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Andrew Philip McGuire, Esq. REGAN ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED 1003 K. Street, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 393-6000 Defendants-Appellees VAUGHAN MCLEAN, LLC, et al. are represented by: Constantinos George Panagopoulos, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 1909 K. Street, NW, 12th Floor Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 661-2200 - and - Robert Courtney Gill, II, Esq. SAUL EWING LLP 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 550 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 333-8800 - and - Nathan John Bresee, Esq. JACKSON & CAMPBELL, PC 2300 N. Street, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (202) 457-1600 - and - Theodore Kornobis, Esq. K&L GATES LLP 1601 K. Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 778-9000 VIEW INC: Class Settlement in Mehedi Suit Gets Final Nod -------------------------------------------------------- n the class action lawsuit captioned as ASIF MEHEDI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. VIEW, INC. f/k/a CF FINANCE ACQUISITION CORP. II, RAO MULPURI, VIDUL PRAKASH, HOWARD W. LUTNICK, PAUL PION, ALICE CHAN, ANSHU JAIN, ROBERT J. HOCHBERG, CHARLOTTE S. BLECHMAN, CF FINANCE HOLDINGS II, LLC, CANTOR FITZGERALD & CO., CANTOR FITZGERALD, L.P., AND CF GROUP MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 5:21-cv-06374-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered a final judgment approving class action settlement. 1. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court grants final certification of the Settlement Class consisting of: (1) all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired View and/or CF II securities between November 30, 2020, and May 10, 2022, inclusive; (2) all persons or entities who were holders of CF II Class A common stock as of the January 27, 2021 record date that were entitled to vote to approve the Business Combination as set forth in the February 16, 2021 Proxy Statement (as defined in the Complaint); and (3) all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired View securities pursuant to or traceable to the De- SPAC Registration Statement (as defined in the Complaint). Excluded from the Settlement Class are Defendants, or their affiliates or subsidiaries, the current and/or former officers and directors of any non-natural Defendant named herein, members of the Immediate Family of any excluded person, heirs, successors and assigns of any excluded person or entity, and any entity in which any excluded person has or had a controlling interest. Also excluded from the Settlement Class are persons who solely held shares of the privately held common stock and preferred stock of Legacy View (as defined in the Complaint) outstanding prior to closing of the Business Combination, and those persons who have timely and validly requested exclusion from the Settlement Class pursuant to the Notice sent to potential Settlement Class Members. 2. Lead Plaintiff Stadium Capital LLC and plaintiff David Sherman are certified as Settlement Class Representatives and Lead Counsel Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP is appointed as Class Counsel. The Defendant is an American glass-manufacturing company specializing in the production of smart glass. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=f4fsEF at no extra charge.[CC] VJC HOSPITALITY: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Ferguson Says ------------------------------------------------------------- SIMONE FERGUSON, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. VJC HOSPITALITY OF SNELLVILLE, INC. d/b/a THE PATIO SOCIAL CLUB and VICTOR COMASTRO, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-06164-MHC (N.D. Ga., October 28, 2025) is a collective action complaint against the Defendants for unlawful employment practices, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint relates that the Defendants employed Plaintiff as a Server from June 24, 2024 until August 4, 2024. The Defendants employ, and have employed in the statutory period, a number of individuals as Servers, who they pay on an hourly basis and classify as non-exempt under the FLSA. Throughout the relevant time period, Defendants required Plaintiff and other Servers to work in excess of 40 hours per workweek. They were also not required to clock out at the end of their shifts but were often required to sit for 30 to 60 minutes and wait for management to allow them to leave following their shift. Despite working in excess of 40 hours most workweeks, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff a rate of one-and-one-half her regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40, asserts the complaint. The Defendants also regularly paid Plaintiff and other Servers a base subminimum wage of $2.13 per hour, alleges the complaint. In addition to the hourly wage, Plaintiff and other Servers received tips from Defendants' customers for their service. However, at the conclusion of each shift, Defendants' Point-of-Sale ("POS") system automatically calculated 3% of Plaintiff's and other Servers' gross sales and then automatically deducting this amount from the tips the Server earned per shift, irrespective of the amount of tips the Server earned and actually received each shift. The amount deducted from Plaintiff and other Servers' tips was then distributed to bartenders, kitchen staff, and the hookah servers. The Plaintiffs were then required to tip out a second time, which percentage went to hookah servers. In addition, the Plaintiff alleges that she was required to purchase multiple items for her work uniform. She and other Servers were also required to purchase attire for the restaurant's special events. In approximately mid-July 2024, she began raising her concerns and complaining to Defendants about Defendants' pay practices. Due to Defendants' FLSA violations, Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendants her unpaid overtime wages for each workweek within the limitations period, an additional and equal amount of liquidated damages, interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of litigation, says the suit. Plaintiff Simone Ferguson is a resident of the State of Georgia. VJC Hospitality of Snellville, Inc. d/b/a The Patio Social Club ("PSC") is advertised as a lounge, sports bar, and restaurant. Defendant Victor Comastro owns Defendant PSC and manages and controls its day-to-day operations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin M. Scott, Esq. Tierra M. Monteiro, Esq. RADFORD SCOTT LLP 125 Clairemont Avenue, Suite 380 Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: 404-400-3600 Facsimile: 478-575-2590 E-mail: jscott@radfordscott.com tmonteiro@radfordscott.com VOYA FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Ravarino" ---------------------------------------------- Voya Financial, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the case captioned Ravarino, et al. v. Voya Financial, Inc., et al. (USDC District of Connecticut, No. 3:21-cv-01658)(filed December 14, 2021). In this putative class action, the plaintiffs allege that the named defendants breached their fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty in the administration of the Voya 401(k) Savings Plan. The plaintiffs claim that the named defendants did not exercise proper prudence in their management of allegedly poorly performing investment options, including proprietary funds, and passed excessive investment-management and other administrative fees for proprietary and non-proprietary funds onto plan participants. The plaintiffs also allege that the defendants engaged in self-dealing through the inclusion of the Voya Stable Value Option into the plan offerings and by setting the "crediting rate" for participants' investment in the Stable Value Fund artificially low in relation to Voya's general account investment returns in order to maximize the spread and Voya's profits at the participants' expense. The complaint seeks disgorgement of unjust profits as well as costs incurred. On June 13, 2023, the Court issued a ruling granting in part and denying in part Voya's motion to dismiss. The court largely dismissed the claims for breach of fiduciary duty. The remaining claims concern allegations of breaches of the ERISA prohibited transactions rule and a claim for failure to monitor the Voya Small Cap Growth fund. The Company continues to deny the allegations, which it believes are without merit, and intends to defend the case vigorously. WARNER BROS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Warner Bros. Discovery, 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 on its motion to dismiss the securities class action before a New York court. On November 25, 2024, a securities class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Collura v. Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-09027-KPF). The complaint named Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. ("WBD"), Gunnar Wiedenfels, and David M. Zaslav as defendants and asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On February 21, 2025, the court appointed co-lead plaintiffs (Anthony Yuson and Michael Steinberg) and co-lead counsel (Pomerantz LLP and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.) to represent the putative class. On May 7, 2025, the lead plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint against WBD, Gunnar Wiedenfels, and David M. Zaslav. The First Amended Complaint generally alleges that, between February 23, 2024 and August 7, 2024, defendants made false and misleading statements in SEC filings and other public disclosures relating to WBD's negotiations with the National Basketball Association ("NBA") concerning its contractual rights to broadcast the NBA's content and the potential impact of a failure to renew the contract on its business, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and seeks damages and other relief. The defendants moved to dismiss on July 11, 2025. As of September 24, 2025, the motion has been fully briefed and is pending before the court. WENDY'S OF COLORADO: Cervantes Seeks ok of Renewed Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SALVADOR CERVANTES and SHAWN RENTIE, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, v. WENDY'S OF COLORADO SPRINGS, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-03462-CNS-MDB (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting renewed motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs request the Court to certify the class defined above and appoint Plaintiffs and their counsel as representatives for the class. The Plaintiffs propose to use a straightforward methodology – statistical sampling -- to fill in the damage calculation gap left by the Defendant's lax record-keeping. On May 2, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiffs' prior Motion for Class Certification. Thereafter, Plaintiffs appealed and, on December 29, 2022, the Court of Appeals "reversed the court's order declining to certify the proposed [class action and] remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and Hicks." The class action concerns the thousands of low-wage workers who prepared food and served customers in those restaurants. These workers frequently missed the rest breaks required by Colorado law2. To remedy these violations and ensure Defendant’s future legal compliance, Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a class defined as: "ALL CURRENT AND FORMER NON-EXEMPT HOURLY WORKERS WHO WORKED FOR DEFENDANT IN COLORADO FROM SEPTEMBER 22, 2014, THROUGH FINAL JUDGMENT." The Defendant operated 40 Wendy's franchise restaurants. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=C2bHju at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian D. Gonzales, Esq. BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC 2580 East Harmony Road, Suite 201 Fort Collins, CO 80528 Telephone: (970) 214-0562 E-mail: BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com - and - Alexander Hood, Esq. HOOD LAW OFFICE, PLLC 1312 17th Street # 1028 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (720) 381-4142 E-mail: Alex@HoodLawPLLC.com XPO LAST: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert Briefing Schedule ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAYNOR MEJIA LOPEZ, an individual; individually and on Behalf of All Similarly Situated Individuals, v. XPO LAST MILE, INC., A Georgia Corporation, and DOES 1 through 25, Inclusive, Case No. 3:22-cv-08976-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order modifying the briefing schedule of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification as follows: Motion for Class Certification: Due by April 10, 2026 Opposition: Due by June 12, 2026 Reply: Due by July 17, 2026 Hearing: Aug. 7, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. XPO provides third-party logistics and last mile delivery services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6P0XXi at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael H. Boyamian, Esq. Armand R. Kizirian, Esq. BOYAMIAN LAW, INC. 550 North Brand Blvd., Suite 1500 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 547-5300 Facsimile: (818) 547-5678 E-mail: michael@boyamianlaw.com armand@boyamianlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Benjamin J. Schnayerson, Esq. Dahn A. Levine, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 50 California Street, 9th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4615 Telephone: (415) 394-9400 Facsimile: (415) 394-9401 E-mail: Ben.Schnayerson@jacksonlewis.com Dahn.Levine@jacksonlewis.com YESCARE CORP: Darpoh Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as HENRIETTA DARPOH, et al., INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. YESCARE CORP., et al. Case No. 1:25-cv-00072-ABA (D. Md.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for Rule 23 class certification. The Court further enter an order that: -- The Plaintiffs shall be Rule 23 Class Representatives. -- Michael K. Amster, Edith K. Thomas, Thomas J. Eiler, and Robert W.T Tucci of Zipin, Amster & Greenberg, LLC shall be appointed as Rule 23 Class Counsel. -- The Defendants shall provide a Rule 23 Class list containing names, last known mailing addresses, last known cell phone numbers, last known personal email addresses, any unique employee ID numbers, relevant dates of employment, and rates of pay for the Putative Class Members within fifteen (15) days of the Court's Order. -- The proposed Notice Form shall be approved. -- The proposed Notice Form shall be disseminated via First Class mail to the Putative Class Members, with a 60-day response deadline. Specifically, the Plaintiffs and the members of the Putative Class were only compensated for their time clocked in at the Defendants' time clocks. The Plaintiffs and the members of the Putative Class received no compensation whatsoever for their time spent undergoing mandatory security screenings. Likewise, they received no compensation whatsoever for the time they were required to walk to and from Defendants designated time clocks. YesCare is a privately-held provider of correctional healthcare. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=g0WSSr at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael K. Amster, Esq. Edith K. Thomas, Esq. Thomas J. Eiler, Esq. Robert W. T. Tucci, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG LLC 8757 Georgia Ave., Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 E-mail: mamster@zagfirm.com ethomas@zagfirm.com teiler@zagfirm.com rtucci@zagfirm.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Defends 1,233 Exposure Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., as of September 30, 2025, was a co-defendant in cases alleging asbestos induced illness involving claims by approximately 1,233 plaintiffs, which is a net decrease of 3 claims from those previously reported, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In each instance, the Company is one of a large number of defendants. The asbestos claimants seek compensatory and punitive damages, in most cases for unspecified sums. Since January 1, 1995, the Company has been a co-defendant in asbestos cases that have been resolved as follows: 57,155 of those claims were dismissed, 23 were tried to defense verdicts, 7 were tried to plaintiff verdicts (which were reversed or resolved after appeal), 1 was resolved by agreement for an immaterial amount and 1,021 were decided in favor of the Company following summary judgment motions. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hutwxe ASBESTOS UPDATE: Otis Worldwide Estimates $11MM Total Liabilities ----------------------------------------------------------------- Otis Worldwide Corporation has been named as defendants in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The estimated range of total liabilities to resolve all pending and unasserted potential future asbestos claims through 2059 is approximately $11 million to $21 million as of September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024. Since no amount within the range of estimates is more likely to occur than any other, we have recorded the minimum amount of $10 million (including $1 million of payments made in the nine months ended September 30, 2025) and $11 million as of September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, respectively, which is principally recorded in Other long-term liabilities on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Amounts are on a pre-tax basis, not discounted, and exclude the Company's legal fees to defend the asbestos claims (which will continue to be expensed as they are incurred). In addition, the Company has an insurance recovery receivable for probable asbestos-related recoveries of approximately $3 million as of September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, which is principally included in Other assets on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7x865i ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Tech. Faces Product Liability Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------- Certain indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries and former companies of Trane Technologies plc has been named as defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits in state and federal courts, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "The vast majority of those claims were filed against predecessors of Aldrich and Murray and generally allege injury caused by exposure to asbestos contained in certain historical products sold by predecessors of Aldrich or Murray, primarily pumps, boilers and railroad brake shoes. None of the Company's existing or previously-owned businesses were a producer or manufacturer of asbestos." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PG0Ovu L'OREAL: Colley Files Suit Over Asbestos-linked Mesothelioma ------------------------------------------------------------ CAROL COLLEY, as Anticipated Personal Representative of the Estate of JOHN COLLEY, Deceased, Plaintiff vs. L'OREAL TRAVEL RETAIL AMERICAS, INC., sued individually and as successor-in-interest to MAYBELLINE LLC and YVES SAINT LAURENT AMERICA, INC. and d/b/a L'OREAL, L'OREAL PARIS, MAYBELLINE, MAYBELLINE NEW YORK, LANCOME and YVES SAINT LAURENT; PUBLIX SUPERMARKETS, INC.; COSMETIC SPECIALTIES, INC.; COTY INC.; GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC; GUCCI AMERICA, INC., sued individually and as successor-in-interest to SANOFI BEAUTE, INC. d/b/a YVES SAINT LAURENT; KOBO PRODUCTS, INC.; L'OREAL USA, INC., sued individually and as successor-in-interest to MAYBELLINE LLC and YVES SAINT LAURENT AMERICA, INC. and d/b/a LANCOME, L'OREAL, L'OREAL PARIS, MAYBELLINE, MAYBELLINE NEW YORK and YVES SAINT LAURENT; LORNAMEAD INC. d/b/a YARDLEY OF LONDON a/k/a YARDLEY; L. PERRIGO COMPANY; MARKWINS BEAUTY BRANDS, INC., sued individually and as successor-in-interest to AM COSMETICS and d/b/a WET N WILD; MARKWINS BEAUTY PRODUCTS, INC., sued individually and as successor-in-interest to AM COSMETICS and d/b/a WET N WILD; MIYOSHI AMERICA, INC., a subsidiary of MIYOSHI KASEI, INC. and f/k/a U.S. COSMETICS CORPORATION; NOXELL CORPORATION; PERRIGO COMPANY; PERRIGO COMPANY OF TENNESSEE; PFIZER INC; PREMIER BRANDS OF AMERICA INC.; THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, sued individually and as successor-in-interest to THE SHULTON GROUP and/or SHULTON INC., and YARDLEY OF LONDON a/k/a YARDLEY; SHULTON INC., sued individually and as successor to THE SHULTON GROUP; VI-JON, LLC; WALMART INC. f/k/a WALMART STORES, INC.; and WYETH HOLDINGS LLC f/k/a WYETH HOLDINGS CORPORATION f/k/a AMERICAN CYANAMID COMPANY, sued individually and as successor-in-interest to THE SHULTON GROUP and/or SHULTON INC., Defendants, Case No. CACE-25-016681 (Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Fl., October 30, 2025) is a lawsuit against the Defendants for negligence, misrepresentations, product defects, fraudulent concealment, willful omissions, and fraud. According to the complaint, the Decedent JOHN COLLEY was diagnosed with MESOTHELIOMA on November 14, 2023, satisfying the criteria of the Florida Asbestos and Silica Compensation Fairness Act. He died on June 19, 2025. In the past, he required medical care, nursing care or hospitalizations to treat his conditions and suffered a loss of earnings, ability to earn money or his earning capacity was impaired as a direct and proximate result of his asbestos-related mesothelioma. The Plaintiff alleges that JOHN COLLEY was exposed to Defendants' Products from approximately the 1950s to the 2020s during Decedent's regular and frequent personal use, and in his daily life during his family members' regular and frequent use while in close proximity to him, at various locations including, but not limited to: in Madeira Beach, Florida and Boca Raton, Florida; in various cities in the States of Arkansas, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia; and in the United Kingdom. Although Plaintiff may identify the designer, manufacturer, distributor, or seller of several Defendants' Products to which the Decedent was exposed, Plaintiff is unable to identify each and every exposure that Decedent sustained in the various locations being mentioned. As a direct and proximate result of the Decedent's diseases, injuries and death, his survivors have further sustained mental pain and suffering, mental anguish, grief, loss of capacity to lead and enjoy a normal life, funeral expenses, and expenses of medical care, nursing care and/or hospitalizations to treat Decedent's conditions. Such damages, injuries and losses are permanent and continuing in nature and Decedent's survivors will suffer the aforementioned damages, injuries and losses in the future, says the suit. Accordingly, since each exposure to said Defendants' Products caused or contributed to Decedent's mesothelioma and wrongful death, and since it is not possible to apportion such damages, Plaintiff CAROL COLLEY seeks recovery in accordance with Florida law against each Defendant. The survivors of JOHN COLLEY are his surviving spouse Plaintiff CAROL COLLEY, his daughter Michelle Lowe, and his son Gareth Colley. Defendants are all engaged in the design, manufacture, distribution and/or sale of asbestos-containing products, and/or asbestos-containing talc and/or chalk, and/or other finished and unfinished asbestos-containing talcum powder products, and/or any other powder-like product.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: REBECCA S. VINOCUR, P.A. 5915 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 14 Coral Gables, FL 33146 Telephone: (786) 691-1282 Facsimile: (786) 691-1283 E-mail: rvinocur@rsv-law.com - and - Brendan J. Tully, Esq. SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER, PC 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2848 New York, NY 10170 Telephone: (212) 634-1690 Facsimile: (214) 320-0526 E-mail: btully@sgptrial.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 ***