251126.mbx

251126.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, November 26, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 236 Headlines 1 OAK HOME: Duverger Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida 3M COMPANY: Vera Sues Over Unlawful Exposure to Asbestos ACCENTCARE INC: Cusack Suit Removed to C.D. California AEROTECH INC: Schultz Seeks to Certify Class Action AEVA TECHNOLOGIES: Deal in Stockholder Suit Has Final Court OK AFFIRM HOLDINGS: Appeal in "Kusnier" Remains Pending in 9th Cir. AIR LEASE: Bingham Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties AL WAHHAAB: Acosta Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ALBERT EINSTEIN: Castillo Seeks Conditional Class Certification ALEJANDRO OBESO: Lipp Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ALLBIRDS INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suits in California ALPHABET INC: Parties Seek Extension of Class Cert Briefing Sched AMERICAN HONDA: Seeks to Modify Briefing Schedule AMPLITUDE INC: California Court Dismisses Securities Suit AMPLITUDE INC: Continues to Defend Privacy Suit in California AMPLITUDE INC: NY Privacy Suit Dismissed AMSTERDAM PRINTING: Houts Law Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma APA CORPORATION: Kulp Minerals Suit Remains Pending ARCHER AVIATION: Trial in Delaware Suit Set for May 2027 ARCHERY TRADE: Hansen Suit Transferred to D. Colorado ARITZIA: Jerotz Suit Removed to C.D. California ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Ashour Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes BABY LIST: Aids Third Party to Collect Client Data, Slaviero Claims BANK OF AMERICA: Fails to Update Credit Card Payments, Suit Says BARRETT BUSINESS: Wage & Hour Suit Settlement Has Final Court OK BAXTER COUNTY: Directed to Pay $133K in Atty Fees in "Burris" BEAUTY HEALTH: "Alghazwi" Remains Pending BEAUTY HEALTH: "Brown" Remains Pending BEAUTY HEALTH: Continues to Defend Consumer Suit in New York BEIT T'SHUVAH: Nusman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BELLE TIRE: Zink Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Alignment Technicians BIOLIFE PLASMA: Guerrero Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. BJH HOLDINGS III: Curl Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII BK TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Suit Over Cyber Incident BLACK FOREST DECOR: Cole Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BOJANGLES' RESTAURANTS: Dougherty Appeals Class Action Dismissal BOWLERO CORP: Wins Partial Dismissal of "Alloway" Age Bias Suit BOWTECH LLC: Santarlas Suit Transferred to D. Colorado BRAUN MEDICAL: Scheduling Order Entered in Antiporta Class Suit CAREPRO HEALTH: Agrees to Settle 2023 Data Breach Suit for $1.3MM CARTER'S RETAIL: Christensen Seeks Class Settlement Final Approval CENTENE CORPORATION: Clark Sues Over ERISA Violation CENTENE CORPORATION: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Dec. 18, 2026 CERNER CORP: Faces Wright Suit Over Clients' Compromised Info CERNER CORP: Walker Sues Over Clients' Compromised Info CITRUS HEIGHTS: Well Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CLARK COUNTY, IL: Parties Must File Joint Status Report by Dec. 3 CMRE FINANCIAL: Mokled Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida COATING EXCELLENCE: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due August 1, 2026 COLUMBIA RECYCLING: $1.062MM Settlement Gets Final Nod COMERICA INC: M&A Probes Sale to Fifth Third Bancorp COUGAR COLUMBIA: Wilkinson Suit Removed to D. South Carolina CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Brandon Sues Over Uncompensated Overtime CUSTOMIZED DISTRIBUTION: "Newbern" Settlement Gets Prelim Approval CUSTOMIZED DISTRIBUTION: Settlement in Newbern Gets Initial Nod CWPVA INC: Girard Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio DAVID A. NOVER: Cloyd Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII & PHI DELTA AIR: $78.75MM Settlement in Frankie Gets Initial Nod DENNY'S CORP: M&A Investigates Sale to TriArtisan Capital DES MOINES: Donnelly Appeals Denied Remand Bid to 8th Circuit DONALD TRUMP: Must File Class Cert Reply by Dec. 1 DOORDASH INC: Divney Appeals Arbitration Order to 2nd Circuit DOXIMITY INC: Seeks Leave to File Sur Reply in Securities Suit EDFINANCIAL SERVICES: Bailey Seeks to Certify Class Action EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Breen Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ENERWEST TRADING CO: Rhoades Files Suit in Okla. Dist. Ct. EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Class Cert Bid in Martinez Due April 6, 2026 EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Myllyla Suit Removed to C.D. California ERICKSON COMPANIES: Class Settlement in Rahman Gets Initial Nod ESTEE LAUDER: Class Certification Bid Extended to Jan. 23, 2026 ESTEE LAUDER: More Time to File Class Cert Opposition Sought FIREFLY AEROSPACE: Diamond Sues Over Exchange Act Violations FISERV INC: Faces SIF Suit Over 51.6% Drop of Securities Price FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Inflatable Seatbelts' Safety FORM ENERGY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Washington Says FRANCMEN 688: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in Hall GAYLORD FARM: Rosa Sues Over Failure to Protect Clients' Info GEICO INDEMNITY: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Shiloah Suit GENE.IN.US BRAIN: Gonzales Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California GENERAL MOTORS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due May 14, 2026 GENUINE FOOD LAB: Leon Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensation GERBER CHILDRENSWEAR: Youngren Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website GIORGIO ARMANI: Ahumada Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action GNC HOLDINGS: Seeks Denial of Moquete Class Cert Bid GOLI NUTRITION: Ring Suit Removed to E.D. New York GOOGLE LLC: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Ambriz Due April 28, 2026 GORDON LANE: Parrish Wins Class Certification Bid GT'S LIVING FOODS: Renewed Bid for Class Cert. Due March 30, 2026 HAZA FOODS: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Townsend Due July 10, 2026 HEALTH CARE: Weinrich Data Breach Suit Removed to D. Mont. HEALTH-ADE LLC: Damas Sues Over False Advertisements HESS BAKKEN: Penman Appeals Motion to Strike Order to 8th Circuit HIGHER EDUCATION: Mermigas Appeals Court Order to 7th Circuit HOME SERVICE: Gomez Seeks to Send Notice to Technician Class HOMELAND SECURITY: Pando Sues Over Unlawful Parole Provision HPC INDUSTRIAL: Filing for Class Certification Due June 23, 2026 HYUNDAI AUTOEVER AMERICA: Dolan Sues Over Failure to Secure PII HYUNDAI AUTOEVER: Brown Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII IMMUNITYBIO INC: Settlement in Salzman Suit Gets Final OK IQ DATA: Must File Class Cert Response by Dec. 1 in Nelson Suit J. C. PENNEY: Crosby Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website J.A.K.'S PUPPIES: Carey Suit Seeks to Certify Class JAK'S PUPPIES: Carey Seeks Leave to File Materials Under Seal JANI-KING INT'L: Cossette Seeks to Extend Class Cert Deadlines JOHN SHAHIDI: Smith Suit Seeks Class Certification JONES LANG: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Feb. 19, 2027 KAPSCH TRAFFICCOM: Overcharges Drivers' Toll Amounts, RJL Suit Says KARS4KIDS INC: Savva Sues Over Deceptive Vehicle Donation Campaign KINDERCARE EDUCATION: Ceasear Suit Removed to E.D. California KNIGHT PORT SERVICES: Smith Suit Removed to C.D. California KOCHAVA INC: Class Action Settlement in Murphy Gets Final Nod KOHLER CO: Cazares Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website KROGER COMPANY: Womick Suit Seeks to Certify Classes LACKIE DRUG: Bid for More Time to File Class Cert. Response OK'd LAKEVIEW LOAN: Bid to Certify Class Tossed as Moot LAMPO GROUP: 9th Cir. Affirms Denial of Arbitration in Patrick Suit LAUNDRY DEPOT: Leong Appeals Decertification Order to 2nd Circuit LAVANDERIA TU CASA: Casiano Sues Over Unpaid Wages LCMC HEALTH: Williams Privacy Suit Removed to E.D. La. LEADPOINT INC: Rush Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Missouri LENS.COM INC: Martin Suit Seeks Class Certification LG ELECTRONICS: Kurant Sues Over Refrigerators' Defective Component LIBERTY BANKERS: Filing for Class Cert. Due May 21, 2026 LIBERTY MUTUAL: Faces Powers Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls LINEAGE INC: IPO Documents "Misleading," Public Employees Alleges LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Appeals Class Cert. and Strike Order to 9th Cir. LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Appeals Class Certification Order in Kearns Suit LOB INC: Blue Suit Removed to N.D. California LOUISIANA: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Giroir Suit to 5th Circuit M. GREEN AND COMPANY: Sanchez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MARINER FINANCE: Delacruz Suit Removed to E.D. California MARYS LONG BEACH: Gonzalez Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California MAXIMUS BUILDING: Faces Sanford Suit Over Disability Discrimination MCCREARY MODERN: Trull Appeals ERISA Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit MDL 2262: Mayor Appeals Final Judgment in Antitrust Litigation MEDICREDIT INC: Allowed Leave to File Class Cert Sur-Reply MEDIMPACT HEALTHCARE: Sales Sues Over Clients' Compromised Info MEDTRONIC PLC: Phoenix Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 8th Cir. MEIJER INC: Faces Trout Suit Over Illegal Tobacco Surcharges META PLATFORMS: Faces Class Suit Over Unreasonable Selling Fees MICROSOFT CORP: Singla Sues Over Rejection of Qualified Applicants MIIR HOLDINGS LLC: Cazares Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website MOBILE MEDIC: Class Settlement in Oliver Suit Gets Final Nod MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due May 7, 2026 MOR CONSTRUCTION: Horner Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania MOTT OPTICAL: Appeals Denied Suit Dismissal Bid to 2nd Circuit MUSEUM OF MODERN: Trippett Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website MV PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION: Reese Suit Removed to C.D. California MY CREDIT CARE: Redick Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California NAKED WHEY: Triana Sues Over Vegan Mass Gainer's Safe Claims NELLIS AUCTION: Reply in Support of Class Cert Bid Due Dec. 16 NEW ENGLAND: $2.16MM Class Settlement in Serra Gets Final Nod NEWELL BRANDS: Oster Ovens "Defective," Hoyes Suit Alleges NEXSTAR BROADCASTING: Carlig Suit Removed to C.D. California NHL ENTERPRISES: Joiner Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit OCTOPUS RESTAURANT: Bibian Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ONE FAST CAT INC: Cole Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ONTRAC LOGISTICS: Escarcega Suit Removed to C.D. California PADUCAH BANK: Summers Sues Over Improper Overdraft Fee Charges PARSEC INC: $4.47MM Settlement in Tyrone Suit Gets Final Nod PENUMBRA INC: Settlement Deal Payments Completed PERPAY INC: Courtney Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California PHH MORTGAGE: Jones Suit Seeks Class Certification PHONE LCD: Bilir Bid to Certify Class Terminated PINKHASOV CONSULTING: Datsyshyna Suit Removed to S.D. Florida PORSCHE CARS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Hybrid Charger Speeds POST CONSUMER: Sciarabba Sues Over "False" Serving Representations POST CONSUMER: Sweeney Sues Over "False" Family Size & Serving Ads PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP: Dismissal of Securities Claims Upheld PROGRESS RESIDENTIAL: Parties Seek to Stay Case Deadlines PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Narcisse Can File Exhibit Under Seal PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Narcisse Suit Seeks Class Certification PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED: Bid to Restrict Portion of Class Cert OK'd PROVIDENCE HOMEOWNERS: Seeks More Time to File Class Sur-Reply PYRAMID LA MANAGEMENT: Sanchez Suit Removed to C.D. California QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: .rCir. Affirms Dismissal of Cole's Claims R.I. CRANSTON: Pavao Seeks Unpaid Wages for Exotic Dancers, Servers RAC ACCEPTANCE EAST: Zarate Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. RAISE MARKETPLACE: Yusuf Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls RALPH LAUREN: Merrell Seeks to Seal Supporting Evidence RALPH LAUREN: Merrell Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes RICHEMONT NORTH: Freitas Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to S.D. Fla. RICOH USA: Class Cert. Hearing Continued to Jan. 26, 2026 SAINT FRANCIS: Discovery in Corrine Suit Due Feb. 17, 2026 SALLY BEAUTY: Beltran Suit Removed to C.D. California SALON REPUBLIC LLC: Davis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SAMFIN RESOURCES: Farrell Can Conduct Class Cert. SANIDERM MEDICAL: Stange Suit Removed to S.D. Florida SANTA MONICA, CA: Murcia Seeks Settlement Prelim. Approval SAPUTO CHEESE USA: Chavez Suit Removed to E.D. California SARAH O. BY: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Randolph Alleges SAVORY SPICE SHOP: Cole Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SEEK BAMBOO LLC: Davis Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SELECT PORTFOLIO: Webb Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practice SIG SAUER: Sells Pistols Without Safety Features, Shepherd Claims SKYE BIOSCIENCE: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit SLATE CRAFT: Milk Shakes' Protein Claims "False," Sicairos Claims SMG FOOD: Parties Seek to Extend Class Cert Deadlines SOAPY JOE'S INC: Tate Files Suit in S.D. California SOAPY JOE'S: Faces Class Suit Over Automatic Membership Renewal SONIC INDUSTRIES: Irvin Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia SOUTH CAROLINA: Ward Sues Over Injuries Sustained From Car Accident SOUTHERN OREGON CREDIT: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due June 12, 2026 SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Rizzo Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois SPROUTS FARMERS: Armas Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages SPRUCE POWER: Caplan Sues Over Unfair Business Practice STANDARD LITHIUM: Arata Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. STARTEK USA: Class Settlement in Harris Suit Gets Final Nod STONEBRIDGE GOLF: Umanzor Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Cooks SUNRUN INC: Filing for Class Certification Due May 29, 2026 SWIFT VENTURES: Simpson Suit Removed to C.D. California T-MOBILE USA INC: Ghrabeti Suit Removed to C.D. California TAQUERIA AL PASTOR: Faces Puzul Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. TERMAS DEL: Operates Illegal Casino Websites, Snedeker Suit Alleges TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Burge Files Suit in D. Massachusetts THERAPYMATCH INC: Brower-Walsh Class Suit Removed to S.D. Cal. TOWNSHIP BUILDING: 9th Cir. Flips Denial of Arbitration in Larios TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls Over 1 Million Vehicles Over Software Glitch TPUSA INC: Payne Seeks Conditional Class Certification TRENTON'S HELPING HANDS: Belcher Sues Over Denied Overtime Pay TRIPLE CANOPY: Bid to Supplement Bid to Dismiss OK'd TRUE HOUSE: Reinhardt Sues Over Sex Discrimination, Retaliation TRUE RELIGION APPAREL: Jesse Suit Removed to W.D. Washington TRUMBULL INSURANCE: Wins Bid to Compel Appraisal in "Rodriguez" TTI CONSUMER: Wood Sues Over Nailer's Defective Engagement System TYSON FOODS: Rodriguez Wage and Hour Suit Removed to E.D. Wash. UIPATH INC: Severt Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit UMRO REALTY CORP: Kern Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California UNITED PARCEL: Ware Sues Over UPS MD-11 Aircraft Blast's Damages UNITED STATES: King Files Writ of Certiorari Extension to Sup. Ct. UNITED STATES: Parties Must File Joint Status Report by Dec. 2 UNITED STATES: Smirk Sues Over Trump's Unlawful Trading Tariffs UNITED STATES: Sosa Class Suit Remains Stayed UNIVERSAL MUSIC: Battle Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website UNIVERSITY HEALTHCARE: Ganucheau Privacy Suit Removed to E.D. La. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Faces Kelly Suit Over Unprotected Info UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Faces Sikora Suit Over Compromised Info UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Mackey Balks at Unsecured Personal Info UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Smart Balks at Unsecured Personal Info US NURSING: Rubel Ordered to File First Amended Complaint V.F. CORP: Ruzich Sues Over 15.8% Drop of Securities Price VESTIS CORP: Parties Seek OK of Bid to Continue Class Cert Deadline VIA RENEWABLES: Clark Appeals Tossed Class Cert. Bid to 9th Circuit VIATRIS INC: 3rd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of EASC Securities Suit VOLUME SERVICES: Class Cert Bid Filing in Adler Due March 23, 2026 VOLVO CAR: Thomson Sues Over Vehicles' Brake and Display Defects WALGREENS BOOTS: Keedi Suit Removed to S.D. Florida WALMART INC: Bedoy Suit Removed to C.D. California WAYNE LOPEZ: Class Cert Bid Filing in Laccinole Due April 8, 2026 WELLS FARGO: $85MM Settlement in SEB Suit Gets Initial Nod WEST COAST DENTAL: Rodriguez Seeks to Certify Two Classes WEST COAST DENTAL: Rodriguez Seeks to File Docs Under Seal WEST TEXAS HEALTH: Jack Files Suit in Tex. Dist. Ct. WESTERN DENTAL: Gonzalez Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California WICKED TACO: Bid for Class Cert. in Gonzalez Due Jan. 9, 2026 WONG FLEMING: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Ragoonath Says X CORP: Mismanages the Twitter Severance Plan, Ye Suit Alleges XGIMI TECHNOLOGY: Court Narrows Claims in Garrido Suit ZILLOW HOME: Faces Expanded Class Action Adding RICO Claims ********* 1 OAK HOME: Duverger Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 1 Oak Home Improvement Inc.. The case is styled as Margarette Duverger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 1 Oak Home Improvement Inc., Case No. 9:25-cv-81396-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 11, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. 1 OAK Home Improvement Inc. -- https://www.1oakfl.com/ -- serves as a leading Construction and Company in the beautiful state of Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stefan Louis Coleman, Esq. COLEMAN, PLLC 66 West Flagler Street, Suite 900 Miami, FL 33130 Phone: (877) 333-9427 Email: law@stefancoleman.com 3M COMPANY: Vera Sues Over Unlawful Exposure to Asbestos -------------------------------------------------------- Roberto Vera, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY; ASCENDIA BRANDS, INC.; BAYER CONSUMER CARE HOLDINGS LLC formerly known as MSD CONSUMER CARE, INC.; BAYER HEALTH CARE LLC, a subsidiary of BAYER AG; BLOCK DRUG COMPANY, INC; COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY; CVS PHARMACY, INC.; GSK CONSUMER HEALTH INC individually and as successor-in-interest to CIBA-GEIGY CORPORATION, CIBA SELF-MEDICATION, INC., NOVARTIS COMPANY; GOLD BOND CO. LLC, individually and as-successor-in-interest to CHATTEM, INC.; LONGS DRUG STORES CALIFORNIA, L.L.C., on behalf of LONGS DRUG STORES CALIFORNIA, INC.; MERCK & CO., INC.; NATERRA INTERNATIONAL INC.; NOVARTIS CORP.; PERRIGO COMPANY OF TENNESSEE; PFIZER INC.; PLAYTEX PRODUCTS LLC formerly known as PLAYTEX PRODUCTS INC.; PTI UNION, LLC; SAFEWAY INC.; STATER BROS. INC.; THE STEPHAN CO.; VI-JON LLC; WALMART INC.; and DOES 1 THROUGH 400 INCLUSIVE, et al., Case No. 25STCV33289 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 12, 2025), is brought against the Defendants arising out of Defendants' purposeful efforts to serve directly or indirectly the market for their asbestos and/or asbestos containing products, including but not limited to talc, in this State, either through direct sales or utilizing an established distributing channel with the expectation that their products would be purchased and/or used with the State of California. Prior to his diagnosis, Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos fibers by using and handling asbestos fibers and products incorporating asbestos as a component, and being in the presence of others using and handling asbestos fibers and products incorporating asbestos as a component, as alleged herein. The Plaintiff's claims against the Defendants, as defined herein, arise out of Defendants' purposeful efforts to serve directly or indirectly the market for their asbestos and/or asbestos containing products, including but not limited to talc, in this State, either through direct sales or utilizing an established distributing channel with the expectation that their products would be purchased and/or used with the State of California. The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and therefore allege, that Defendants exposed Plaintiff to the same hazardous product, namely asbestos. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff was exposed to respirable asbestos, which he inhaled and which thereby entered his body, and which caused him to suffer the severe and permanent harm, as set forth herein, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed mesothelioma on July 3, 2025 as a result of exposure to asbestos due to the products, materials and services of Defendants. The Defendants are transacting business in this State, including the sale, supply, purchase, and/or use of asbestos and/or asbestos containing products including but not limited to talc, within this State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah Gilson, Esq. MEIROWITZ & WASSERBERG, LLP 95 Third Street, 2nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94103 Phone: (212) 897-1988 Facsimile: (646) 432-6887 Email: sgilson@mwinjurylaw.com ACCENTCARE INC: Cusack Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Jenessa Cusack, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ACCENTCARE, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2528052 was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Nov. 10, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-03005. The Complaint asserts the following causes of action: failure to pay wages for all hours worked at minimum wage in violation of Labor Code; failure to pay overtime wages for daily overtime worked in violation of Labor Code; failure to authorize or permit meal periods in violation of Labor Code; failure to authorize or permit rest periods in violation of Labor Code; failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements in violation of Laboe Code; failure to timely pay all earned wages and final paychecks due at time of separation of employment in violation of Labor Code; and unfair business practices in violation of Cal. Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ellen M. Bronchetti, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 12830 El Camino Real, Suite 350 San Diego, CA 92130 Phone: (619) 848-2500 Facsimile: (619) 393-0877 Email: ellen.bronchetti@gtlaw.com - and - Bailey A. Hashim, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 442-1111 Facsimile: (916) 448-1709 Email: bailey.hashim@gtlaw.com AEROTECH INC: Schultz Seeks to Certify Class Action --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHANIE SCHULTZ, et al., v. AEROTECH, INC., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00618-WSH (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the following proposed class (or such other class(es) as the Court may determine to be appropriate) under Rule 23(a) and (b)(1): "All participants and beneficiaries of the Aerotech, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan and Trust since April 24, 2018, excluding the Plan's fiduciaries." In addition, the Plaintiffs move to appoint Ms. Schultz, Mr. Plummer, and Mr. Huffer as class representative for the class, and the Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel under Rule 23(g). Aerotech provides cooling and ventilation systems for the agricultural and horticultural markets. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lAkdSf at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jennifer K. Lee, Esq. Carl F. Engstrom, Esq. ENGSTROM LEE LLC 323 N. Washington Ave., Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 305-8349 E-mail: jlee@engstromlee.com cengstrom@engstromlee.com - and - Nicholas D. Thompson, Esq. CASEY JONES LAW FIRM 323 N. Washington Ave., Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 305-8349 E-mail: nthompson@caseyjones.law AEVA TECHNOLOGIES: Deal in Stockholder Suit Has Final Court OK -------------------------------------------------------------- Aeva Technologies, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the settlement in the putative stockholder class action lawsuit has obtained final court approval. On March 7, 2024, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against InterPrivate Acquisition Management LLC, InterPrivate LLC, and former directors and officers of IPV. The lawsuit was captioned Louis Smith v. Ahmed M. Fattouh, et al., No. 2024-0221 (Del. Ch.), and later as No. 1:24-cv-00484 (D. Del.) following its removal to federal court. On June 3, 2024, a second putative class action lawsuit was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against IPV and Soroush Salehian and Mina Rezk (collectively, the "Delaware Stockholder Litigation"). The lawsuit is captioned Todd Katz v. Ahmed M. Fattouh et al., No. 2024-0598 (Del. Ch.). Among other remedies, the complaints seek damages and attorneys' fees and costs. In connection with the Business Combination, the Company agreed to assume certain indemnification obligations to IPV's former directors and officers. On July 2, 2024, the Company and the parties to the Delaware Stockholder Litigation entered into a term sheet, and on December 6, 2024 entered into a formal settlement agreement, which was further amended on April 28, 2025 for submission to the Delaware Court of Chancery, and which will be subject to court approval, to fully and finally resolve the Delaware Stockholder Litigation. In connection with the settlement, the Company agreed to pay a total settlement cost of $14.0 million in exchange for a release of all claims related to the business combination. The settlement is being paid pursuant to the Company's indemnification obligations and from available director and officer insurance policies. On September 12, 2025, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued a final order approving the terms and conditions set forth in the settlement agreement. As of September 30, 2025, the Company has paid in full the $14.0 million of accrued liability in connection with the settlement of the Delaware Stockholder Litigation. The Company has also recovered $2.5 million from an insurance carrier. Legal costs incurred in connection with the Delaware Stockholder Litigation have been expensed as incurred and are reflected within general and administrative expenses in the accompanying condensed consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss. AFFIRM HOLDINGS: Appeal in "Kusnier" Remains Pending in 9th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Affirm 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 an appeal in the case captioned Kusnier v. Affirm Holdings, Inc., remains pending with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On December 8, 2022, plaintiff Mark Kusnier filed a putative class action lawsuit against Affirm, Max Levchin, and Michael Linford in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the "Kusnier action"). On May 5, 2023, plaintiffs Kusnier and Chris Meinsen filed their first amended complaint alleging that the defendants (i) caused Affirm to make materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that Affirm's BNPL service facilitated excessive consumer debt (including with respect to certain for-profit educational institutions), regulatory arbitrage, and data harvesting; (ii) made false and/or misleading statements about certain public regulatory actions; and (iii) made false and/or misleading statements about whether Affirm's business model was vulnerable to interest rate changes. On December 20, 2023, the Court granted Affirm's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint with leave to amend. On January 19, 2024, plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint, which contained only the allegations from the first amended complaint relating to false and/or misleading statements about whether Affirm's business model was vulnerable to interest rate changes. In light of the above, plaintiffs assert that Affirm violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and that Levchin and Linford violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Plaintiffs sought class certification, unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and costs and expenses. Affirm filed its motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on February 2, 2024. On August 26, 2024, the Court granted Affirm's motion to dismiss with leave to amend. On September 23, 2024, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court's Order granting Affirm's motion to dismiss. On August 14, 2025, the Court resolved plaintiffs' motion in Affirm's favor. On September 30, 2025, the Court dismissed the action with prejudice. On October 29, 2025, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. AIR LEASE: Bingham Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties ------------------------------------------------------- Brooke E. Bingham, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AIR LEASE CORPORATION, STEVEN F. UDVAR-HAZY, JOHN L. PLUEGER, ROBERT A. MILTON, MATTHEW J. HART, YVETTE HOLLINGSWORTH CLARK, CHERYL GORDON KRONGARD, MARSHALL O. LARSEN, SUSAN MCCAW and IAN M. SAINES, Case No. 2025-1308- (Del. Chancery Ct., Nov. 12, 2025), is brought against Air Lease and the Board for breach of fiduciary duties under Delaware law. The Plaintiffs' claims arise in connection with the solicitation of Air Lease's public stockholders to, inter alia, vote in favor of the proposed sale of Air Lease for $65.00 per share in cash to a consortium of investors consisting of Sumitomo Corporation, SMBC Aviation Capital Limited, affiliates of Apollo Capital Management, L.P., and affiliates of Brookfield Asset Management Ltd. Notably, the Proxy fulsomely discloses the conflicts of J.P. Morgan arising from its past and concurrent representations of Brookfield and other members of the Consortium and their affiliates (including the amount of fees paid to J.P. Morgan by Brookfield and those other entities during the two-year period prior to September 1, 2025 ("Two-Year Period")). Yet, the Proxy fails to make any disclosure whatsoever concerning Skadden's Brookfield Representations (including the fees paid by Brookfield to Skadden in connection with those representations). Nor does the Proxy disclose the fees paid by Air Lease to Skadden in connection with the Merger. As a result of these nondisclosures ("Skadden Nondisclosures"), Air Lease stockholders are unaware of the conflicts posed to Skadden by the Brookfield Representations, and even if made aware, would have no way of contextualizing the magnitude of such conflicts by comparing the fees paid by Air Lease to Skadden to the fees paid by Brookfield to Skadden. To ensure that Air Lease stockholders are able to cast informed votes at the Special Meeting, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Defendants from taking any further steps to schedule the Stockholder Vote and to consummate the Merger, until 5 days after Air Lease files a supplemental disclosure with the SEC curing the Skadden Nondisclosures by disclosing: the Brookfield Representations, the amount of fees paid by Brookfield to Skadden in connection with those representations, and the amount of fee paid by Air Lease to Skadden in connection with the Merger; and the Projection Nondisclosures by disclosing the April and May 2025 Projections. Alternatively, if the Merger is consummated without such disclosures, Plaintiff reserves the right to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff and similarly-situated Air Lease stockholders as a result of the breaches of fiduciary duty of the Board alleged herein, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a holder of Air Lease Common Stock. Air Lease is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive office located in Los Angeles, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake A. Bennett, Esq. COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A. 1000 N. West St., Suite 1500 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 984-3889 - and - Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Phone: (212) 971-1341 - and - Joshua E. Fruchter, Esq. WOHL & FRUCHTER LLP 25 Robert Pitt Drive, Suite 209G Monsey, NY 10952 Phone: (845) 290-6818 AL WAHHAAB: Acosta Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against AL WAHHAAB, et al. The case is styled as Adela Arroyo Acosta, an individual, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AL WAHHAAB, Does 1-100, Case No. 25CV027356 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 12, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Franz T. Reece, Esq. LIPELES LAW GROUP, APC 880 Apollo St., Ste. 336 El Segundo, CA 90245-4783 Phone: 310-322-2211 Fax: 310-322-2252 Email: franz@kallaw.com ALBERT EINSTEIN: Castillo Seeks Conditional Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RINALDYS CASTILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE INC., MONTEFIORE HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., MONTEFIORE MEDICAL CENTER, and MONTEFIORE MEDICINE ACADEMIC HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00984-PAE (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff will move the Court, before Hon. Paul A. Engelmayer, for conditional certification pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act seeking that the Court: (1) conditionally certify the proposed FLSA collective action; (2) order the Defendants to promptly identify all potential collective members; (3) direct the issuance of the Plaintiff's proposed notice and consent form to all such persons; and (4) grant equitable tolling. Albert is a medical school located in the Bronx, New York. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Kk3H07 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq. Erin Kelley, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP One North Broadway, Suite 900 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 298-3281 Facsimile: (914) 824-1561 E-mail: jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com ekelley@fbfglaw.com - and - Shane Seppinni, Esq. Megan Jones, Esq. SEPPINNI LAW 40 Broad St., 7th Fl. New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 859-5085 E-mail: shane@seppinnilaw.com megan@seppinnilaw.com ALEJANDRO OBESO: Lipp Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alejandro Obeso, Jr. The case is styled as Richard Lipp, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Alejandro Obeso, Jr., Case No. 3:25-cv-03115-WQH-BJW (S.D. Cal., Nov. 12, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN PA 237 South Dixie Hwy 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com ALLBIRDS INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suits in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- Allbirds, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the securities class action lawsuits pending in a California court. "On April 13, 2023, and on May 16, 2023, we and certain of our executive officers and directors were named as defendants in two substantially similar securities class action lawsuits, captioned Shnayder v. Allbirds, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-cv-01811-AMO and Delgado v. Allbirds, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-cv-02372-AMO, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. "These lawsuits allege that we violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5, promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by making materially false and/or misleading statements about our business, operations and prospects. The plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount. "On July 25, 2023, the court entered an order consolidating the two cases, appointing lead plaintiffs, and approving lead plaintiffs' selection of lead counsel. On September 15, 2023, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint against the same group of defendants and asserting the same claims. "We filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, which the court granted on May 10, 2024, but provided plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint. A second amended complaint was filed on June 24, 2024. We filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, which the court granted on June 21, 2025, but provided plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint. Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on July 14, 2025 and we filed a motion to dismiss on August 27, 2025 and full briefing is expected to be completed by November 12, 2025. "We intend to vigorously defend against this lawsuit," the Company stated. ALPHABET INC: Parties Seek Extension of Class Cert Briefing Sched ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as J. L. et al., v. Alphabet Inc. et al (re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation), Case No. 5:23-cv-03440-EKL (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending briefing schedule related to class certification: 1. The deadline for the Defendant to file opposition to class certification motion, disclose opposing expert report(s), and file Daubert motion(s) shall be extended to Nov. 20, 2025. 2. The deadline for the Plaintiffs to file reply in support of class certification motion, opposition(s) to the Defendant's Daubert motion(s), and Daubert motion(s) as to the Defendant's experts shall be extended to Dec. 30, 2025. 3. The deadline for the Defendant to file opposition to the Plaintiffs' Daubert motions shall be extended to Jan. 6, 2026. 4. The hearing on the Plaintiffs' class certification and related Daubert motions is unaffected by this Order and remains set for Feb. 4, 2026. Alphabet is a holding company, which engages in the business of acquisition and operation of different companies. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NfuBxM at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lesley E. Weaver, Esq. Anne K. Davis, Esq. Joshua D. Samra, Esq. Gregory S. Mullens, Esq. BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP 1330 Broadway, Suite 630 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 445-4003 E-mail: lweaver@bfalaw.com adavis@bfalaw.com jsamra@bfalaw.com gmullens@bfalaw.com - and - Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Cadio Zirpoli, Esq. Christopher K.L. Young, Esq. Elissa A. Buchanan, Esq. Evan A. Creutz, Esq. Aaron Cera, Esq. Louis Kessler, Esq. Alexander Y. Zeng, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1505 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com czirpoli@saverilawfirm.com cyoung@saverilawfirm.com eabuchanan@saverilawfirm.com ecreutz@saverilawfirm.com acera@saverilawfirm.com lkessler@saverilawfirm.com azeng@saverilawfirm.com - and - Brian D. Clark, Esq. Laura M. Matson, Esq. Arielle S. Wagner, Esq. Consuela Abotsi-Kowu, Esq. Stephen J. Teti, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 E-mail: bdclark@locklaw.com lmmatson@locklaw.com aswagner@locklaw.com cmabotsi-kowo@locklaw.com sjteti@locklaw.com - and - Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Yana Hart, Esq. Mark I. Richards, Esq. Tracey Cowan, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com yhart@clarksonlawfirm.com mrichards@clarksonlawfirm.com tcowan@clarksonlawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: David H. Kramer, Esq. Maura L. Rees, Esq. Paul J. Sampson, Esq. Eric P. Tuttle, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI Professional Corporation 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Telephone: (650) 493-9300 E-mail: dkramer@wsgr.com mrees@wsgr.com psampson@wsgr.com eric.tuttle@wsgr.com AMERICAN HONDA: Seeks to Modify Briefing Schedule ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as QUINTIN SHAMMAM, Individually and on behalf of others, v. AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION ("AHFC"), Case No. 3:24-cv-00648-H-VET (S.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order modifying the briefing schedule on AHFC's forthcoming Daubert motion to exclude the Plaintiff's expert evidence submitted in support of the motion for class certification. The Plaintiff opposes the requested modification, stating that he "cannot agree to the submission of the joint motion at this time." AHFC requests that the Court issue an order modifying the briefing schedule on AHFC's Daubert motion as follows: a. The Defendant shall file its Daubert motion related to the motion for class certification on or before Dec. 22, 2025. b. The Plaintiff shall file his opposition to the Defendant's Daubert motion on or before Jan. 12, 2026. c. The Defendant shall file its reply in support its Daubert motion related to the motion for class certification on or before Jan. 26, 2026. The proposed modification of the briefing schedule will have no impact on any other case deadlines. Indeed, the new briefing schedule is the same as the Plaintiff's current briefing schedule for his Daubert motion. On Aug. 7, 2025, the Plaintiff filed his motion for class certification, which was supported by an expert report of Jeffery A. Hansen. On Oct. 3, 2025, the Court granted the Parties' joint motion to modify the scheduling order. On Nov. 3, 2025, AHFC filed its opposition to motion for class certification, which was supported by an expert report of Mr. Kalat. The Defendant provides financial services. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ldANgq at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Scott J. Hyman, Esq. Genevieve R. Walser-jolly, Esq. Stephanie G. Chau, Esq. Tomio Narita, Esq. R. Travis Campbell, Esq. WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP 400 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1700 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (714) 557-3800 Facsimile: (714) 557-3347 E-mail: Scott.Hyman@wbd-us.com Genevieve.Walser-Jolly@wbd-us.com Stephanie.Chau@wbd-us.com Tomio.narita@wbd-us.com travis.campbell@wbd-us.com AMPLITUDE INC: California Court Dismisses Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Amplitude, 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 California court has dismissed the putative securities class action captioned Chicago & Vicinity Laborers' District Council Pension Fund v. Amplitude, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00898. On February 14, 2024, a putative securities class action captioned Chicago & Vicinity Laborers' District Council Pension Fund v. Amplitude, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00898 (the "Securities Class Action") was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, naming the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, and its former Chief Financial Officer as defendants. The lawsuit is purportedly brought on behalf of all those who purchased or acquired the Company's common stock between September 21, 2021 and February 16, 2022. The complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, based on allegedly false or misleading statements related to the Company's business and financial outlook. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and other relief. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on July 12, 2024, which was granted with leave to amend on October 2, 2024. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on October 23, 2024. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on November 13, 2024, and, on January 13, 2025, the court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice and entered judgment in favor of the defendants. AMPLITUDE INC: Continues to Defend Privacy Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------- Amplitude, 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 a putative privacy class action in a California court. On August 8, 2024, a putative privacy class action captioned Atkins v. Amplitude, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-04913 was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, naming the Company as a defendant. The lawsuit is purportedly brought on behalf of all individuals who downloaded and used an application on their mobile device that embedded the Company's Software Development Kit ("SDK") and did not publicly disclose the Company in the application's notices or disclosures. The complaint asserts claims under the Federal Wiretap Act, California Wiretap Act, California Invasion of Privacy Act, and California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act. The complaint seeks statutory damages and other relief. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 15, 2024. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on January 7, 2025, and a motion to compel arbitration on April 8, 2025. On September 2, 2025, the court granted the Company's motion to compel arbitration and denied the Company's motion to dismiss as moot. On September 30, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to appeal the court's decision. That motion remains pending and the Company filed its response on October 22, 2025. AMPLITUDE INC: NY Privacy Suit Dismissed ---------------------------------------- Amplitude, 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 plaintiff in a New York putative privacy class suit has voluntarily dismissed the case. On October 7, 2024, a putative privacy class action captioned Willey v. Amplitude, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-07577 was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit was purportedly brought on behalf of all persons who accessed the Oscar Health website or application in Pennsylvania and entered information in response to prompts in the "Find a Plan" function. The complaint alleged that the Company's services operate on the Oscar Health website and application to intercept information submitted by users for a health insurance quote. The complaint asserted a claim under Pennsylvania's Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act. The complaint sought unspecified damages and other relief. On December 5, 2024, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case and re-filed in the Superior Court of the State of California. The Company removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on December 16, 2024. On January 27, 2025, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case. AMSTERDAM PRINTING: Houts Law Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Houts Law, PLLC, and others similarly situated v. AMSTERDAM PRINTING & LITHO, INC., Case No. CJ-2025-7520 was removed from the District Court of Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on Nov. 10, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-01325-R. The Petition purports to state claims against Taylor for breach of contract, fraud, a violation of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act, and unjust enrichment. The Petition also includes a request (although styled as a standalone cause of action) for punitive damages, as well as a claim for declaratory relief and a claim for injunctive relief.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Christopher Scaperlanda, Esq. Tyler Ames, Esq. MCAFEE & TAFT A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Eighth Floor, Two Leadership Square 211 N. Robinson Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Phone: (405) 552-2238 Email: christopher.scaperlanda@mcafeetaft.com tyler.ames@mcafeetaft.com APA CORPORATION: Kulp Minerals Suit Remains Pending --------------------------------------------------- APA Corporation disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the Kulp Minerals lawsuit remains pending. On or about April 7, 2023, Apache was sued in a purported class action in New Mexico styled Kulp Minerals LLC v. Apache Corporation, Case No. D-506-CV-2023-00352 in the Fifth Judicial District. The Kulp Minerals case has not been certified and seeks to represent a group of owners allegedly owed statutory interest under New Mexico law as a result of purported late oil and gas payments. The amount of this claim is not yet reasonably determinable. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims asserted in this lawsuit. ARCHER AVIATION: Trial in Delaware Suit Set for May 2027 -------------------------------------------------------- Archer Aviation 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 trial in the Delaware class action litigation is set for May 2027. On May 17, 2024, two putative stockholders of the Company (and formerly, Atlas Crest Investment Corp. ("Atlas")) filed class action lawsuits, on behalf of themselves and other similarly-situated stockholders, in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Court") against the directors and officers of Atlas, the Company, the Company's co-founders, Legacy Archer, Moelis & Company Group LP and Moelis & Company LLC. The complaint asserted claims for breaches of fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties, and unjust enrichment, in connection with the merger between Atlas and the Company. The plaintiffs requested damages in an amount to be determined at trial, as well as attorneys' and experts' fees. Relatedly, on June 19, 2024, another putative stockholder of the Company filed a class action lawsuit, on behalf of himself and other similarly-situated stockholders, in the Court asserting similar claims as the aforementioned May 17, 2024 complaint against the same defendants named in that May complaint. The Court subsequently consolidated the related class actions and appointed a lead plaintiff. All defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. In response to such motions to dismiss, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against two Atlas directors. Oral argument on the remaining defendants' motions to dismiss was held on April 17, 2025 and the Court issued a bench ruling on July 21, 2025, granting in part and denying in part the motions to dismiss. The Court dismissed all claims asserted against certain defendants, including among others, the Company's co-founders, an Atlas director, Legacy Archer, Moelis & Company Group LP and Moelis & Company LLC. The Court also addressed the sufficiency of the plaintiffs' allegations concerning the pre-merger disclosures that underlie the plaintiffs' fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims, ruling that certain allegations were not adequately pleaded, thereby narrowing the scope of the fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims against the remaining defendants, which the Company believes that it has substantial defenses against. Trial is scheduled to begin on May 17, 2027. ARCHERY TRADE: Hansen Suit Transferred to D. Colorado ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Hugh Hansen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Archery Trade Association, Inc., BowTech, Inc. BPS Direct LLC doing business as: Bass Pro Shops, Cabela's LLC, Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc., Hoyt Archery, Inc., Jay's Sporting Goods. Kinsey's Outdoors, Inc., Lancaster Archery Supply, Inc., Mathews Archery, Inc., Precision Shooting Equipment, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-00779 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on Nov. 12, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-03622-PAB-TPO to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. The Archery Trade Association (ATA) -- https://archerytrade.org/ -- is the trade group representing manufacturers, retailers, distributors, sales representatives and others working in the archery and bowhunting industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles Barrett, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP 4235 Hillsboro Pike, Suite 300 Nashville, TN 37215 Phone: (615) 293-7375 Email: cbarrett@cuneolaw.com - and - Cody Douglas McCracken, Esq. Evelyn Yifei Riley, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP 2445 M Street NW, Suite 740 Washington, DC 20037 Phone: (202) 789-3960 Email: cmccracken@cuneolaw.com evelyn@cuneolaw.com - and - Michael James Flannery, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP 2 City Place Drive, 2nd Floor St. Louis, MO 63105 Phone: (314) 226-1015 Email: mflannery@cuneolaw.com The Defendant is represented by: William M. Katz, Jr., Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, PA 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 5200 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (214) 665-3600 Fax: (214) 665-3601 Email: bill.katz@gtlaw.com ARITZIA: Jerotz Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jaida Jerotz, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. UNITED STATES OF ARITZIA INC., dba ARITZIA, a Delaware corporation; US OF ARITZIA INC, an entity of unknown form; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV28354 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Nov. 10, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-10790. The Plaintiff brings the following causes of action on behalf of herself and the putative class members (referred to in the Complaint as "Employees"): Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Wages and Overtime; Meal Period Liability; Rest Break Liability; Failure to Pay Vacation Wages; Failure to Comply with Labor Code; Reimbursement of Necessary Expenditures; Violation of Labor Code; and Violation of Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Paloma P. Peracchio, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-239-9800 Facsimile: 213-239-9045 Email: paloma.peracchio@ogletree.com - and - Mitchell A. Wrosch, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. Park Tower, Fifteenth Floor 695 Town Center Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: 714-800-7900 Facsimile: 714-754-1298 Email: mitchell.wrosch@ogletree.com ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Ashour Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AHMED ASHOUR, JOY BROWN, and CRYSTAL TOWNES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ARIZONA BEVERAGES USA LLC, HORNELL BREWING CO., INC., BEVERAGE MARKETING USA, INC., ARIZONA BEVERAGES HOLDINGS LLC, and ARIZONA BEVERAGES HOLDINGS 2 LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-07081-AT-OTW (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court, before the Honorable Analisa Torres, for an Order pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) for the following: (1) Certifying the following Classes: California Class: "All persons who purchased the Defendants' Products within the State of California for personal use from Jan. 1, 2017 to Jan. 1, 2023." New York Class: "All persons who purchased the Defendants' Products within the State of New York for personal use from Jan. 1, 2019 to Jan. 1, 2023." Excluded from the Classes are government entities, the Defendants, any entity in which they have a controlling interest, the Defendants' officers, directors, affiliates, legal representatives, employees, successors, subsidiaries and assignees, as well as the Defendants' Counsel, the Plaintiffs' Counsel, your Honor and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff. (2) appointing Ahmed Ashour and Crystal Townes as representatives of the Classes; and (3) appointing Pearson Warshaw, LLP and Reese LLP as class counsel. Arizona is a producer of many flavors of iced tea, juice cocktails, and energy drinks. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BNFsGt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Melissa S. Weiner, Esq. Ryan T. Gott, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 328 Barry Avenue S., Suite 200 Wayzata, MN 55391 Telephone: (612) 389-0600 Facsimile: (612) 389-0610 E-mail: mweiner@pwfirm.com rgott@pwfirm.com - and - Carlos F. Ramirez, Esq. Michael R. Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 E-mail: cramirez@reesellp.com mreese@reesellp.com BABY LIST: Aids Third Party to Collect Client Data, Slaviero Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- BIANCA SLAVIERO and AISLEY DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BABY LIST, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-09496-RS (N.D. Cal., November 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Federal Wiretap Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant aids, employs, agrees, and conspires with third parties, including Meta Platforms, Inc., Google, LLC, and Twilio, Inc., to intercept customers' communications on its website, babylist.com, and its mobile application, Babylist, without prior consent. The Defendant allowed third parties to intercept customers' communications by installing their tracking technologies on its website and Mobile App, suit says. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiffs and the Class suffered damages. Baby List, Inc. is a company that operates an online marketplace for baby purchase decisions, with its principal place of business in Emeryville, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 50 Main St., Ste. 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 874-0710 Facsimile: (914) 206-3656 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com - and - Ines Diaz Villafana, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: idiaz@bursor.com BANK OF AMERICA: Fails to Update Credit Card Payments, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that Bank of America does not update scheduled monthly credit card payments when a customer pays their balance before the end of the billing cycle, leading to duplicate charges. The 18-page lawsuit contends that Bank of America uses a "confusing and misleading" automatic payment system to withdraw a second payment even after a customer has paid their statement balance. The lawsuit accuses Bank of America of violating North Carolina's debt collection and consumer protection laws, overpaying itself while leaving consumers "thousands of dollars in the lurch." "If a cardholder like Plaintiff pays all or part of their statement balance mid-cycle, Bank of America does not adjust its automatic payment to account for the earlier payment," the Bank of America lawsuit summarizes. "Instead, it simply double-dips, re-billing the cardholder for the amount they already paid." According to the complaint, Bank of America cardholders can set up monthly automatic credit card payments for the minimum payment amount or their statement balance. The suit goes on to say that Bank of America defines the "statement balance" as the "new balance total, as shown on the credit card statement." However, "new balance total" is never defined in the cardholder agreement, the filing alleges, and "reasonable consumers understand this option to mean that it is intended to pay off the statement in full, unlike the minimum payment option," the filing says. The lawsuit claims that Bank of America automatically withdraws a second payment for the "new balance total" even when a cardholder has already paid all or part of that amount before the billing cycle ends. The lawsuit further states that the Bank of America cardholder agreement fails to inform cardholders that they will be billed twice when they pay the "new balance total" before the due date. The class action lawsuit emphasizes that Bank of America benefits from the money it "snatches from customers' accounts without notice or warning," and makes it unreasonably difficult for consumers to obtain refunds. Charging cardholders twice is "deceptive, unfair, and out of touch with industry norms," the lawsuit says, adding that Citibank, Capital One, and Wells Fargo have systems in place that prevent overpayment if payments are made between the statement date and due date. The lawsuit further explains that consumers have no way to anticipate that the defendant will bill them even after they've paid off their statement, and no way to prevent the overbilling, given that "Bank of America does not warn them of its practice until it has already taken their money." The plaintiff in this case paid the total balance on his Bank of America card on October 21, 2025, a full 20 days before the due date, according to the class action lawsuit. The case argues that, as such, the plaintiff's credit card statement "should have reflected a zero balance on or before October 23, 2025, two business days after Plaintiff made his payment, and eighteen days before the payment due date." Instead, the filing says, the plaintiff logged into his Bank of America account on November 9, 2025, and noticed an automatic withdrawal pending. This automatic withdrawal was for the total balance the plaintiff already paid, the case claims. The lawsuit adds that when the plaintiff called Bank of America to inquire about the pending withdrawal, a representative "explained that [Bank of America] recently implemented new software which was not recognizing manual payments" and that they had been "fielding calls from many Bank of America customers who were experiencing the same issue as the Plaintiff." Additionally, the Bank of America representative told the plaintiff, "there was nothing he could do to stop the double payment from leaving his account," and that he would have had to request a refund after the money was withdrawn, the suit shares. The lawsuit pointedly adds that the plaintiff "had no guarantee that the money would be refunded." The Bank of America class action lawsuit seeks to represent any individual with a Bank of America credit card who enabled automatic payments through the Bank of America website, selected the "statement balance" payment option, made a payment mid-cycle, and was still billed the "new balance total" during the applicable statute of limitations. [GN] BARRETT BUSINESS: Wage & Hour Suit Settlement Has Final Court OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- Barrett Business Services, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the Quarterly Period Ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the settlement in the wage and hour class action has obtained final court approval. On April 5, 2011, several individual plaintiffs filed a wage and hour class action in the California Superior Court, County of Fresno, which was subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, naming as defendants their employer, a Merry Maids franchisee; BBSI, which was providing PEO services to the franchisee; and various parties related to the franchisor. Plaintiffs claimed, among other things, that BBSI and the franchisor were their joint employer with the franchisee and therefore jointly responsible for the alleged wage and hour violations. BBSI's position is that it was not the plaintiffs' joint employer. Notwithstanding, the plaintiffs and BBSI reached an agreement to settle the matter, which was filed with the trial court for court approval pursuant to the rules for class action settlements. The settlement was preliminarily approved by the trial court in June 2025 and was granted final approval in October 2025. BAXTER COUNTY: Directed to Pay $133K in Atty Fees in "Burris" ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Angel Burris, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Baxter County Regional Hospital, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-CV-03008-MEF (W.D. Ark.), Magistrate Judge Mark E. Ford of the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and costs in this Fair Labor Standards Act collective action. On January 27, 2023, the Plaintiff brought this action individually and on behalf of all patient-facing care providers who worked for the Defendant anywhere in the United States at any time from January 24, 2020, through the final disposition of this matter and were subject to an automatic meal break deduction to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Sections 207 and 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended 29 U.S.C. Section 201-19, and unpaid straight time wages pursuant to Arkansas common law. The parties participated in a Settlement Conference before the undersigned on July 12, 2023, and the Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, Chief United States District Judge held a case management hearing on August 17, 2023. The Plaintiff filed a Motion to Certify the Collective Action on September 18, 2023, which was ultimately granted on July 18, 2024. In November 2024, the Defendant filed Motions to Decertify the Conditional Collective and for Summary Judgment seeking dismissal of 22 opt-in Plaintiffs who filed their consents more than three years after their employment ended; 27 opt-in Plaintiffs who worked little or no overtime within the limitations period; nine Plaintiffs who filed consents to join after the notice period ended; and the Plaintiff's claim because she has not produced sufficient evidence to allow a jury to reasonably infer the amount and extent of any uncompensated work she performed. On January 19, 2025, the Court denied the Motion to Decertify the Collective Action and granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, dismissing Plaintiffs identified in Table A who had not already been withdrawn and Patricia Brindley and Rita Mckinney, who the Plaintiff conceded did no work for the Defendant during the limitations period. A third settlement conference was held on January 24, 2025, resulting in settlement. The parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Approval of Stipulated Collective Action Settlement, which was approved on August 29, 2025. According to the settlement the total amount to be paid to Plaintiffs is $24,800.00, of which $3,100.00 will be paid by the Plaintiff's own counsel. The Plaintiff requested $391,000.00 in attorney's fees and $26,330.00 in costs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). The Court determined that the reasonable hourly rates for FLSA work performed herein were substantially lower than requested: $300.00 for Matthews (Senior Briefing Attorney with 18 years of experience), $275.00 for Braddy (Junior Partner with 15 years of experience), $250.00 for Schreiber (Attorney with 19 years of experience), $250.00 for Fisher (Junior Partner with 11 years of experience), $250.00 for Hastings (Junior Partner with 9 years of experience), and $75.00 for paralegals at both firms. The Court stated, This Court and the Eighth Circuit have both previously held that as a general rule, a reasonable hourly rate is the prevailing market rate for similar work in the community where the case has been litigated. The Court made several reductions to the number of hours claimed. The Court reduced Hastings' hours by 1.50 hours for drafting the Original Complaint which included a voluntarily dismissed common law quantum meruit claim. The Court deducted 2.20 paralegal hours for preparing the Rule 26(f) Report template and report, noting that the Rule 26(f) Report template is on the court's public website. The Court deducted 1.50 hours from Schreiber's hours for preparation of a second set of discovery that was merely reservice of the first set with a correction made to the Defendant's name. The Court deducted an additional 0.50 hours from Schreiber's total award for preparation of Notices of Deposition. The Court deducted an additional 3.20 paralegal hours related to administrative tasks such as saving discovery responses, organizing and reviewing discovery files, updating the discovery index, and reviewing the pleadings folder. The Court reduced Schreiber's fee award by an additional 25.00 hours for work related to the conditional certification motion to account for excessive hours and duplicative legal research and drafting/editing tasks performed by attorneys at both firms. Both Schreiber's and Matthews' hours were reduced by 14.85 hours each for work on the decertification and summary judgment responses. The Court reduced Braddy's and Schreiber's fee by 6.05 hours each for preparation of their Motion for Attorney's Fees. The Court reduced Matthews' and Schreiber's awarded hours by 72.20 each for trial preparation, recognizing that many of these same tasks have been compensated for in other areas while others were merely excessive. Utilizing the Lodestar formula, the Court awarded attorney fees totaling $133,208.75: Matthews at $38,475.00 for 128.25 hours, Braddy at $14,093.75 for 51.25 hours, Schreiber at $69,625.00 for 278.50 hours, Fisher at $1,150.00 for 4.60 hours, Hastings at $6,925.00 for 27.70 hours, and paralegals at both firms at $2,940.00 for 39.50 hours. Regarding success, the Court noted that the Plaintiffs pled damages more than $400,000.00 but ultimately settled for $24,800.00, or approximately $200.00 per Plaintiff, equating to a settlement of only six percent of their ask. The Court stated, "Although Plaintiffs' settlement was relatively modest, it was not de minimis, and the Court finds no basis for adjusting the fee because of the results obtained. The Plaintiff also sought an award of costs in the amount of $26,330.00 for copy fees, travel expenses, deposition fees, postage, transcript costs, and expert fees. The Court made several reductions: $28.20 for incidental expenses paid to American Airlines for Wi-Fi and onboard food and drinks, $173.26 for excessive hotel room costs, $1,563.10 for excessive airfare expenses, and $215.00 for excessive dinner expenses. Upon making such deductions, the Plaintiffs were awarded $23,159.70 for their costs and expenses. Accordingly, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's Opposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs. The Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of $133,208.75 in attorney's fees and $23,159.70 in costs associated with representing the Plaintiff's Collective Class. The Plaintiffs are also entitled to post-judgment interest on this award of attorney's fees and costs, which will accrue from November 12, 2025, until paid. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ccHNjs from PacerMonitor.com BEAUTY HEALTH: "Alghazwi" Remains Pending ----------------------------------------- The Beauty Health Company disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the putative securities class action lawsuit filed by Abduladhim A. Alghazwi remains pending. On November 16, 2023, a putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Company, its then-current President and Chief Executive Officer, Andrew Stanleick, its former Chief Financial Officer, Liyuan Woo, and its current Chief Financial Officer, Michael Monahan (the "Defendants"). The complaint, styled Abduladhim A. Alghazwi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. The Beauty Health Company, Andrew Stanleick, Liyuan Woo, and Michael Monahan, Case No. 2:23-cv-09733 (C.D. Ca.) (the "Securities Class Action"), asserts claims for violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against all defendants (First Claim), and violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants (Second Claim). The complaint alleges that, between May 10, 2022 and November 13, 2023, defendants materially misled the investing public by publicly issuing false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions relating to Hydrafacial's business, operations, and prospects, specifically with respect to the performance of and demand for the Syndeo 1.0 and 2.0 devices. The relief sought in the complaint includes a request for compensatory damages suffered by the plaintiff and other members of the putative class for damages allegedly sustained as a result of the alleged securities violations. BEAUTY HEALTH: "Brown" Remains Pending -------------------------------------- The Beauty Health Company disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the putative securities class action lawsuit filed by Jeff and Kevin Brown remains pending. On January 16, 2024, putative class members Jeff and Kevin Brown (the "Browns"), Priscilla and Martjn Dijkgraaf (the "Dijkgraafs"), and Joseph Jou filed three competing motions for appointment as lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), 17 U.S.C. Sec.78u-4(a)(3). On January 31, 2024, Joseph Jou filed a notice of non-opposition to the Browns' and Dijkgraafs' motions for appointment as lead plaintiff. On May 2, 2024, the court granted the Dijkgraafs' motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approved the Dijkgraafs' counsel, Hagens Berman, as lead counsel. On July 1, 2024, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint asserting the same causes of action as the original complaint. The Securities Class Action case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett. On September 30, 2024, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action complaint in its entirety. Plaintiffs filed their opposition brief on November 22, 2024, and the Company filed its reply brief on December 23, 2024. A hearing on the Defendants' motion to dismiss was scheduled for January 15, 2025. On January 10, 2025, the court granted the parties' joint stipulation to adjourn the January 15, 2025 hearing. On January 17, 2025, the court granted the parties' joint stipulation to withdraw briefing on Defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice to refiling and to briefly stay proceedings so that the parties can complete a private mediation. The parties conducted the private mediation on March 27, 2025. The parties were unable to reach a settlement at the mediation. On April 16, 2025, the court so-ordered the parties' stipulation. On May 5, 2025, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On July 11, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety. The Court scheduled a hearing on Defendants' motion for September 17, 2025. On September 15, 2025, the Court vacated the hearing sua sponte. On September 25, 2025, the Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss. Defendants' answer to the amended complaint is due November 24, 2025. BEAUTY HEALTH: Continues to Defend Consumer Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------------ The Beauty Health Company 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 customer class action pending in a New York court. On October 24, 2024, Jason Davalos ("Jason Davalos"), Sonia Davalos ("Sonia Davalos", and collectively with Jason Davalos, the "Davaloses"), and Sol Tan Tanning & Spa LLC ("Sol Tan", and collectively with the Davaloses, the "Class Action Plaintiffs"), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint against Hydrafacial LLC d/b/a The Hydrafacial Company and The Beauty Health Company (collectively, the "Class Action Defendants") for alleged violations of New York consumer fraud statutes, breach of contract, and common law breach of implied warranties (the "Customer Class Action"). The case is captioned Jason Davalos, Sonia Davalos, Sol Tan Tanning & Spa LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Hydrafacial LLC dba The Hydrafacial Company, and The Beauty Health Company, Case No. 24-cv-8073 (S.D.N.Y.) (Caproni, J.). The complaint alleges that all three versions of the Syndeo machine (Syndeo 1.0, Syndeo 2.0, and Syndeo 3.0) were defective and did not perform in the manner in which it had been represented by Class Action Defendants. Class Action Plaintiffs claim that Class Action Defendants made various misrepresentations in its marketing and sales of the Syndeo machines and, rather than provide a refund to customers for the defective machines, replaced them with another Syndeo machine that exhibited the same defects. Class Action Plaintiffs purport to bring claims on behalf of themselves, and all other similarly situated purchasers within the United States, of Class Action Defendants' Syndeo machines. The complaint asserts five causes of action: (1) violations of N.Y. G.B.L., Sec.349, the state consumer production statute; (2) violations of N.Y. G.B.L., Sec.350, the state's false advertising statute; (3) breach of contract; (4) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; and (5) breach of the implied warranty of fitness. The relief sought in the complaint includes monetary damages allegedly suffered by Class Action Plaintiffs and other members of the putative class as a result of Class Action Defendants' alleged violations and breaches, including a trebling of any money damages award for alleged violations of N.Y. G.B.L., Sec.349 and Sec.350. On December 30, 2024, the Class Action Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Customer Class Action complaint in its entirety. On January 3, 2025, the Class Action Defendants filed a motion to stay discovery during the pendency of their motion to dismiss. On January 8, 2025, the Davaloses voluntarily dismissed their claims against the Class Action Defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), leaving Plaintiff Sol Tan as the sole remaining Customer Class Action Plaintiff. Plaintiff Sol Tan filed their opposition brief on January 9, 2025, and the Class Action Defendants filed their reply brief on January 13, 2025. On January 16, 2025, the court granted the parties' joint stipulation to adjourn the January 17, 2025 initial pretrial conference and stay the action pending the parties' completion of a private mediation. As part of its order, the court also (1) adjourned Plaintiff Sol Tan's deadline to respond to the Class Action Defendants' motion to dismiss sine die pending the outcome of mediation; (2) denied as moot the Class Action Defendants' motion to stay discovery in light of the parties' agreement to stay discovery pending the outcome of mediation; and (3) directed the parties to (a) file a joint letter on or before February 7, 2025, indicating the date (not later than May 8, 2025) on which the mediation is scheduled to occur; and (b) within seven days after the mediation, either (i) file a joint letter indicating that settlement was reached; or (ii) file a revised proposed case management plan and a revised joint letter required by the court's Notice of Initial Pretrial Conference. On February 7, 2025, the parties filed a joint letter notifying the court that they had agreed to mediate before Greg Danilow of Phillips ADR Enterprises. The parties conducted the private mediation on April 29, 2025; however, the parties were unable to reach a settlement at the mediation. Pursuant to the parties' so-ordered January 16 joint stipulation, on May 7, 2025, the parties filed a revised proposed case management plan and a revised joint letter in accordance with the court's Notice of Initial Pretrial Conference. On the same day, the court endorsed the joint submission and ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint no later than June 2, 2025, and scheduled an initial pretrial conference for July 18, 2025. On June 2, 2025, Plaintiff and fifteen other alleged purchasers of the Syndeo machines filed an amended complaint asserting: (1) violations of N.Y. G.B.L., Sec.349 (Count IV), the state consumer protection statute; (2) violations of N.Y. G.B.L., Sec.350 (Count V), the state's false advertising statute; (3) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability (Count I); (4) breach of express and implied contract and class-wide rescission (Count II); and (5) breach of express warranty (Count III). The relief sought in the amended complaint includes monetary damages allegedly suffered by Class Action Plaintiffs and other members of the putative class as a result of Class Action Defendants' alleged violations and breaches, including a trebling of any money damages award for alleged violations of N.Y. G.B.L., Sec.349 and Sec.350. On June 23, 2025, Defendants moved to (i) dismiss Counts I, II, IV, and V in full; (ii) partially dismiss Count III to the extent it alleges design defects; (iii) dismiss all claims brought by plaintiff Jennifer Skuratov d/b/a Spa Thirsty in full; (iv) dismiss all claims against the Company in full; and (v) dismiss Plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief. The parties are currently engaged in discovery while they await the Court's ruling on Defendants' partial motion to dismiss. BEIT T'SHUVAH: Nusman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against BEIT T'SHUVAH. The case is styled as Uri M. Nusman, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BEIT T'SHUVAH, Case No. 25STCV33265 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 12, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Beit T'Shuvah -- https://beittshuvah.org/ -- is a faith-based recovery and rehabilitation program.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung L. Yang, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 355 S. Grand Ave., Suite 1450 Los Angeles, California 90071 Phone: (213) 985-1150 Fax: (213) 985-2155 Email: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com BELLE TIRE: Zink Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Alignment Technicians ---------------------------------------------------------------- DEREK ZINK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BELLE TIRE DISTRIBUTORS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-13527-TGB-DRG (E.D. Mich., November 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an alignment technician at the Alsip store in Illinois. Belle Tire Distributors, Inc. is a company that operates retail tire and automotive‑service locations in multiple states, including Illinois and Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Blanchard, Esq. BLANCHARD & WALKER PLLC 221 N. Main Street, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (734) 929-4313 Email: blanchard@bwlawonline.com - and - Kevin J. Dolley, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 7382 Pershing Avenue, Suite 1W St. Louis, MO 63130 Telephone: (314) 642-6577 Email: kdolley@hkm.com BIOLIFE PLASMA: Guerrero Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case LISA GUERRERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BIOLIFE PLASMA SERVICES, L.P., TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS U.S.A., INC., TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS AMERICA, INC., TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2526625, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on November 3, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-02936 to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code. BioLife Plasma Services, L.P. is a manufacturer of pharmaceutical products based in Illinois. Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company, headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company, headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Takeda Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company, headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Timothy L. Hix, Esq. Brittney E. Willis, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 270-9600 Facsimile: (213) 270-9601 Email: thix@seyfarth.com bwillis@seyfarth.com BJH HOLDINGS III: Curl Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII --------------------------------------------------------- Lajada Curl, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BJH HOLDINGS III CORP and JACK'S FAMILY RESTAURANTS, LP, Case No. 2:25-cv-01955-AMM (N.D. ala., Nov. 11, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to them, and their accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information, on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendants with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") including names and Social Security numbers (collectively "Private Information"). The Plaintiff's PII was impacted in a data breach that Defendants publicly disclosed on October 21, 2025 (the "Data Breach" or the "Breach"). The Defendants failed to take precautions designed to keep individuals' Private Information secure. In collecting and maintaining the Private Information, Defendants agreed they would safeguard the data in accordance with their internal policies, state law, and federal law. The Defendants owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. Defendants solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached their duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. The Defendants admit that information in their systems was accessed by unauthorized individuals, though they provided little information regarding how the Data Breach occurred. The sensitive nature of the data exposed through the Data Breach signifies that Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered irreparable harm. Plaintiffs and Class Members have lost the ability to control their private information and are subject to an increased risk of identity theft. The Defendants, despite having the financial wherewithal and personnel necessary to prevent the Data Breach, nevertheless failed to use reasonable security procedures and practice appropriate to the nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information it maintained for Plaintiffs and Class Members, causing the exposure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff provided their Private Information to Defendant. BJH is a holding corporation and the parent company of Jack's.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan S. Mann, Esq. Austin B. Whitten, Esq. PTTMAN, DUTTON, HELLUMS, BRADLEY & MANN, P.C. 2001 Park Place North, Suite 110 Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: (205) 322-8880 Email: jonm@pittmandutton.com austinw@pittmandutton.com - and - Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 475-2299 Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com BK TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Suit Over Cyber Incident ----------------------------------------------------- BK Technologies Corporation disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is facing a class suit over a cyber incident. "In October 2025, a class action lawsuit was filed against us related to the cyber incident. The suit is currently pending in the circuit court of Brevard County, Florida. "We intend to vigorously defend this matter. We do not believe that any potential losses arising from the lawsuit are reasonably estimable at this time. It is reasonably possible that the Company may incur additional costs related to the matter, but we are unable to predict with certainty the ultimate amount or range of potential loss," the Company stated. BLACK FOREST DECOR: Cole Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Haron Cole, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Black Forest Decor, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-13770 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 10, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services the Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through https://www.blackforestdecor.com (hereinafter "Blackforestdecor.com" or "the website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because the Defendant's website, Blackforestdecor.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Black Forest Decor provides to the public a website known as Blackforestdecor.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view rustic and lodge-styled furniture, bedding sets, rugs, lamps, chandeliers, mirrors, wall arts, sculptures, lanterns. Consumers across the United States use Defendant's website to purchase home decor and furniture.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (844) 731-3343 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law BOJANGLES' RESTAURANTS: Dougherty Appeals Class Action Dismissal ---------------------------------------------------------------- ALEXIS DOUGHERTY, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing the lawsuit entitled Alexis Dougherty, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bojangles' Restaurants, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00065-KDB-DCK, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The complaint is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. On Apr. 1, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for lack of jurisdiction, which Judge Kenneth D. Bell granted on Sept. 30, 2025. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have not sufficiently pled an actual or imminent misuse of their personal data traceable to the Bojangles data breach, as is required to establish standing to pursue their claims. Therefore, the Defendant's motion is granted and this action is dismissed. The appellate case is entitled Alexis Dougherty v. Bojangles' Restaurants, Inc., Case No. 25-2343, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on November 5, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants ALEXIS DOUGHERTY, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 North Michigan Avenue Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 - and - William B. Federman, Esq. Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 - and - Scott Harris, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 900 West Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 Defendant-Appellee BOJANGLES' RESTAURANTS, INCORPORATED is represented by: Thomas W. Bibby, Esq. Richard M. Haggerty, Jr., Esq. MULLEN COUGHLIN LLC 426 West Lancaster Avenue Devon, PA 19333 Telephone: (267) 930-4770 (267) 930-1594 - and - Charles Evans Johnson, Esq. ROBINSON BRADSHAW & HINSON, PA 600 South Tryon Street Charlotte, NC 28202 Telephone: (704) 377-2536 - and - Caroline H. Reinwald, Esq. ROBINSON BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A. 1450 Raleigh Road Chapel Hill, NC 27517 Telephone: (919) 328-8824 BOWLERO CORP: Wins Partial Dismissal of "Alloway" Age Bias Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Jo Alloway, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Bowlero Corp., et al., Defendants, Case No. 24-CV-04738-SJB-JMW (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Sanket J. Bulsara of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The Court dismissed with prejudice the claims of 63 plaintiffs as time-barred, four plaintiffs for failure to state a claim, and one deceased plaintiff for failure to make timely substitution. The Court denied the motion as to eight plaintiffs: Weimer, Reese, Kelly, Gaskey, Nilsen, Matthew Schneider, Tracy Schneider, and Tanase. The Plaintiffs commenced this collective action on July 8, 2024, alleging they were forced out of their jobs when new management switched the company's business model to focus on younger clientele. The Plaintiffs assert claims under the ADEA for alleged unlawful termination on the basis of their age or in retaliation for opposing the Defendants' employment practices. The Plaintiffs allege that after the Defendants acquired roughly 350 bowling centers in 2013 and 2014, they sought to transform them into young, hip entertainment centers, a project that led to massive terminations of older employees and rehiring of much younger replacements nationwide. Bowling center managers were instructed by the Defendants' top management to manage out older employees by harassing and closely scrutinizing them, looking for purported pretextual justifications to discharge an employee they felt was too old in appearance to be part of the new Bowlero image. The Plaintiffs allege that CEO Tom Shannon and his inner circle made most employment decisions, including two to three minute interviews over Skype that were known to be beauty contests to screen out older applicants. The Defendants allegedly instructed candidates to furnish high school graduation dates and photographs to screen out older persons. The Plaintiffs allege that 87 percent of managers were terminated shortly after the Defendants acquired the centers, with most replaced by persons under 40 years old. The 76 Plaintiffs were employed at local bowling centers in 18 different states. At the time of their termination, the Plaintiffs had been employed at their respective bowling centers for an average of 18 years and averaged 54 years of age. All 76 Plaintiffs filed individual Charges of Discrimination with the EEOC. After its six-year investigation, the EEOC found reasonable cause existed in 57 of the 76 cases. The Court addressed the Defendants' argument that the claims of 64 plaintiffs are time-barred. To be timely, a charge must be filed within 300 days of the date on which the plaintiff receives notice of termination. The Plaintiffs admit that there were instances where a Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination more than 300 days from the date of termination. The statute of limitations is triggered by the date of termination, not the date of discovery. The Court found that 63 Plaintiffs filed their EEOC Charges outside the 300-day window from their termination dates. Many Plaintiffs waited several years to bring their Charges to the EEOC. If allegations that most Plaintiffs were confused as to why they were suddenly being discharged or stunned that they were being discharged given their exemplary performance are accepted as true, it demonstrates their lack of diligence. The Plaintiffs assert they are entitled to equitable tolling. Equitable tolling is only appropriate in rare and exceptional circumstances, in which a party is prevented in some extraordinary way from exercising his rights. The Plaintiffs assert that given the Defendants' nationwide scheme to terminate employees based upon age, Plaintiffs in one state would have no knowledge of a terminated employee in another state. The Court found that the presence of multiple plaintiffs across many states does not indicate, standing alone, that the Defendants acted in a misleading way so as to prevent an employee from learning they were fired because of age. The Court held that the presence of pretext is not a basis for tolling, otherwise virtually every ADEA case would be subject to tolling. Because no Plaintiff has adequately alleged that the Defendants actively misled them in a manner that prevented them from timely asserting their claims, they are not entitled to equitable tolling. Therefore, the claims of the 63 Plaintiffs who are time-barred are dismissed with prejudice. The ADEA makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's age. To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must plausibly allege that the employer took adverse employment action and that such action would not have occurred but for his age. The Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed for failing to allege that the stated reason was a pretext for age discrimination. The Court held that the determination of whether an employer's stated reason was a pretext for the alleged discriminatory conduct is relevant only to summary judgment. McDonnell Douglas is an evidentiary standard, not a pleading standard. Plaintiff Weimer alleges that he was terminated on February 26, 2016, when he was 56 years old. He alleges that he was a highly successful manager and never had a negative annual review or blemish on his performance record in his 25 years of employment. Weimer alleges that he was replaced by a 24-year-old male. The EEOC found that Weimer had been discharged because of age in violation of the ADEA. The Court found that Weimer's allegations are enough to satisfy the pleading standard. Plaintiff Reese alleges that he was 64 years old when he was fired and that Mr. Hall, his counterpart who was retained, was approximately 30 years younger and significantly less experienced. Bolstered by the EEOC's findings that Reese's termination was a pretext for age discrimination, the Complaint contains sufficient facts to make plausible that but for his age Plaintiff Reese would still be employed. Plaintiff Kelly alleges that he was constructively terminated on April 8, 2017, when he was 53 years old after working for the same bowling center for 26 years. The EEOC found that the Defendants' explanation for his discharge was a pretext for age discrimination. Kelly also asserts that he was replaced by the boyfriend of his general manager who was much younger than him. These allegations, taken together, are enough to withstand the Defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiff Gaskey alleges that she was unlawfully managed out on October 31, 2023, when she was 48 years old. She alleges that after management became aware of her actual age, she began to receive write-ups over inconsequential details while her younger colleagues were not given write-ups for the same conduct. At the time of her termination, she was the best performing salesperson and all the other salespersons in her group were between 22 and 28 years old. Gaskey has sufficiently pleaded an age discrimination claim. Rule 25 provides that if a motion for substitution is not made within 90 days after service of a statement noting the death, the action by or against the decedent must be dismissed. Because the Plaintiffs' counsel noted Marino's death on the record on November 20, 2024, the 90-day period for substitution has long since elapsed. The Court dismissed Marino's claim with prejudice. The Defendants' motion is granted as to the claims of the 63 Plaintiffs who are time-barred, the four Plaintiffs who failed to state a claim (Synol, Boniol, Parlette, and McBride), and the deceased Plaintiff Marino. The Defendants' motion is denied as to the eight Plaintiffs who have sufficiently pleaded their claim: Weimer, Reese, Kelly, Gaskey, Nilsen, Matthew Schneider, Tracy Schneider, and Tanase. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CWzCM0 From PacerMonitor.com BOWTECH LLC: Santarlas Suit Transferred to D. Colorado ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Joseph Santarlas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Bowtech, LLC, Hoyt Archery, Inc., Mathews Archery, Inc., Precision Shooting Equipment, Inc, BPS Direct LLC doing business as: Bass Pro Shops, Cabela's LLC, Dicks Sporting Goods, Inc., Jays Sporting Goods, Inc. doing business as: Jays Sporting Goods, Inc., Kinseys Outdoors, Inc., Lancaster Archery Supply, Inc., Archery Trade Association, Inc., NeuIntel LLC doing business as: PriceSpider formerly known as: Oris Intelligence, Trackstreet, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00436 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on Nov. 12, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-03620-PAB-TPO to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. Bowtech Archery -- https://bowtecharchery.com/ -- offers premium archery equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason L. Lichtman, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP 250 Hudson St., 8th Fl. New York, NY 10013 Phone: (212) 355-9500 - and - Abiel Garcia, Esq. Amy T. Brantly, Esq. David W. Kesselman, Esq. KESSELMAN BRANTLY STOCKINGER LLP 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 400 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Phone: (310) 307-4555 Fax: (310) 307-4570 Email: agarcia@kbslaw.com abrantly@kbslaw.com dkesselman@kbslaw.com - and - Gary I. Smith, Jr., Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 580 California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 633-1908 Fax: (415) 633-4980 Email: gsmith@hausfeld.com - and - In Kyung Shin, Esq. William M. Hanna, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1200 17th Street NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 540-7200 Fax: (202) 540-7201 Email: jshin@hausfeld.com whanna@hausfeld.com BRAUN MEDICAL: Scheduling Order Entered in Antiporta Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NORMA ANTIPORTA, v. B. BRAUN MEDICAL INC., et al., Case No. 8:24-cv-01457-SRM-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Murillo entered a scheduling order as follows: On April 28, 2025, the Court issued the Scheduling Order -- Class Action, which contained scheduling conflicts regarding the class certification briefing and hearing dates. On October 30, 2025, the Defendant filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to Dismissal of Class Allegations. Since then, the parties have filed two more filings. One disputes whether Plaintiff Norma Antiporta's class claims should be dismissed for failing to file a class certification motion, and the other questions whether the Scheduling Order should be modified to reflect new, non-conflicting dates. The Court has reviewed the Scheduling Order and the parties’ recent filings. The Court declines to dismiss the class claims due to the error regarding the class certification briefing and hearing dates. The Defendant develops, manufactures, and markets innovative medical products and services. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=M9cJgq at no extra charge.[CC] CAREPRO HEALTH: Agrees to Settle 2023 Data Breach Suit for $1.3MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Alder of HIPAA Journal reports the Iowa-based healthcare company, CarePro Health Services, has agreed to pay $1.3 million to settle class action litigation stemming from a November 2023 cyberattack and data breach affecting up to 151,499 individuals. The cyberattack that triggered the lawsuit was first identified by CarePro on November 16, 2023. Unauthorized individuals remotely accessed a system where unencrypted patient data was stored. Files containing patients' protected health information were exfiltrated from the network before the intrusion was detected and blocked. Data compromised in the incident included names, contact information, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers/state ID numbers, financial account information, and medical/health information. The affected individuals were offered complimentary credit monitoring and identity theft protection services. A lawsuit was filed shortly after notifications were mailed to the affected individuals by CarePro patient Brandi Bell, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals. The lawsuit was soon followed by another complaint filed by Brandie Keegan, individually and on behalf of her minor child, and similarly situated individuals. The lawsuits were consolidated into a single complaint, Bell et al. v. C.R. Pharmacy Services, Inc. d/b/a CarePro Health Services -- in the Iowa District Court for Linn County. The lawsuit claimed that the plaintiffs suffered concrete injuries as a direct result of the data breach, including invasion of privacy, lost or diminished value of private information, lost time and opportunity costs, and loss of benefit of the bargain. The plaintiffs' and class members' personal and protected health information remain in the hands of cybercriminals, placing them at an increased risk of identity theft and fraud for years to come. The plaintiffs claim that the data breach could have and should have been prevented, as the defendant failed to implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity measures to protect patient data, recklessly maintaining patient information. The lawsuit asserted claims of negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidence, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy-intrusion upon seclusion, and violations of the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act and Iowa Personal Information Security Breach Protection Act. CarePro denies all liability and wrongdoing and disagrees with all claims and contentions in the lawsuit. All parties agreed that further litigation, a trial, and any related appeals would likely be protracted and expensive and involve risks and uncertainties for all parties, so the decision was taken to settle the litigation. It took several months of negotiations; however, a settlement has been agreed upon that is acceptable to all parties. The settlement includes three benefits for class members, which will be paid for from a $1,300,000 settlement fund after attorneys' fees and expenses, class representative service awards, and settlement administration costs have been deducted. A claim may be submitted for reimbursement of documented, unreimbursed losses due to the data breach up to a maximum of $5,000 per class member. In addition to or instead of a claim for reimbursement of losses, class members may claim a pro rata cash payment, which is expected to be $100 per class member. The cash payment will be adjusted upwards or downwards depending on the number of valid claims received. All class members are also entitled to claim two years of three-bureau credit monitoring, dark web monitoring, and identity theft protection services. The cost of the credit monitoring services will be deducted from the settlement fund before the cash payments are calculated. The deadline for exclusion from and opting out of the settlement is December 3, 2025. Claims must be submitted by December 3, 2025, and the final fairness hearing has been scheduled for January 23, 2025. [GN] CARTER'S RETAIL: Christensen Seeks Class Settlement Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHAN CHRISTENSEN and ISABELLA FULLI, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. CARTER'S RETAIL, INC., a Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, Case No. 8:20-cv-00776-HDV-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Dec. 4, 2025, will move the Court for entry of an Order: 1. Finally certifying the proposed class for settlement purposes only pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 2. Appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives for purposes of settlement; 3. Approving Timothy Del Castillo and Lisa Bradner of Castle Law: California Employment Counsel, P.C.; and Norman Blumenthal, Kyle Nordrehaug, Aparajit Bhowmik, Victoria Rivapalacio, and Charlotte James of Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP; and Daniel Richardson of Richardson Employment Law, P.C., as class counsel; 4. Finally approving the settlement as fair, adequate, and reasonable, based upon the terms set forth in the parties' Class and Representative Action Settlement Agreement and Release, including payment by Defendant Carter's Retail, Inc. of the non-reversionary gross settlement amount of $660,000.00; 5. Approving class representative service payments in an amount of $7,500.00 for Nathan Christensen and $7,500.00 for Isabella Fulli from the Gross Settlement Amount to compensate them for the responsibilities, time, effort, and risks involved in coming forward on behalf of the class; 6. Approving the allocation of $160,000.00 for penalties pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, of which 75% (i.e., $120,000.00) shall be paid to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency from the Gross Settlement Amount, with the remaining 25% (i.e., $40,000.00) payable to the aggrieved employees; and 7. Approving settlement administration costs in the amount of $23,123.00 payable to Simpluris, Inc.. Carter's retails clothing and accessories. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CLs58z at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel E. Richardson, Esq. RICHARDSON EMPLOYMENT LAW, P.C. 2281 Lava Ridge Ct., Suite 200 Roseville, CA 95661 Telephone: (916) 333-7959 Facsimile: (916) 333-7916 E-mail: dr@richardsonemploymentlaw.com - and - Timothy B. Del Castillo, Esq. Lisa L. Bradner, Esq. CASTLE LAW: CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT COUNSEL, PC 2999 Douglas Blvd, Suite 180 Roseville, CA 95661 Telephone: (916) 245-0122 E-mail: tdc@castleemploymentlaw.com lb@castleemploymentlaw.com - and - Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq. Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq. Charlotte E. James, Esq. BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 CENTENE CORPORATION: Clark Sues Over ERISA Violation ---------------------------------------------------- Victoria Clark, individually and as representative of a class of participants and beneficiaries and on behalf of the Centene Management Corporation Retirement Plan v. CENTENE CORPORATION; FIDELITY MANAGEMENT TRUST COMPANY; FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INSTIUTIONAL; and STRATEGIC ADVISORS, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-09743-KAW (N.D. Cal., Nov. 12, 2025), is brought arising out of Defendants wrongful conduct in connection with employees' 401k retirement plan in violation the Employment Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). The Defendants paid prohibited and excessive fees to parties in interest, used forfeited plan assets to reduce its employer contribution obligations, rather than for the benefit of plan participants, and failed to properly monitor the Plan's management and administration, in violation of the ERISA and Defendants' fiduciary responsibilities. In this action, Plaintiff seeks damages in connection with Defendants' wrongful conduct in misusing and mismanaging Plan assets., says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Centene Management Company LLC, and was participating in the Plan. The Centene Management Corporation Retirement Plan is a defined contribution, individual account, employee pension benefit plan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua H. Haffner, Esq. Alfredo Torrijos, Esq. Vahan Mikayelyan, Esq. HAFFNER LAW PC 15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1520 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Phone: (213) 514-5681 Fax: (213) 514-5682 Email: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com at@haffnerlawyers.com vh@haffnerlawyers.com - and - Shaun C. Setareh, Esq. Thomas A. Segal, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 9665 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 430 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: (310) 888.7771 Facsimile: (310) 888.0109 Email: shaun@setarehlaw.com thomas@setarehlaw.com CENTENE CORPORATION: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Dec. 18, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MONA SAMUEL SAMPSON AND ORLANDO SAMUEL, personal representative of the Estate of HARRY SAMUEL, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. CENTENE CORPORATION, CENTURION OF DELAWARE LLC, VITALCORE HEALTH STRATEGIES, & MEDICAL DIRECTOR DR. AWELE MADUKA-EZEH, Case No. 1:23-cv-01134-GBW-SRF (D. Del.), the Court entered an order regarding modifications to the scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline Motions to join additional class Feb. 19, 2026 representatives: Class certification document production Feb. 19, 2025 substantial completion deadline: Class certification fact discovery deadline: Nov. 13, 2026 Class certification disclosure of expert May 13, 2026 testimony Disclosures for party with initial burden: Class certification rebuttal expert testimony: Aug. 14, 2026 Class certification reply expert reports: Oct. 15, 2026 Daubert Motions: Dec. 18, 2026 Motion for class certification: Dec. 18, 2026 Centene is an American for-profit healthcare company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6nhgjL at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew R. Ralli, Esq. Lindsay DeCarlo, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 500 Delaware Ave., Suite 700 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-9447 E-mail: Andrew.Ralli@lewisbrisbois.com Lindsay.DeCarlo@lewisbrisbois.com - and - Daniel A. Griffith, Esq. Susan L. Burke, Esq. WHITEFORD TAYLOR PRESTON LLC Courthouse Square 600 North King St., Suite 300 Wilmington, DE 19801-3700 Telephone: (302) 357-3254 E-mail: dgriffith@wtplaw.com sburke@wtplaw.com - and - Dwayne Julian Bensing, Esq. ACLE-DE 100 W. 10 Street, Suite 706 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (215) 200-50205 E-mail: dbensing@aclu-de.org The Defendants are represented by: Dawn C. Doherty, Esq. Brett T. Norton, Esq. MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN, DOHERTY & KELLY, P.C. 300 Delaware Ave., Suite 900 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 658-6538 E-mail: Ddoherty@moodklaw.com Bnorton@moodklaw.com - and - Michael J. Bentley, Esq. Erin D. Saltaformaggio, Esq. BRADLEY, ARANT, BOULT, CUMMINGS LLP 188 E. Capitol St. Suite 100, One Jackson Place Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 948-8000 E-mail: Mbentley@bradley.com - and - James D. Taylor, Jr., Esq. Ryan M. Jerome, Esq. SAUL EWING LLP 1201 N. Market St., Suite 2300 Wilmington, DE 19899 Telephone: (302) 421-6800 E-mail: james.taylor@saul.com ryan.jerome@saul.com - and - Marisa R. De Feo, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 3411 Silverside Road, Suite 104B #203 Wilmington, DE 19810 Telephone: (302) 506-8036 E-mail: marisa.defeo@huschblackwell.com CERNER CORP: Faces Wright Suit Over Clients' Compromised Info ------------------------------------------------------------- TRACY WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CERNER CORPORATION D/B/A ORACLE HEALTH INC. and LIFEBRIDGE HEALTH, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-03613 (D. Md., November 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, violations of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within Oracle Health/Cerner systems following a data breach as early as January 22, 2025. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Cerner Corporation, doing business as Oracle Health Inc., is an electronic health records (EHR) company, with its principal place of business in Kansas City, Missouri. LifeBridge Health, Inc. is a healthcare provider, with its principal place of business in Owings Mills, Maryland. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com CERNER CORP: Walker Sues Over Clients' Compromised Info ------------------------------------------------------- JERRY WALKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CERNER CORPORATION D/B/A ORACLE HEALTH INC. and SAPPHIRE COMMUNITY HEALTH, INC., Defendants, Case No. 9:25-cv-00188-KLD (D. Mont., November 6, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within Oracle Health/Cerner systems following a data breach as early as January 22, 2025. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Cerner Corporation, doing business as Oracle Health Inc., is an electronic health records (EHR) company, with its principal place of business in Kansas City, Missouri. Sapphire Community Health, Inc. is a healthcare provider, with its principal place of business in Montana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Heenan, Esq. HEENAN & COOK 1631 Zimmerman Trail Billings, MT 59101 Telephone: (406) 839-9091 Email: john@lawmontana.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com CITRUS HEIGHTS: Well Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Citrus Heights Community Healthcare, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Shari Well, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Citrus Heights Community Healthcare, LLC, Does 1 to 10, Case No. 25CV027176 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Nov. 12, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Citrus Heights Health Center -- https://citrusheightshealth.org/ -- offers both therapy and rehabilitation along with skilled nursing located in Covina, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nidah Farishta, Esq OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, ALC 28632 Roadside Dr, Ste 203 Agoura Hills, CA 91301-6015 Phone: (818) 293-5623 Fax: (888) 850-1310 Email: nidah@olfla.com CLARK COUNTY, IL: Parties Must File Joint Status Report by Dec. 3 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Herrera v. Clark County IL., Case No. 3:24-cv-01137 (S.D. Ill., Filed April 18, 2024), the Hon. Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel entered an order that the parties to file a joint status report by Dec. 3, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Clark is a county located in the southeastern part of U.S. state of Illinois.[CC] CMRE FINANCIAL: Mokled Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against CMRE Financial Services Inc. The case is styled as Jean Mokled, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CMRE Financial Services Inc., Case No. 0:25-cv-62271-WPD (S.D. Fla., Nov. 10, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. CMRE Financial Services, Inc. has been providing collection and A/R management services exclusively for the healthcare industry for over four decades.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald Donald Lane, Jr., Esq. Zane Charles Hedaya, Esq. Mitchell David Hansen, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com mitchell@jibraellaw.com COATING EXCELLENCE: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due August 1, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON BURTON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. COATING EXCELLENCE INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00898-BBC (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Conway entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. Initial disclosures are to be exchanged between the parties no later than Jan. 9, 2026, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1). These documents are not to be filed with the court. 2. Amendments to the pleadings are due no later than Jan. 9, 2026. 3. On or before May 1, 2026, the Plaintiff will file a motion for court-authorized notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), and the briefing schedule will comply with Civil L.R. 7. 4. On or before Aug. 1, 2026, the Plaintiff will file a motion for class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and the briefing schedule will comply with Civil L.R. 7. 5. Motions for summary judgment must comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and Civil L.R. 7 and a deadline will be determined following the disposition of the Plaintiff's motion for Court authorized notice and class certification. Coating manufactures flexible packaging and technical products. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2OOYbp at no extra charge.[CC] COLUMBIA RECYCLING: $1.062MM Settlement Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Osvaldo de la Fuente and Victor Hugo Tapia Romero, v. Columbia Recycling Corp. and Gold Pond Corp.; and Total Employee Solution Support, LLC. Case No. 4:25-cv-00256-WMR (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge William Ray II entered a final order and judgment granting final approval of class settlement. The Court possesses subject matter jurisdiction over this Action and to approve the Settlement Agreement, and has personal jurisdiction over the Named Plaintiffs, Defendants, and all Settlement Class Members. The Court has reviewed all declarations and evidence submitted in support of the Unopposed Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs and finds that the fees and costs sought by Plaintiffs are reasonable under the analysis prescribed by Eleventh Circuit law and under Rule 23(h). The Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs is granted. As set forth in the Settlement Agreement, the Court certified the following Rule 23 Settlement Classes and Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective Action Subclasses: A. FLSA Collective Action Subclass I: "All TN visa holders employed by one or more Defendant(s) who suffered underpayment of overtime at the rate of one- and-a-half times the regular rate of pay, including employer-provided transportation, housing, and non- discretionary bonuses." B. FLSA Collective Action Subclass II: "All TN visa holders employed by one or more Defendant(s) who suffered underpayment of overtime at the rate of one- and-a-half times the mandated regular rate of pay in the Defendant Columbia Recycling Corp[oration]'s job offers." C. Rule 23 Class: "All individuals who, between Nov. 18, 2016, and the present, (1) received wages from Defendant CRC and/or Defendant GPC; and (2) were TN visa holders." Each Named Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated Article III standing and satisfied Rule 23(a)(4)’s adequacy prerequisite, and each is appointed as a representative of the Settlement Class. Class Counsel has secured a settlement of Plaintiffs' claims on a class wide basis for significant monetary relief of $1,062,500.00. The Court finds that Rule 23(e)(2)(C)(iii) also favors approval of the Agreement. Rule 23(e)(2)(C)(iii) calls the Court's attention to "terms of any proposed award of attorney's fees." Class Counsel filed their Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs on October 13, 2025. At the time Class Counsel filed their motion for fees and costs, Class Counsels' total attorneys' fees, based on the lodestar, were $560,738.00, and case costs were $7,337.64. The Motion sought $478,500 for attorneys' fees and costs. Columbia specializes in synthetic fiber extrusion and pelletization. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xfe9vC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel Werner, Esq. Zachary Panter, Esq. James Radford, Esq. RADFORD SCOTT, LLP 125 Clairemont Ave., Suite 380 Decatur, GA 30030 - and – Christopher B. Hall, Esq. HALL & LAMPROS LLP 300 Galleria Parkway, Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30339 - and – Rachel Berlin Benjamin, Esq. Brian J. Sutherland, Esq. BEAL SUTHERLAND BERLIN & BROWN, LLC 2200 Century Parkway NE, Suite 100 Atlanta, GA 30345 COMERICA INC: M&A Probes Sale to Fifth Third Bancorp ---------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating -- Comerica Incorporated (NYSE: CMA) related to its sale to Fifth Third Bancorp. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Comerica shareholders will receive 1.8663 Fifth Third shares for each Comerica share. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/comerica-incorporated/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Heritage Financial Corporation (NASDAQ: HFWA) related to its merger with Olympic Bancorp, Inc. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, Heritage shareholders will own approximately 82.6% of the combined company. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/heritage-financial-corporation/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Compass, Inc. (NYSE: COMP) related to its merger with Anywhere Real Estate Inc. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, current Compass shareholders will own approximately 78% of the combined company. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/compass-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Anywhere Real Estate Inc. (NYSE: HOUS) related to its sale to Compass Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Anywhere shareholders will receive 1.436 shares of Compass Class A common stock per share of Anywhere common stock. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, current Anywhere shareholders will own approximately 22% of the combined company. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/anywhere-real-estate-inc/ . It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] COUGAR COLUMBIA: Wilkinson Suit Removed to D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Robert Wilkinson, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly-situated individuals v. Cougar Columbia H, LLC, d/b/a Midlands Honda, Case No. 2025-CP-40-6816 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas for the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Richland County, South Carolina, to the United States District Court for District of South Carolina on Nov. 10, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-13354-MGL. The only cause of action alleged in the Complaint is for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Phillips L. McWilliams, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 1320 Main Street, Suite 750 Columbia, SC 29201 Phone: (803) 255-0000 Facsimile: (803) 255-0202 Email: pmcwilliams@fisherphillips.com CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Brandon Sues Over Uncompensated Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------- Sierra Brandon, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, Case No. 2:25-cv-13568-RJW-KGA (E.D. Mich., Nov. 10, 2025), is brought arises out of Defendant's systemic failure to compensate its employees for all hours worked, including overtime hours worked at the appropriate overtime rate, in willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and common law. The Plaintiff and the Agents routinely worked 40 hours or more per week before accounting for their off-the-clock work. When the off-the clock work is included, Plaintiff and the Agents, even those Agents who were scheduled and paid for only 40 hours per week, worked over 40 hours per week without the required overtime premium for all time worked over 40 hours. The Defendant, through its managers, had actual and constructive knowledge that its Agents were completing this off-the-clock work without compensation. Nevertheless, Defendant suffered or permitted, and in fact trained and required, its Agents to complete this unpaid work. The Defendant is liable for its failure to pay its Agents for all work performed, and at the appropriate overtime rate for hours worked in excess of 40 per week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a remote collections agent from October 2024 to June 2025. The Defendant is a company that specializes in providing auto insurance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ PC One Towne Sq., 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: (248) 355-0300 Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com CUSTOMIZED DISTRIBUTION: "Newbern" Settlement Gets Prelim Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Steven Newbern, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Customized Distribution Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-03871-RJD (S.D. Ill.), Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted preliminary approval to a class action settlement. The Court reviewed the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, the Parties' Class Action Settlement Agreement, and the exhibits and attachments to the Motion and the Settlement Agreement. Subject to further consideration at the time of final approval, the Court preliminarily approved the Parties' Settlement as falling within the range of possible final approval and as meriting notice to the individuals on the Settlement Class List for their consideration. The Court found that the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate, the Settlement Agreement was negotiated at arm's length by experienced counsel acting in good faith, including through a mediation with a highly experienced mediator, and the Settlement Agreement was reached as a result of those negotiations. The Court further found there has been adequate opportunity for experienced counsel to evaluate the claims and risks at this stage of the litigation, and the Court will likely be able to approve the Settlement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2). For settlement purposes only, the Court found that the prerequisites to class action treatment under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, superiority, and predominance, have been preliminarily satisfied. The Court conditionally certified, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3), and for the purposes of settlement only, a Settlement Class consisting of all individuals who worked for Defendant Customized Distribution Services, Inc. in Illinois and used a timekeeping system that captured a portion of their fingertip during the class period of January 31, 2019, to the date of the entry of the Preliminary Approval Order. Excluded from the Settlement Class List are (a) all individuals who executed a CDS Biometric Information Privacy Employee Consent Form prior to using Defendant's timekeeping system; (b) the Court and staff to whom this case is assigned and any member of the Court's or staff's immediate family; and (c) any individual who has previously signed a general release of claims against Defendant or who has already released their claims previously asserted in any Related Actions that have been dismissed prior to this Agreement's Effective Date. For settlement purposes only, the Court preliminarily found that the Parties' Settlement Agreement and the proposed Settlement Class satisfy all of the prerequisites to maintenance of a class action listed in Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and (b)(3). The members of the Settlement Class are so numerous that joinder is impracticable. There are issues of law and fact common to the Settlement Class Members' claims. The Plaintiff's claims are typical of the claims of the Settlement Class Members. The Plaintiff and Class Counsel have and will continue to fairly and adequately represent the interests of the Settlement Class Members. Common issues, including whether Defendant violated Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act, predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the Settlement Class, and settlement of this action on a class basis is superior to other means of resolving the Litigation. For settlement purposes only, the Plaintiff Steven Newbern was appointed as Class Representative and counsel Evan M. Meyers and Andrew T. Heldut of McGuire Law, P.C. were appointed as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(g). The Court found that the Plaintiff and Class Counsel have and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class because the interests of the Plaintiff are consistent with those of Settlement Class Members, there appear to be no conflicts between or among the Plaintiff and the Settlement Class Members, the Plaintiff has been and appears to be capable of continuing to be an active participant in both the prosecution and the settlement of this litigation, and the Plaintiff and the Settlement Class Members are represented by qualified, reputable counsel who are experienced in prosecuting consumer privacy class action cases, including those concerning violations of BIPA. The Court approved the plan for notifying the individuals on the Settlement Class List as set forth in the Settlement Agreement and found that the Notice provides the best notice practicable under the circumstances of this Settlement. The Court further found that the Parties' proposed Notice satisfies Due Process, such that the Settlement Agreement will be binding on all Settlement Class Members upon final approval. The Court found that the proposed Notice is clearly designed to advise the individuals on the Settlement Class List of their rights and meets all applicable requirements of law, including Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1715. Simpluris, Inc. was appointed Settlement Administrator to supervise and administer the notice process, as well as to oversee the administration of the Settlement. The Settlement Administrator shall begin disseminating Notice no later than thirty days from entry of this Order. The Court approved the establishment of the Settlement Fund, in the amount of $900 multiplied by the final number of Settlement Class Members, which shall be funded and administered as a Qualified Settlement Fund in accordance with Treasury Regulation Section 1.468B-1 and the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Class Counsel may file a motion seeking an award of attorneys' fees of no more than thirty-six percent of the Settlement Fund, plus reasonable costs and litigations expenses, as well as a Service Award for the Class Representative in an amount not to exceed $6,000.00, no later than twenty-one days prior to the Exclusion and Objection Deadline. A Final Approval Hearing shall be held before the Court on March 16, 2026 at 1:00 p.m. A copy of the court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=g60SPX from PacerMonitor.com CUSTOMIZED DISTRIBUTION: Settlement in Newbern Gets Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN NEWBERN, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, v. CUSTOMIZED DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, Case No. 3:23-cv-03871-RJD (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Daly entered a preliminary approval order as follows: 1. The Court conditionally certifies, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3), and for the purposes of settlement only, a Settlement Class consisting of the individuals on the Settlement Class List attached to the Settlement Agreement who do not timely and validly elect to exclude themselves from the Settlement Class. The Settlement Class List includes: "All individuals who worked for the Defendant Customized Distribution Services, Inc. ("CDS") in Illinois and used a timekeeping system that captured a portion of their fingertip during the class period of Jan. 31, 2019, to the date of the entry of the Preliminary Approval Order." Excluded from the Settlement Class List are (a) all individuals who executed a CDS "Biometric Information Privacy Employee Consent Form" prior to using the Defendant's timekeeping system; (b) the Court and staff to whom this case is assigned and any member of the Court's or staff's immediate family; and (c) any individual who has previously signed a general release of claims against Defendant or who has already released their claims previously asserted in any Related Actions that have been dismissed prior to this Agreement's Effective Date. 2. The Plaintiff Steven Newbern is appointed as Class Representative. 3. The Court approves the establishment of the Settlement Fund, in the amount of $900 multiplied by the final number of Settlement Class Members, which shall be funded and administered as a Qualified Settlement Fund in accordance with Treasury Regulation section 1.468B-1, 26 C.F.R. section 1.468B-1 and the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 4. A Final Approval Hearing shall be held before the Court on March 16, 2026 at 1:00 p.m. Customized operates as a third party logistics company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=a1F82u at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Heldut, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55. W. Wacker Dr., 9th Fl. Chicago, IL 60601 E-mail: aheldut@mcgpc.com The Defendant is represented by: Lillian T. Manning, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 600 Washington Avenue, Suite 900 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 659-2000 E-mail: lmanning@littler.com CWPVA INC: Girard Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CWPVA, Inc. The case is styled as Dominic Roche Girard, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. CWPVA, Inc. doing business as: Home Genius Exteriors, Case No. 1:25-cv-02450-CEF (N.D. Ohio, Nov. 12, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. CWPVA, Inc. doing business as Home Genius Exteriors -- https://homegeniusexteriors.com/ -- is a premier exterior home improvement contractor, specializing in roofing, siding, windows & doors, and gutters.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian T. Giles, Esq. GILES & HARPER-CINCINNATI 7247 Beechmont Avenue Cincinnati, OH 45230 Phone: (513) 379-2715 Email: bgiles@gilesharper.com DAVID A. NOVER: Cloyd Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII & PHI -------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Cloyd, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. DAVID A. NOVER, M.N., P.C., Case No. 2:25-cv-06363 (E.D. Pa., Nov. 11, 2025), is brought arising from its failure to safeguard certain personally identifying information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") (collectively "Private Information") of thousands of its current and former patients, resulting in Defendant's network systems being unauthorizedly accessed on or around June 3, 2025. According to the letter Defendant sent to its current and former patients informing them of the Data Breach (the "Breach Notice"), on June 3, 2025, "certain information" belonging to Plaintiff and the Class "may have been viewed and copied by an unauthorized individual." On information and belief, cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's Private Information. In short, Defendant's failures placed the Class's Private Information in a vulnerable position--rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals. On November 3, 2025--Jive months after the Data Breach first occurred--Defendant finally began notifying Class Members about the Data Breach. The exposure of one's Private Information to cybercriminals is a bell that cannot be unrung. Before this data breach, Defendant's current and former patients' Private Information was exactly that--private. Not anymore. Now, their Private Information is forever exposed and unsecure, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim. The Defendant is a psychiatry and psychotherapy practice based in Bucks County, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick Howard, Esq. SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY, P.C. 1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 575-3895 Email: phoward@smbb.com - and - Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: raina@straussborrelli.com DELTA AIR: $78.75MM Settlement in Frankie Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Frankie Lomas et al v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. et al. (Re: Delta Air Lines, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-00786-JAK-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Kronstadt entered an order granting joint motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement; Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of attorney's fees, expenses, and service awards. The following schedule is adopted: Event Date Settlement class notice to be disseminated: Dec. 8, 2025 Deadline for the Plaintiffs' motion for March 23, 2026 final approval, attorney's fees and expenses, and service awards: The evidence submitted in connection with the Fee Motion shows that, to date and including estimated future fees, the amount of attorney’s fees requested by Class Counsel are within a reasonable range under the percentage method, as confirmed by the lodestar cross-check. Therefore, an attorney's fees award in the range of $19,687,500 (25%) to $24,000,000 (30.5%) is preliminarily approved. In light of the evidence proffered, the pendency of this litigation over a five-year period, and the need to conduct extensive expert discovery in light of the technical complexities of this case, the costs sought are reasonable. Therefore, an award of litigation costs of $1,974,409.57 is preliminarily approved. The Settlement Agreement between Class Plaintiffs and Delta defines members of the "Class" as follows: "All persons who, on Jan. 14, 2020, owned, resided in, or rented one of the properties included on the list of affected residences prepared by John A. Kilpatrick." The class excludes counsel representing the class and all persons employed by said counsel, governmental entities, Delta Air Lines, Inc., its officers, directors, affiliates, legal representatives, employees, coconspirators, successors, subsidiaries, and assigns, any judicial officer presiding over this matter, the members of their immediate families and judicial staff, and any other individual whose interests are antagonistic to other class members, including class members who sold their properties after the incident without disclosing it to the purchaser in advance of the sale. The class also excludes any person who has filed a claim in court against Delta Air Lines, Inc. arising out of the Jan. 14, 2020 fuel jettison, other than the named plaintiffs in this action: Frankie Lomas, Roxanda Yancor, Jose Alvarado, and Maria Alvarado. The Settlement Agreement provides that the Total Settlement Fund4 is $78,750,000. The Total Settlement Fund may be used to pay for the following: attorney’s fees of counsel for the Class of up to $24,000,000; service awards to the four Class Plaintiffs of up to $60,000 collectively, i.e., $15,000 for each Named Plaintiff; litigation costs of up to $2,000,000, and Settlement Administration Costs of up to $2,100,000. Assuming that these fees, costs and awards are approved, the Net Settlement Fund available to the Settlement Class will be $50,590,000. Delta is a commercial airline that operates flights. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nuxviu at no extra charge.[CC] DENNY'S CORP: M&A Investigates Sale to TriArtisan Capital --------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2024 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. We are headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and are investigating -- Denny's Corporation (NASDAQ: DENN) related to its sale to group consisting of TriArtisan Capital Advisors LLC, Treville Capital Group, and Yadav Enterprises, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Denny's shareholders will receive $6.25 per share in cash. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/dennys-corporation/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Electronic Systems Technology, Inc. (OTCMKTS: ELST) related to its merger with Lifeloc Technologies, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, each outstanding share of common stock of Electronic Systems will be converted into the right to receive shares of common stock of Lifeloc pursuant to an exchange ratio. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/electronic-systems-technology-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Avadel Pharmaceuticals plc (NASDAQ: AVDL) related to its sale to Alkermes plc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Avadel shareholders will receive $18.50 per share, plus a non-transferable contingent value right entitling holders to a potential additional cash payment of $1.50 per share, contingent upon final FDA approval of LUMRY for the treatment of idiopathic hypersomnia in adults by the end of 2028. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/avadel-pharmaceuticals-plc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Cadence Bank (NYSE: CADE) related to its sale to Huntington Bancshares Incorporated. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Cadence shareholders will receive 2.47 shares of Huntington common stock for each share of Cadence common stock. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/cadence-bank/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com [GN] DES MOINES: Donnelly Appeals Denied Remand Bid to 8th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS DONNELLY is taking an appeal from a court order denying his motion to remand in the lawsuit entitled Dennis Donnelly, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Des Moines Register and Tribune Company, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-00150-RGE, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the District Court for Polk County, Iowa, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, is brought against the Defendants for alleged intentional misrepresentation and consumer fraud under the Iowa Consumer Fraud statute. On May 23, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand to State Court or in the alternative for jurisdictional discovery, which Judge Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger denied on Oct. 22, 2025. The appellate case is entitled Dennis Donnelly v. Des Moines Register, et al., Case No. 25-8012, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on November 3, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner DENNIS DONNELLY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Robert Richard Anderson, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT R. ANDERSON 1001 E. Sixth Street P.O. Box 4 Atlantic, IA 50022 Telephone: (515) 382-1278 - and - Daniel Robert Suhr, Esq. NATIONAL CENTER FOR JUSTICE & LIBERTY 747 N. Jackson Street, Suite 210 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (414) 588-1658 Defendants-Respondents DES MOINES REGISTER AND TRIBUNE COMPANY, INC., et al. are represented by: Robert Corn-Revere, Esq. FOUNDATION FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND EXPRESSION 700 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E., Suite 340 Washington, DC 20003 Telephone: (215) 717-3473 - and - Nicholas A. Klinefeldt, Esq. FAEGRE & DRINKER 801 Grand Avenue, 33rd Floor Des Moines, IA 50309 Telephone: (515) 248-9000 DONALD TRUMP: Must File Class Cert Reply by Dec. 1 -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LESLY MIOT, et al., v. DONALD TRUMP, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-02471 (D.D.C., Filed July 30, 2025), the Hon. Judge Ana C. Reyes entered an order that Defendants may file a 5-page sur-reply with respect to Motion to Certify Class by Dec. 1, 2025, at 12 p.m. The suit alleges violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Donald Trump is an American politician, media personality, and businessman.[CC] DOORDASH INC: Divney Appeals Arbitration Order to 2nd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------- KRISTINE DIVNEY is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Kristine Divney, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DoorDash, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-5708, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit, which was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, is brought against the Defendants for automatic enrollment of the Plaintiff and similarly situated in DoorDash's "DashPass" subscription service without their consent. On Aug. 18, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay case, which Judge Margaret M. Garnett granted on Oct. 9, 2025. The case is stayed pending arbitration. The appellate case is entitled Divney v. DoorDash, Inc., Case No. 25-2791, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on November 3, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant KRISTINE DIVNEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Michael J.S Pontone, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL J.S. PONTONE, ESQ. P.C. 233 Broadway, Suite 2340 New York, NY 10279 Defendants-Appellees DOORDASH, INC., et al. are represented by: Esther Lifshitz, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 - and - Alan E. Schoenfeld, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 7 World Trade Center 250 Greenwich Street New York, NY 10007 DOXIMITY INC: Seeks Leave to File Sur Reply in Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Doximity, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:24-cv-02281-NW (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for leave to file the attached sur-reply to address new arguments and evidence presented in the Plaintiff's reply memorandum in support of its motion for class certification and appointment of class representatives and class counsel. The Defendants requested Lead Plaintiff's consent to the filing of a sur-reply; Lead Plaintiff declined. The Lead Plaintiff sandbagged the Defendants with new arguments on reply and submitted an extensive supplemental expert report with voluminous exhibits. A sur-reply is both warranted and supported by precedent in these circumstances. A short sur-reply would ensure fairness to the parties and provide the Court with a complete record on which to rule on Lead Plaintiff’s motion for class certification. The Defendants' proposed sur-reply is narrowly tailored to address the new evidence and arguments that Defendants have not had an opportunity to adder On Aug. 12, 2025, Lead Plaintiff filed its motion to certify the putative class, relying on the fraud-on the-market presumption of reliance under Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988). On Nov. 10, 2025, the Defendants deposed Dr. Cain, testimony and exhibits from which were not available to either party when the Reply was filed. Doximity operates as a digital platform for medical professionals in the United States. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NzZMrO at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Stephen Blake, Esq. Hilary Wong, Esq. Camille Victoria Bole, Esq. Jonathan K. Youngwood, Esq. Batoul Husain, Esq. SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 2475 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 251-5000 Facsimile: (650) 251-5002 E-mail: sblake@stblaw.com hilary.wong@stblaw.com camille.boler@stblaw.com jyoungwood@stblaw.com batoul.husain@stblaw.com EDFINANCIAL SERVICES: Bailey Seeks to Certify Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PHILIP BAILEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. EDFINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-00144-WMR-JHR (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class action. EdFinancial is a financial company which provides student loans. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mUgUP8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Francis, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. Lauren KW Brennan, Esq. Jordan M. Sartell, Esq. Maria del Pilar Castillo, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 Facsimile: (215) 940-8000 E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com jsartell@consumerlawfirm.com pcastillo@consumerlawfirm.com - and - Jeffrey B. Sand, Esq. Andrew L. Weiner, Esq. WEINER & SAND LLC 6065 Roswell Road, Suite 700-121 Sandy Springs, GA 30328 Telephone: (404) 205-5029 Facsimile: (866) 800-1482 E-mail: js@wsjustice.com aw@wsjustice.com EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Breen Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Breen and other similarly-situated employees v. EMERGENCY MEDICAL TRANSPORT, INC., KENNETH JOSEPH, Case No. 5:25-cv-02457 (N.D. Ohio, Nov. 12, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of the Defendants' company-wide schemes of systematically failing to pay the Plaintiff lawfully earned overtime and minimum wages. Specifically, the Defendants violated and continue to violate the FLSA by: Failing to include non-discretionary pay, such as shift differentials, into the regular rate of pay when calculating overtime, in violation of the FLSA; and Making illegal deductions for training fees and unlawfully withholding final paychecks, causing employees' wages to fall below the federal minimum wage, in violation of the FLSA. The Defendants knew their practice of withholding final paychecks was unlawful, as they were sued in this District in 2020 for the exact same conduct, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a former employee of EMT and began his employment with EMT on November 28, 2023. EMT provides pre-hospital medical emergency care and patient transport in specific counties in Ohio and West Virginia, including Belmont, Carroll, Columbiana, Harrison, Stark, Summit, Trumbull, and Mahoning Counties in Ohio, and Ohio and Marshall Counties in West Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris Wido, Esq. SPITZ, THE EMPLOYEE'S ATTORNEY 25825 Science Park Drive, Suite 200 Beachwood, OH 44122 Phone: (216) 291-4744 Fax: (216) 291-5744 Email: Chris.Wido@Spitzlawfirm.com ENERWEST TRADING CO: Rhoades Files Suit in Okla. Dist. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enerwest Trading CO LC. The case is styled as C. David Rhoades, RECEIVER OVER JR Prince, Inc., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Enerwest Trading CO LC., Case No. CJ-2025-5205 (Okla. Dist. Ct., Tulsa Cty., Nov. 12, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as "Civil relief more than $10,000: Breach of Statutory Obligation to Pay Interest." EnerWest Trading Co., LC -- https://enerwesttrading.com/ -- is a premier crude oil purchaser based in Duncan, Oklahoma.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Reagan E. Bradford, Esq. BRADFORD & WILSON, PLLC 431 W Main St., Ste. D. Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Phone: (405) 698-2770 Fax: (405) 234-5506 Email: reagan@bradwil.com EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Class Cert Bid in Martinez Due April 6, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Martinez v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, Case No. 8:24-cv-02609 (M.D. Fla., Filed Nov. 8, 2024), the Hon. Judge Thomas P. Barber entered an order granting the "Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order" as follows: The Defendant disclosure of expert report due by Jan. 26, 2026 Rebuttal disclosure of expert report due by Feb. 9, 2026 Discovery due by March 6, 2026 Class certification motion due by April 6, 2026 Dispositive motions due by Feb. 6, 2026. The pretrial conference and trial term will be set by separate notice. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Equifax offers financial, consumer and commercial data, and analytical solutions.[CC] EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Myllyla Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ray Myllyla, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. Equity Residential Management, L.L.C., and Does 1 to 100, Case No. 25STCV29648 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Nov. 10, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-10784. The Plaintiff brings a single cause of action for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law on behalf of a putative class against Equity. The Plaintiff alleges that Equity "operates hundreds of apartment complexes throughout the state (and thousands throughout the country)," and that Equity impermissibly uses its standard lease agreement to pass on the costs of pest control and trash administrative services to its clients.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Theane Evangelis, Esq. Jeremy S. Smith, Esq. Amanda Sadra, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Phone: 213.229.7000 Facsimile: 213.229.7520 Email: tevangelis@gibsondunn.com jssmith@gibsondunn.com asadra@gibsondunn.com ERICKSON COMPANIES: Class Settlement in Rahman Gets Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Anwar Abdel Rahman, v. Erickson Companies LLC, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01866-SMB (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Brnovich entered an order granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement: 1. The Settlement Agreement provides for a Settlement Class defined as follows: "All persons in the United States whose Private Information was potentially compromised as a result of the Data Security Incident and who were sent notice by mail of the Data Security Incident prior to the execution of this Agreement." Excluded from the Settlement Class is (a) all persons who are governing board members of Defendants; (b) governmental entities; (c) the Court, the Court's immediate family, and Court staff; and (d) any individual who timely and validly opts-out of the Settlement. 2. The Court finds Plaintiff Anwar Abdel Rahman will likely satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(e)(2)(A) and should be appointed as Settlement Class Representative. Additionally, the Court finds that Scott Edward Cole of Cole & Van Note satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(e)(2)(A) and should be appointed as Settlement Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g)(1). Erickson provides construction services and pre-fabricated building components. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xVXfj0 at no extra charge.[CC] ESTEE LAUDER: Class Certification Bid Extended to Jan. 23, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned re The Estee Lauder Co., Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:23-cv-10669-AS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Arun Subramanian entered an order extending time to complete briefing on lead plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Defendants' opposition to Lead Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is now due by Jan. 23, 2026. Lead Plaintiffs' reply in support of class certification is now due by March 20, 2026. Since the Court's August 22 Order, the Parties have continued to engage in extensive discovery. To date, Defendants have produced just over 40,000 documents, with review and production of additional documents ongoing. The Parties have also conducted discovery specifically related to Lead Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. While the depositions of all three Lead Plaintiffs have been completed, scheduling challenges caused by existing professional obligations and upcoming holidays have impacted the Parties' ability to schedule the deposition of Lead Plaintiffs' expert sufficiently in advance of the current deadline for Defendants to oppose class certification. The Parties do not have an appearance before the Court scheduled and this extension of time would not affect any other deadlines in the current Scheduling Order. Estee is a manufacturer and marketer of skin care, makeup, fragrance and hair care products. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uXd8Xy at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James T. Christie, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: jchristie@labaton.com The Defendants are represented by: Barry H. Berke, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 ESTEE LAUDER: More Time to File Class Cert Opposition Sought ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit re The Estee Lauder Co., Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:23-cv-10669-AS (S.D.N.Y.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting a modest extension of two deadlines in the civil case management plan and scheduling order, dated April 17, 2025, as modified by the Court's order dated Aug. 22, 2025. Specifically, the Parties request a five-week extension for both the Defendants' opposition to Lead Plaintiffs' motion for class certification (currently due Dec. 19, 2025) and Lead Plaintiffs' reply in support of class certification (currently due Feb. 13, 2026). Since the Court's August 22 Order, the Parties have continued to engage in extensive discovery. To date, Defendants have produced just over 40,000 documents, with review and production of additional documents ongoing. The Parties have also conducted discovery specifically related to Lead Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. While the depositions of all three Lead Plaintiffs have been completed, scheduling challenges caused by existing professional obligations and upcoming holidays have impacted the Parties' ability to schedule the deposition of Lead Plaintiffs' expert sufficiently in advance of the current deadline for Defendants to oppose class certification. The Parties do not have an appearance before the Court scheduled and this extension of time would not affect any other deadlines in the current Scheduling Order. Estee is a manufacturer and marketer of skin care, makeup, fragrance and hair care products. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=v67Nqx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James T. Christie, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: jchristie@labaton.com The Defendants are represented by: Barry H. Berke, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 FIREFLY AEROSPACE: Diamond Sues Over Exchange Act Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ Jana K. Diamond, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FIREFLY AEROSPACE INC., JASON KIM, DARREN MA, REMINGTON WU, JORDI PAREDES GARCIA, KIRK KONERT, THOMAS MARKUSIC, MARC WEISER, JED MCCALEB, THOMAS ZURBUCHEN, and CHRISTOPHER EMERSON, Case No. 1:25-cv-01812 (W.D. Tex., Nov. 11, 2025), is brought pursuing claims against the Defendants under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired: Firefly common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering conducted on or about August 7, 2025 (the "IPO" or "Offering"); and/or Firefly securities between August 7, 2025 and September 29, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). On July 11, 2025, Firefly filed a registration statement on Form S-1 with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which, after several amendments, was declared effective by the SEC on August 6, 2025 (the "Registration Statement"). On August 8, 2025, Firefly filed a prospectus on Form 424B4 with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which incorporated and formed part of the Registration Statement (the "Prospectus" and, together with the Registration Statement, the "Offering Documents"). Firefly conducted its August 7, 2025 IPO pursuant to the Offering Documents, selling 19.296 million shares of common stock priced at $45.00 per share. The Offering Documents were negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing their preparation. Additionally, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. On September 22, 2025, Firefly reported its financial results for the second quarter of 2025, its first earnings report as a public company. Among other items, Firefly reported a loss of $80.3 million, or $5.78 per share, compared to $58.7 million, or $4.60 per share, for the same quarter in 2024. On this news, Firefly's stock price fell $7.58 per share, or 15.31%, to close at $41.94 per share on September 23, 2025. Less than one week later, on September 29, 2025, Firefly disclosed that "the first stage of Firefly's Alpha Flight 7 rocket experienced an event that resulted in a loss of the stage." Notably, Firefly CEO Jason Kim stated during the September 22, 2025 earnings call that the Company "expected to launch Flight 7 in the coming weeks." On this news, Firefly's stock price fell $7.66 per share, or 20.73%, to close at $29.30 per share on September 30, 2025. As of the time this Complaint was filed, Firefly's stock price continues to trade significantly below the $45.00 per share Offering price, damaging investors. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased or otherwise acquired Firefly common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in connection with the IPO and/or Firefly securities during the Class Period. Firefly operates as a space and defense technology company and purports to "provide mission solutions for national security, government, and commercial customers with an established track record for success."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Willie C. Briscoe, Esq. THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC 5473 Blair Rd., Suite 200 Dallas, TX 75231 Phone: (972) 521-6868 Facsimile: (281) 254-7789 Email: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com FISERV INC: Faces SIF Suit Over 51.6% Drop of Securities Price -------------------------------------------------------------- CYPANGA SICAV SIF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FISERV, INC., MICHAEL P. LYONS, and ROBERT W. HAU, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01716 (E.D. Wis., November 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Fiserv's 2025 growth guidance in order to trade Fiserv securities at artificially inflated prices between July 23, 2025 and October 29, 2025. Unbeknownst to investors, Fiserv's representations to the market in July 2025 were false and misleading as it was based on assumptions, which would have been objectively difficult to achieve even with the right investment and strong execution. When the truth emerged, the price of Fiserv's common stock plummeted 44 percent ($55.57 per share) from a closing price of $126.17 per share on October 28, 2025 to a closing price of $70.60 on October 29, 2025. The price also declined 7.6 percent ($5.41 per share) on October 30, 2025, closing at $65.19 per share. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Fiserv, Inc. is a global payments and financial technology provider based in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amanda F. Lawrence, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 156 South Main Street, P.O. Box 192 Colchester, CT 06415 Telephone: (860) 537-5537 Facsimile: (860) 531-2645 Email: alawrence@scott-scott.com - and - Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq. Mandeep S. Minhas, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 24th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 Email: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com mminhas@scott-scott.com FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Inflatable Seatbelts' Safety ---------------------------------------------------------------- McCune Law Group (MLG), a national law firm specializing in Consumer Litigation, Class Actions, and Product Liability, along with partner firm Fieger, Fieger, Kenney & Harrington, P.C., has filed a class action lawsuit against Ford Motor Company. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of current and former owners of model year 2011-2019 Ford Explorer vehicles equipped with second row inflatable seatbelts. The complaint, filed by lead attorney Todd A. Walburg of MLG, on behalf of plaintiff Jeffrey Terrell and all others similarly situated, alleges that Ford failed to disclose issues with the seatbelt system in the second row of the Class Vehicles. According to the complaint, Ford first introduced inflatable seatbelts in the second row outboard seats of these vehicles in 2011. The lawsuit alleges that the latching system causes the seatbelts to come undone and release unintentionally, or to become stuck closed, and triggers an airbag warning light on the dashboard, indicating that the vehicle's airbags are non-operational. The complaint states that the failure of the seatbelt system exposes occupants to an increased risk of accident, injury, or death. The complaint further alleges that Ford has been aware of the seatbelt issues through numerous complaints it has received, information from dealers, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration complaints, and its own internal records, including pre-sale testing. According to the lawsuit, Ford has refused to repair the Class Vehicles when they display symptoms consistent with these issues, instead recommending costly repairs that the vehicle owner must pay for out-of-pocket, even when vehicles were in the warranty period. According to the complaint, had Plaintiff and other Class Members known of these issues at the time of purchase, they would not have bought the Class Vehicles, or would have paid substantially less for them. The lawsuit seeks compensation on behalf of affected Ford Explorer owners. MLG encourages anyone with relevant information or individuals who have experienced similar issues with their 2011-2019 Ford Explorer seatbelts to come forward. The firm is dedicated to defending consumer rights and holding automakers accountable. To obtain comments regarding this case matter or for more information, please contact McCune Law Group's Public Relations department at js@mccunelawgroup.com or call (855) 971-1146. About McCune Law Group: MLG has fought for consumer rights for more than 30 years. With offices across California and in other states, MLG has proudly risen to prominence as one of the largest and most successful consumer advocacy firms on the West Coast. The firm's auto product liability attorneys have extensive experience litigating and investigating claims against all major automakers. MLG's long history of success has resulted in more than $1 billion recovered for clients. Visit mccunewright.com to learn more. [GN] FORM ENERGY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Washington Says ----------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN WASHINGTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FORM ENERGY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-13303-AK (D. Mass., November 6, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach discovered on September 15, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Form Energy, Inc. is an American energy storage company, headquartered in Somerville, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 FRANCMEN 688: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in Hall --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIFFANY HALL, v. FRANCMEN 688 LLC, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-07806-PAE-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management. All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses. Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion conferences are not required but may be requested where counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues. Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court proceeding (including a telephonic court conference), or to extend a deadline, must be made in writing and in compliance with section 2(a) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. Telephone requests for adjournments or extensions will not be entertained. In accordance with § 1(d) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices, letters and letter motions are limited to four pages, exclusive of attachments. Courtesy copies of letters and letter motions filed via ECF are required only if the filing contains voluminous attachments. Courtesy copies should be delivered promptly, should bear the ECF header generated at the time of electronic filing, and should include tabs for the attachments. Counsel for the plaintiff must serve a copy of this Order on any defendant previously served with the summons and complaint, must serve this Order along with the summons and complaint on all defendants served hereafter, and must file proof of such service with the Court. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TrUauP at no extra charge.[CC] GAYLORD FARM: Rosa Sues Over Failure to Protect Clients' Info ------------------------------------------------------------- MINERVA ROSA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GAYLORD FARM ASSOCIATION, INC. D/B/A GAYLORD SPECIALTY HEALTHCARE, Defendant, Case No. _______, (Conn. Super., November 6, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Gaylord Farm Association, Inc., doing business as Gaylord Specialty Healthcare, is a healthcare provider, with its principal place of business in Wallingford, Connecticut. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Oren Faircloth, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Email: ofaircloth@sirillp.com - and - Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. EKSM, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 Email: lmontgomery@eksm.com GEICO INDEMNITY: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Shiloah Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RENATA SHILOAH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, Case No. 6:24-cv-06447-EAW-CDH (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Holland entered an amended scheduling order as follows: The Court will require the parties to bundle for filing the Plaintiff's anticipated motion for class certification, as well as the response and reply to such motion. Specifically, the parties shall exchange their motion papers according to the following schedule: Plaintiff's anticipated class certification motion and all papers in support thereof shall be served on the Defendant on Nov. 25, 2025. The Defendant shall serve its response in opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification on Plaintiff on Jan. 16, 2026. The Plaintiff shall serve her reply to the anticipated motion for class certification on March 9, 2026. GEICO Indemnity is a subsidiary of GEICO that provides various insurance products, including auto, homeowners, and liability insurance. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gGcsrj at no extra charge.[CC] GENE.IN.US BRAIN: Gonzales Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gene.In.Us Brain LLC. The case is styled as Patrice Gonzales, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Gene.In.Us Brain LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-03079-JO-DEB (S.D. Cal., Nov. 10, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Gene.In.Us Brain -- https://geneinus.com/ -- offers Supplements by Celebrity Personal Trainer, Luther Freeman created with real ingredients for a healthier alternative to the traditional products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com GENERAL MOTORS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due May 14, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANNY HARRISON, et al., v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-12927-LJM-APP (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Laurie Michelson entered an order extending deadlines for class certification expert disclosures and discovery: Event Deadline Deadline for the Plaintiffs to identify Jan. 12, 2026 experts and serve expert reports in support of class certification: Deadline for GM to identify experts Mar. 9, 2026 and serve expert reports in opposition to class certification: Expert Discovery for class Apr. 30, 2026 certification completed: Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file May 14, 2026 motion for class certification: Deadline for GM's opposition to the June 25, 2026 Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and GM's daubert motions re: Plaintiffs' class certification experts: Deadline for the Plaintiffs' reply Aug. 6, 2026 brief in support of Class certification, Plaintiffs' opposition to GM's Daubert motions re: Plaintiffs' class certification experts, and the Plaintiffs' Daubert motions for GM's class certification experts: General is an American multinational automotive manufacturing company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NVGGQP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq. Dana E. Fraser, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 West University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 Facsimile: (248) 652-2852 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com dal@millerlawpc.com def@millerlawpc.com - and - Russell D. Paul, Esq. Amey J. Park, Esq. Natalie Lesser, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: rpaul@bm.net apark@bm.net nlesser@bm.net - and - Cody R. Padgett, Esq. Abigail Gertner, Esq. Majdi Hijazin, Esq. Nate Kiyam, Esq. Shahin Rezvani, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: cody.padgett @capstonelawyers.com abigail.gertner@capstonelawyers.com majdi.hijazin@capstonelaywers.com nate.kiyam@capstonelaywers.com shahin.rezvani@capstonelaywers.com - and - Steven Calamusa, Esq. Geoffrey Stahl, Esq. Rachel Bentley, Esq. GORDON & PARTNERS, P.A. 4114 Northlake Blvd., Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 799-5070 Facsimile: (561) 799-4050 E-mail: scalamusa@fortheinjured.com gstahl@fortheinjured.com rbentley@fortheinjured.com The Defendant is represented by: Susan M. Clare, Esq. Adam Reinke, Esq. J. Franklin Sacha, Jr., Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1180 Peachtree Street NE Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 572-4600 Facsimile: (404) 572-5100 E-mail: sclare@kslaw.com areinke@kslaw.com fsacha@kslaw.com - and - Laura C. Baucus, Esq. Michael P. Cooney, Esq. DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC 39577 Woodward Avenue, Suite 300 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Telephone: (248) 203-0700 E-mail: lbaucus@dykema.com mcooney@dykema.com GENUINE FOOD LAB: Leon Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------ Alexander Leon, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GENUINE FOOD LAB, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; THE SEED SCHOOL OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25CV027189 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 10, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for California Labor Code violations and Unfair Business Practices stemming from Defendants' failure to pay proper compensation in violation of the California Labor Code. The Defendants maintained a systematic, company-wide policy and practice of: Failing to pay employees for all hours worked, including all minimum wages, and overtime wages in compliance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders; Failing to provide employees with timely and duty-free meal periods in compliance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, failing to maintain accurate records of all meal periods taken or missed, and failing to pay an additional hour's pay at the regular rate of pay for each workday a meal period violation occurred; Failing to authorize and permit employees to take timely and duty-free rest periods in compliance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, and failing to pay an additional hour's pay at the employee's regular rate of pay for each workday a rest period violation occurred; Failing to indemnify employees for necessary business expenses incurred; Willfully failing to pay employees all minimum wages, overtime wages, meal period premium wages, and rest period premium wages due within the time period specified by California law when employment terminates; Failing to maintain accurate records of the hours that employees worked; and Failing to provide employees with accurate, itemized wage statements containing all the information required by the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an hourly, non-exempt Cook from May 2024 to June 2024. The Defendants own/owned and operate/operated an industry, business, and establishment within the State of California, including Sacramento County.[BN] The Plaintiff is reparented by: Seung L. Yang, Esq. Tiffany Hyun, Esq. Diane Le, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 355 S. Grand Ave., Suite 1450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 985-1150 Facsimile: (213) 985-2155 Email: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com tiffany.hyun@thesentinelfirm.com diane.le@thesentinelfirm.com GERBER CHILDRENSWEAR: Youngren Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------- DUSTIN YOUNGREN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GERBER CHILDRENSWEAR, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-13578 (N.D. Ill., November 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, declaratory relief, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.gerberchildrenswear.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, lack of alt-text on graphics, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Gerber Childrenswear, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Email: achan@ealg.law GIORGIO ARMANI: Ahumada Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACQUELINE AHUMADA, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, and as an aggrieved employee pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), v. GIORGIO ARMANI CORPORATION, New York corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:24-cv-01175-RSH-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Dec. 8, 2025, will move pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for an Order certifying a class action against the Defendant. Pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3), the Plaintiff requests the Court: A. Certify the following Classes and Subclasses: Off-the-Clock Class: "All non-exempt, hourly employees who work or worked for The Defendant in California (excluding its Armani Casa and Armani Cafe locations) at any time between May 31, 2020, and the date of the order granting class certification." Meal Break Class: "All non-exempt, hourly employees who work or worked for the Defendant in California (excluding its Armani Casa and Armani Cafe locations) at any time between May 31, 2020, and the date of the order granting class certification, who worked at least one shift of six hours or more." Derivative Wage Statement Subclass: "All members of the Off-the Clock and Meal Break Classes who received at least one wage statement at any time between May 31, 2023, and the date of the order granting class certification." Derivative Waiting Time Subclass: "All members of the Off-the-Clock and Meal Break Classes who work or worked for the Defendant at any time between May 31, 2021, and the date of the order granting class certification, and whose employment has since ended." Business Expense Class: "All non-exempt, hourly employees who work or worked for the Defendant in California (excluding its Armani Casa and Armani Cafe locations) at any time between May 31, 2020 and the date of the order granting class certification." Derivative UCL Subclass: "All members of the foregoing Classes and/or any of the foregoing Subclasses." B. Appoint Plaintiff Jacqueline Ahumada as representative of the proposed Classes and Subclasses. C. Appoint Capstone Law APC as Class Counsel for the proposed Classes and Subclasses. D. Authorize Notice to Class Members pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c). Giorgio designs, manufactures, distributes and retails fashion and lifestyle products including apparel, accessories, eyewear, watches, jewelry, and home interiors. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TbYq9Q at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Grant, Esq. Roxanna Tabatabaeepour, Esq. Ryan Tish, Esq. Alexander Wallin, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1860 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Melissa.Grant@capstonelawyers.com Roxanna.Taba@capstonelawyers.com Ryan.Tish@capstonelawyers.com Alexander.Wallin@capstonelawyers.com GNC HOLDINGS: Seeks Denial of Moquete Class Cert Bid ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEA MOQUETE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GNC HOLDINGS, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 3:24-cv-05393-BHS (W.D. Wash.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to deny class certification. The Court should deny class certification, strike the class allegations in the first amended complaint, and grant GNC such further relief as appropriate, the Defendant contends. In her putative class action Complaint, Moquete asserts a single cause of action for alleged violation of RCW 49.58.110. Moquete's sole cause of action is based on a 2022 amendment to the EPOA, which required covered Washington employers to include certain pay and benefits disclosures in their job postings. In her operative First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), Moquete defines the putative class as: "All individuals who, from Jan. 1, 2023 through the present (the "Class Period") applied for a job opening in the State of Washington with the Defendant where the job posting did not disclose the wage scale or salary range for the position." GNC is a retail and nutritional manufacturing company specializing in health and nutrition products. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CRsGHs at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Breanne Sheetz Martell, Esq. Brian H. Rho, Esq. Elena Gutbrod, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. One Union Square 600 University Street, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101.3122 Telephone: (206) 623-3300 Facsimile: (206) 447-6965 E-mail: bsmartell@littler.com brho@littler.com egutbrod@littler.com GOLI NUTRITION: Ring Suit Removed to E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Michael Ring, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GOLI NUTRITION INC., Case No. 523551/2025 was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the County of Kings, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of New York on Nov. 10, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-06247. The Complaint asserts a single cause of action under New York General Business Law, alleging that Goli misrepresented the quantity and serving size of its Dreamy Sleep Gummies product (the "Product"). The Plaintiff claims that the product label stating, "5 mg Melatonin per serving" and "60 Gummies" misleads consumers into believing that each gummy provides 5 mg of melatonin when, in fact, the serving size is two gummies.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Thomas M. Kenny, Esq. SPIRO HARRISON & NELSON 363 Bloomfield Avenue, Suite 2C Montclair, NJ 07042 Phone: 973-232-0890 Email: tkenny@shnlegal.com GOOGLE LLC: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Ambriz Due April 28, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MISAEL AMBRIZ, JIMMY NIMMO, CHRISTOPHER BISSONNETTE, AHMAD MEHDIPOUR, EUGENE ERLIKH, JAMES FOX, PETER SAMISH, and CHRISTOPHER BARULICH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-05437-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Lin entered order granting motion for administrative relief to extend case schedule as follows: Event Deadline Disclosure of the Plaintiffs' expert(s) March 17, 2026 and subject matter: Disclosure of the Defendant's expert(s) April 27, 2026 and subject matter: Close of fact/expert discovery: Sept. 8, 2026 Motion for Class Certification, including April 28, 2026 any expert reports upon which the Plaintiffs rely on: Opposition, including any counter expert July 22, 2026 reports upon which the Defendant relies: Reply, including any rebuttal expert Aug. 21, 2026 reports upon which the Plaintiffs rely: Class certification hearing: Sept. 15, 2026 at 10:00 AM Google is a provider of search and advertising services. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=C1qfdP at no extra charge.[CC] GORDON LANE: Parrish Wins Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GAIL PARRISH by and through Successor in Interest, Monica Parrish, v. GORDON LANE HEALTHCARE, LLC; SUN MAR MANAGEMENT SERVICES; IRVING BAUMAN; FRANK JOHNSON; ELI MARMUR; WILLIAM PRESNELL and DOES 1 250, inclusive, Case No. 8:22-cv-01790-WLH-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Hsu entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and certifying the proposed subclasses under Rule 23(b)(3) subject to the Court's amendments to the Country Oaks subclasses. The Court additionally appoints the law firm of Stebner Gertler & Guadagni as lead class counsel. Accordingly, the Court finds that a class action is the superior method for resolving the CLRA and the 1430(b) claims. The case is a putative class action concerning the adequacy of staffing at two 24-hour skilled nursing facilities, Gordon Lane Care Center and Country Oaks Care Center, operated by Gordon Lane Healthcare LLC and Country Oaks Partners LLC respectively. Plaintiffs propose to certify the following four classes under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3): -- Subclass One: Gordon Lane CLRA Subclass (Private Pay Residents). "All persons who resided in (or continue to reside in) the California skilled nursing facility GORDON LANE HEALTHCARE LLC, from Aug. 17, 2019, through the date of the final disposition of this action pursuant to a Standard Admission Agreement, and whose claims are not subject to arbitration because neither the resident nor the resident's responsible party (as defined in the Standard Admission Agreement) agreed to or accepted the arbitration contract in writing, wherein the Defendant was reimbursed for services provided to a "class member" by private pay and/or privately acquired insurance and/or any HMO or PPO." -- Subclass Two: Gordon Lane Health & Safety Code Section 1430(b) Subclass. "All persons who resided in (or continue to reside in) the California skilled nursing facility GORDON LANE HEALTHCARE LLC, from Aug. 17, 2019, through the date of the final disposition of this action pursuant to a Standard Admission Agreement, regardless of the manner in which the Defendant was reimbursed for services, and whose claims are not subject to arbitration because neither the resident nor the resident's responsible party (as defined in the Standard Admission Agreement) agreed to or accepted the arbitration contract in writing." -- Subclass Three: Country Oaks CLRA Subclass (Private Pay Residents). "All persons who resided in (or continue to reside in) the California skilled nursing facility COUNTRY OAKS PARTNERS LLC dba COUNTRY OAKS COMMUNITY CARE, from December 22, 2019 through the date of the final disposition of this action pursuant to a Standard Admission Agreement, and whose claims are not subject to arbitration because neither the resident nor the resident’s responsible party (as defined in the Standard Admission Agreement) agreed to or accepted the arbitration contract in writing, wherein the Defendants were reimbursed for services provided to a “class member” by private pay and/or privately acquired insurance and/or any HMO or PPO." -- Subclass Four: Country Oaks Health & Safety Code Section 1430(b) Subclass. "All persons who resided in (or continue to reside in) the California skilled nursing facility COUNTRY OAKS PARTNERS LLC dba COUNTRY OAKS COMMUNITY CARE, from December 22, 2019 through the date of the final disposition of this action pursuant to a Standard Admission Agreement, regardless of the manner in which Defendants were reimbursed for services, and whose claims are not subject to arbitration because neither the resident nor the resident’s responsible party (as defined in the Standard Admission Agreement) agreed to or accepted the arbitration contract in writing." The Court amends the Country Oaks subclasses to distinguish the skilled nursing unit of the facility as follows: Subclass Three: Country Oaks CLRA Subclass (Private Pay Residents). "All persons who resided in (or continue to reside in) the California skilled nursing unit of the facility COUNTRY OAKS PARTNERS LLC dba COUNTRY OAKS COMMUNITY CARE, from Dec. 22, 2019 through the date of the final disposition of this action pursuant to a Standard Admission Agreement, and whose claims are not subject to arbitration because neither the resident nor the resident's responsible party (as defined in the Standard Admission Agreement) agreed to or accepted the arbitration contract in writing, wherein the Defendants were reimbursed for services provided to a "class member" by private pay and/or privately acquired insurance and/or any HMO or PPO." Subclass Four: Country Oaks Health & Safety Code Section 1430(b) Subclass. "All persons who resided in (or continue to reside in) the California skilled nursing unit of the facility COUNTRY OAKS PARTNERS LLC dba COUNTRY OAKS COMMUNITY CARE, from Dec. 22, 2019 through the date of the final disposition of this action pursuant to a Standard Admission Agreement, regardless of the manner in which the Defendants were reimbursed for services, and whose claims are not subject to arbitration because neither the resident nor the resident's responsible party (as defined in the Standard Admission Agreement) agreed to or accepted the arbitration contract in writing." The Defendant is a nursing facility. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GEFrDu at no extra charge.[CC] GT'S LIVING FOODS: Renewed Bid for Class Cert. Due March 30, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Delaney Sharpe et al., v. GT's Living Foods, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-10920-FMO-DSR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Olguin entered an order Re: the Parties' Stipulated Request to Amend Discovery and Class Certification Deadlines: 1. The Stipulation is granted as set forth in this Order. 2. Any remaining discovery (related solely to the newly added named plaintiffs) shall be completed by Jan. 29, 2026. 3. Any renewed motion for class certification shall be filed no later than March 30, 2026, and noticed for hearing regularly under the Local Rules. GT's is a beverage company that offers products with living probiotics. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ugWHTY at no extra charge.[CC] HAZA FOODS: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Townsend Due July 10, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH TOWNSEND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HAZA FOODS OF NORTHEAST, LLC., et al., Case No. 6:24-cv-06180-EAW-MJP (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Pedersen entered a second amended scheduling order: 1. The deadline for the completion of all fact discovery related to class discovery is Feb. 28, 2026. 2. The deadline for the Plaintiff's expert report related to class certification is May 1, 2026. 3. The deadline for the Defendants' expert report related to class certification is May 29, 2026. 4. The deadline for any motion for potential class certification by the Plaintiff is July 10, 2026. 5. The deadline for any response to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is July 24, 2026. 6. The deadline for any reply on behalf of the Plaintiff is Aug. 7, 2026. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KVdUAS at no extra charge.[CC] HEALTH CARE: Weinrich Data Breach Suit Removed to D. Mont. ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as LUCY WEINRICH and ZACHARY T. PEEVEY, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION dba BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MONTANA, Defendant, Case No. DV-25-2025-0000655-OC, was removed from the First Judicial District Court of Lewis and Clark County, Montana to the United States District Court for the District of Montana on November 14, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:25-cv-00081-TJC to the proceeding. The Complaint alleges that a cybersecurity incident suffered by HCSC's third-party vendor, Conduent, has resulted in an increased risk of harm to Plaintiffs because their personal information supposedly may have been compromised. The Plaintiffs allege they are "entitled to actual and punitive damages," for a list of purported "long lasting and severe" injuries, including "(a) invasion of privacy; (b) loss of time and loss of productivity incurred mitigating the materialized risk and imminent threat of identity theft risk; (c) the loss of benefit of the bargain (price premium damages); (d) diminution of value of their Private Information; (e) invasion of privacy; and (f) the continued risk to their Private Information. The Plaintiffs bring claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, violation of the Montana Consumer Protection Act, breach of fiduciary duty, and declaratory relief. They further seek damages and equitable and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and the putative class members. Health Care Service Corporation ("HCSC"), a Mutual Legal Reserve Company doing business as Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana, operates as a health insurance company in Montana.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Daniel J. Auerbach, Esq. M. Christy S. McCann, Esq. BROWNING, KALECZYC, BERRY & HOVEN, P.C. 201 West Railroad Street, Suite 300 Missoula, MT 59802 Telephone: (406) 728‐1694 Facsimile: (406) 728‐5475 E-mail: daniel@bkbh.com christy@bkbh.com HEALTH-ADE LLC: Damas Sues Over False Advertisements ---------------------------------------------------- Richard Damas and Diane Varela, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Health-Ade LLC, Case No. 8:25-cv-02515 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 10, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for violating the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"), the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), and New York General Business Law ("GBL") as a result of the Defendant's false advertisements and misleading information regarfing their prebiotic, "gut-healthy" soda. The Defendant claims that its Soda is a "gut-healthy" prebiotic soda because it includes agave inulin—a soluble fiber found in the agave plant. According to the Soda's nutrition label, it only contains 3 grams of dietary fibers. This means that, at most, the Soda contains 3 grams of agave inulin. Studies show, however, that inulin only begins to benefit consumers when they ingest 12 grams of it daily for at least one month. Thus, in order to reap the prebiotic benefits that Defendant promises, customers would have to drink at least four of Defendant's Sodas every day for one month. Since Defendant's Soda includes 5 grams of sugar per can, this means that consumers would also ingest an additional 20 grams of sugar every day. Studies show that maintaining a high-sugar diet negatively alters consumers' microbiome and can lead to metabolic disease, pre-diabetes, and weight gain. Thus, consuming enough of Defendant's Soda to try to reap the benefits of agave inulin would be futile because a user would simultaneously ingest enough sugar to negate those same benefits. As such, Defendant's Soda cannot provide the prebiotic benefits that it claims make the Soda "gut-healthy," says the complaint. The Plaintiffs bought the Soda after seeing ads on social media calling the Soda "gut-healthy." Health-Ade LLC, which sells prebiotic, "gut-healthy" soda on its website https://health-ade.com. The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Janove, Esq. JANOVE PLLC 500 7th Ave., 8th Fl. New York, NY 10018 Phone: (646) 347-3940 Email: raphael@janove.law - and - Liana Roza Vitale, Esq. JANOVE PLLC 979 Osos St., Ste A5 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone: (805) 505-9550 Email: liana@janove.law HESS BAKKEN: Penman Appeals Motion to Strike Order to 8th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- RONALD PENMAN, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendant's motion to strike in the lawsuit entitled Ronald Penman, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Hess Bakken Investments II, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00097-DLH, in the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota. On June 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs brought an action on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated royalty owners against the Defendant for alleged breach of contract. On Aug. 11, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to strike the gas royalty class allegations, which Judge Daniel L. Hovland granted on Oct. 20, 2025. The Court ruled that individualized issues in this case predominate over the common claim for relief by the proposed class. The negative gas royalty class lacks the cohesion necessary to warrant class certification. Accordingly, the Court granted the Defendant's motion to strike the class allegations. The appellate case is entitled Ronald Penman, et al. v. Hess Bakken Investments II, LLC, Case No. 25-8013, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on November 3, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners RONALD PENMAN, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Joseph A. Kronawitter, Esq. Taylor P. Foye, Esq. HORN AYLWARD & BANDY, LLC 2600 Grand Boulevard, Ste. 1100 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 421-0700 Email: jkronawitter@hab-law.com tfoye@hab-law.com Defendant-Respondent HESS BAKKEN INVESTMENTS II, LLC is represented by: Paul J. Forster, Esq. Zachary R. Eiken, Esq. CROWLEY FLECK PLLP 100 W. Broadway, Suite 250 P.O. Box 2798 Bismarck, ND 58502 Telephone: (701) 224-7546 Facsimile: (701) 222-4853 Email: pforster@crowleyfleck.com zeiken@crowleyfleck.com - and - Daniel T. Donovan, Esq. Ragan Naresh, Esq. K. Ross Powell, Esq. Gabrielle Durling, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 389-5000 Facsimile: (202) 389-5200 Email: daniel.donovan@kirkland.com ragan.naresh@kirkland.com ross.powell@kirkland.com gabi.durling@kirkland.com HIGHER EDUCATION: Mermigas Appeals Court Order to 7th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER MERMIGAS is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Christopher Mermigas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Higher Education Loan Authority of the State of Missouri, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-11505, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought seeking relief from the Defendant's pattern of abuse on behalf of itself, its members, and the thousands of consumers affected by its misconduct in violation the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. The appellate case is entitled Christopher Mermigas v. Higher Education Loan Authority of the State of Missouri, Case No. 25-3000, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on November 4, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant CHRISTOPHER MERMIGAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Keith L. Gibson, Esq. KEITH GIBSON LAW, P.C. 586 Duane Street Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Telephone: (630) 677-6745 - and - Bogdan Enica, Esq. KEITH GIBSON LAW P.C. 20283 State Road Seven Boca Raton, FL 33498 Telephone: (305) 306-4989 Defendant-Appellee HIGHER EDUCATION LOAN AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI is represented by: Matthew D. Guletz, Esq. THOMPSON COBURN LLP 505 N. Seventh Street One US Bank Plaza St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 552-6311 - and - Patrick Morales-Doyle, Esq. THOMPSON COBURN LLP 55 E. Monroe Street Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 346-7500 HOME SERVICE: Gomez Seeks to Send Notice to Technician Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLOS GOMEZ, for himself and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. HOME SERVICE NETWORK, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-16093-MCA-MAH (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order permitting, under court supervision, notice to: All "Technicians" employed by Home Service Network, Inc. within the three year period preceding the filing of the Complaint in the case to the present. The Plaintiff seeks to facilitate notice to all Technicians who worked for Defendant who are compensated on a piece rate basis, and who are not paid proper overtime compensation as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), for all of the hours that they work over 40 each week. Such overtime wages are not paid to the putative class members because the Defendant engages in a companywide policy and practice common to all of the Defendant's Technicians whereby the Defendant does not pay them any wages beyond their piece rate compensation for each service provided, notwithstanding the exorbitant hours that they work each week. The Defendant provides the technical service and repairs for a variety of home appliances and TVs manufactured and marketed by Samsung. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZbLCNc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) WORKERS Facsimile: (954) 327-3013 E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com HOMELAND SECURITY: Pando Sues Over Unlawful Parole Provision ------------------------------------------------------------ Arachely Bada Pando, Lazaro Alexander Martinez-Portela, and Maite Lazara Esponda-Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; Kristi NOEM, in her official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security; Pamela BONDI, in her official capacity as U.s. Attorney General; Todd LYONS, in his official capacity as Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and Rodney SCOTT, in his official capacity as Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Case No. 1:25-cv-25268-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 12, 2025), is brought against the Defendants' systematic violation the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA") and its implementing regulations by unlawfully subjecting Plaintiffs and proposed class members to a parole provision Defendants wrongly assert renders them ineligible for lawful permanent residency status pursuant to the CAA. The Defendants' policy or practice of applying the wrong parole provision to Cuban applicants for entry to the United States is ultra vires and violates the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), the Accardi doctrine, and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Plaintiffs and proposed class members are Cuban nationals who were "applicants for admission" at the time of their most recent physical arrival to the United States. They were each taken into Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") custody within 24 hours of their arrival, placed into removal proceedings pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1229a, and subsequently released upon the issuance of Orders of Release on Recognizance (Form 1-220A). Under the CAA, Plaintiffs and proposed class members have been "inspected and admitted or paroled" and should therefore be eligible to adjust status to lawful permanent residency after one year of presence in the United States. The Defendants' policy or practice violates Congress' two-track framework for detention and release authority that the Supreme Court recently addressed in Jennings, The Jennings Court clarified that 8 U.S.C. Section 1225 applies to applicants for admission at the border and mandates detention absent parole under II while 1226 governs warrant based interior custody and, by design, does not apply to Section 1225 applicants. By substituting 1226's bond/recognizance tools (including Form 1-220A Orders for Release on Recognizance) for Section 1225's parole-only regime, Defendants have acted contrary to law, in excess of Statutory authority, and in violation or the Due Process Clause. The Plaintiffs and proposed class members seek a declaration that they are applicants for admission under 8 U.S.C. Section 1225 and that their release from DHS physical custody was, as a matter of law, parole pursuant to Section 1182(d)(5)(A). This remedy is necessary to ensure that Defendants enforce the INA and CAA as Congress intended, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are Cuban nationals who arrived in the United States. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY is the federal agency responsible for implementing and enforcing the INA and is an agency within the meaning of the APA.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eric Lee, Esq. Christopher Godshall-Bennett, Esq. LEE & GODSHALL-BENNETT LLP 712 H St. NE, Unit 5019 Washington, DC 20002 Phone: (202) 949-2526 Email: eric@leegodshallbennett.com HPC INDUSTRIAL: Filing for Class Certification Due June 23, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Longley v. HPC Industrial Services, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00860 (E.D. Cal., Filed July 25, 2024), the Hon. Judge Kirk E. Sherriff entered an order amending the scheduling order the following extent: -- Fact Discovery: April 15, 2026 -- Expert Disclosures: April 29, 2026 -- Rebuttal Expert Disclosures: May 13, 2026 -- Expert Discovery: June 12, 2026 -- Class Certification Motion: June 23, 2026 moving brief: July 23, 2026 opposition: August 3, 2026 -- Hearing (CDB): August 31, 2026 The nature of suit states Labor Litigation -- Diversity-(Citizenship). HPC provides industrial cleaning services.[CC] HYUNDAI AUTOEVER AMERICA: Dolan Sues Over Failure to Secure PII --------------------------------------------------------------- Chase Dolan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. HYUNDAI AUTOEVER AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 8:25-cv-02526 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 12, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive the personal identifying information ("PII or "Private Information") of Plaintiff and Class Members that was compromised in a cyber incident (the "Data Breach"). The Defendant collected and maintained certain PII of Plaintiff and the putative Class Members, who provided their PII to Defendant, directly or indirectly. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive and confidential personal information--which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against disclosure--was targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the Data Breach. The PII compromised in the Data Breach included Plaintiff's and Class Members' full names, Social Security numbers, and driver's license numbers. The PII compromised in the Data Breach was targeted and exfiltrated by cyber-criminals and remains in the hands of those cyber-criminals who target PII for its value to identity thieves. The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect consumers' PII from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. Defendant could have prevented or mitigated the consequences of the Data Breach by limiting access to sensitive information to only necessary employees, requiring multi-factor authentication to verify access credentials, encrypting data at rest and in transit, monitoring its systems for signs of unusual activity or the transfer of large volumes of data, and regularly rotating passwords, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former customers and employees of Defendant. The Defendant is the in-house IT and software company for the Hyundai Motor Group, which owns the Hyundai, Kia and Genesis car brands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive, Penthouse Suite Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: (858) 209-6941 Email: jnelson@milberg.com HYUNDAI AUTOEVER: Brown Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII ---------------------------------------------------------- Christyle Brown and Joseph Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HYUNDAI AUTOEVER AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 8:25-cv-02535 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 12, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiffs' and other similarly situated individuals' ("Class Members") personally identifying information, including names, driver license numbers, and Social Security numbers (collectively "PII" or "Private Information") The Plaintiffs and Class Members are individuals who were required to indirectly and/or directly provide Defendant with their Private Information. By collecting, storing, and maintaining Plaintiffs' and Class Members' Private Information, Hyundai has a resulting duty to secure, maintain, protect, and safeguard the Private Information that it collects and stores against unauthorized access and disclosure through reasonable and adequate data security measures. Despite Hyundai's duty to safeguard the Private Information of Plaintiffs and Class Members, their Private Information was compromised when an unauthorized party gained access to Defendant's information technology environment and exfiltrated sensitive data stored therein on or about February 22, 2025 through March 2, 2025 (the "Data Breach"). The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiffs and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently failing to implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of data and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies, and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. As a result, Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII was compromised by an unauthorized third-party. Plaintiffs and Class Members have a continuing interest in ensuring that their information is and remains safe and are entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs received a data breach notice. Hyundai AutoEver America, LLC is a company that provides information technology and support services for Hyundai Motor Group and its related automotive businesses in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: (Eddie) Jae K. Kim, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 117 E Colorado Blvd, Ste 600 Pasadena, CA 91105-3712 Phone: (213) 723-0707 Facsimile: (858) 313-1850 Email: ekim@lcllp.com IMMUNITYBIO INC: Settlement in Salzman Suit Gets Final OK --------------------------------------------------------- ImmunityBio, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2025, that on June 16, 2025, following a final approval hearing, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted final approval of the settlement of a putative securities class action complaint, captioned "Salzman v. ImmunityBio, Inc. et al.," No. 3:23-cv-01216-BEN-WVG, filed in said court against the company and three of its officers and/or directors, asserting violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Stemming from the company's disclosure on May 11, 2023 that it had received a Complete Response Letter from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA CRL) stating, among other things, that it could not approve the company's (Biologics License Application) BLA for its product candidate, "Anktiva" in combination with BCG for the treatment of patients with BCG-unresponsive NMIBC with CIS with or without Ta or T1 disease, in its present form due to deficiencies related to its pre-license inspection of the company's third-party CMOs, the complaint alleges that the defendants had previously made materially false and misleading statements and/or omitted material adverse facts regarding its third-party clinical manufacturing organizations and the prospects for regulatory approval of the BLA. On January 8, 2024, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and on June 20, 2024, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss. On July 16, 2024, the lead plaintiff notified the court that he would proceed with his current pleading, and the defendants answered the complaint on August 29, 2024. On January 25, 2025, following a mediation and the parties' agreement in principle to settle the securities class action for $10.5 million, the lead plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. On March 17, 2025, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. ImmunityBio, Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing therapies and vaccines that complement, harness, and amplify the immune system to defeat cancers and infectious diseases. IQ DATA: Must File Class Cert Response by Dec. 1 in Nelson Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH NELSON, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons defined herein, v. I.Q. DATA INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-12710-FKB-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge F. Kay Behm entered an order that IQ Data shall file a response to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification by Dec. 1, 2025 and the Plaintiff shall file a reply by Dec. 22, 2025. IQ is a medium-sized third-party debt collector. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jEv9dC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Curtis C. Warner, Esq. KELLEY AND EVANCHEK, PC 43695 Michigan Ave. Canton, MI 48188 Telephone: (734) 397-4540 E-mail: John@kelawpc.com cwarner@warner.legal The Defendant is represented by: Krista Easom, Esq. Luke D. Wolf, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 37000 Woodward Avenue, Suite 225 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Telephone: (313) 756-6404 Facsimile: (313) 406-7373 E-mail: keasom@grsm.com lwolf@grsm.com J. C. PENNEY: Crosby Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Crosby, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. J. C. PENNEY CORPORATION, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-09404 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 11, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to design, maintain, and operate its websites--including www.jcpenney.com, in a manner that is accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals in violation the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant's failure to ensure equal access to these integrated services violates Plaintiff's rights under the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief requiring JCPenney to revise its digital policies and practices to ensure that its websites are—and remain—fully accessible to blind and visually impaired users. The Defendant's ongoing failure to provide accessible digital services constitutes a denial of full and equal access under Title III of the ADA. Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court issue a permanent injunction compelling Defendant to bring its websites into compliance with federal accessibility standards, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a legally blind resident of New York County. The Defendant owns and operates www.jcpenney.com, a nationwide e commerce platform offering apparel, accessories, home goods, and customer service tools to consumers across the United States, including New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 227-5700 Fax: (212) 656-1889 Email: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com J.A.K.'S PUPPIES: Carey Suit Seeks to Certify Class --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EBECCA CAREY, et al., v. J.A.K.'S PUPPIES, INC., et al., Case No. 5:21-cv-02095-WLH-DTB (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, at 1:30 p.m. on Dec. 12, 2025, will move for an order of the Court to: 1. Certify a class under Rule 23(b): "All persons who, on or after Jan. 1, 2019, purchased from a pet store in the State of California one or more dogs supplied by J.A.K.'s Puppies, Inc., excluding (1) the Defendants and their legal representatives, officers, directors, assigns, and successors, and (2) the Court and Court staff;" 2. Appoint the Plaintiffs as class representatives; and 3. Appoint Claire Tonry and Knoll Lowney of Smith and Lowney PLLC and Morgan Boutilier, James Erselius, and Daniel Waltz of Animal Legal Defense Fund as counsel for the Class. The Plaintiffs allege that a private broker named J.A.K.'s Puppies, Inc. attempted to circumvent the Puppy Mill Ban by collecting puppies from puppy mills across the country and laundering them through layers of sham rescues for their ultimate sale to unsuspecting consumers in California. On Dec. 16, 2021, Plaintiffs Rebecca Carey and Cody Latzer filed this class action after an extensive pre-suit investigation by Plaintiffs' counsel. In their Complaint (now Second Amended Complaint), the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' practice of concealing the source of dogs, misrepresenting dogs as rescues, and selling dogs in violation of the Puppy Mill Ban violated California state law, including the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civil Code sections 1770 et seq., the Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof'l Code sections 17200 et seq., and gave rise to a claim for unjust enrichment. J.A.K.'s is a dog broker. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VlBZYQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James Erselius, Esq. Daniel Waltz, Esq. Morgan Boutilier, Esq. ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND 767 Broadway #1209 New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (707) 795-2533 Facsimile: (707) 795-7280 E-mail: jerselius@aldf.org dwaltz@aldf.org mboutilier@aldf.org - and - Claire Tonry, Esq. Knoll D. Lowney, Esq. SMITH & LOWNEY, PLLC  2317 E. John Street  Seattle, WA 98112  Telephone: (206) 860-2883  Facsimile: (206) 860-4187 E-mail: claire@smithandlowney.com knoll@smithandlowney.com - and - Indira J Cameron-Banks, Esq. CAMERON JONES LLP Telephone: (424) 757-0585 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 800 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 E-mail: indira@cameronjones.law JAK'S PUPPIES: Carey Seeks Leave to File Materials Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as REBECCA CAREY, et al., v. J.A.K.'S PUPPIES, INC., et al., Case No. 5:21-cv-02095-WLH-DTB (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting them leave to file under seal the materials identified in the sealed declaration of Morgan Boutilier. Pursuant to Local Rule 79-5.2.2, Plaintiffs apply for the Court to issue an order permitting Plaintiffs to file under seal unredacted documents that Defendant J.A.K.’s Puppies, Inc. designated as confidential. The Plaintiffs wish to file these documents in support of two forthcoming motions: (1) Plaintiffs' Motion for a Protective Order and for Designation of Interim Class Counsel and (2) Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification These documents include the unredacted Protective Order Motion (Sealed Declaration of Morgan Boutilier; the unredacted exhibits to be filed in connection with the protective order motion; the unredacted declaration of Morgan Boutilier in support of the class cert. motion; and the unredacted exhibits to be filed in connection with the class cert. motion. The parties were unable to reach a complete agreement and thus Plaintiffs submit this Application, supported by the Sealed Declaration of Morgan Boutilier, which further identifies the designating party, the material at issue, and the efforts made to resolve the issue. J.A.K.'s is a dog broker. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aDVVUX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James Erselius, Esq. Daniel Waltz, Esq. Morgan Boutilier, Esq. ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND 767 Broadway #1209 New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (707) 795-2533 Facsimile: (707) 795-7280 E-mail: jerselius@aldf.org dwaltz@aldf.org mboutilier@aldf.org - and - Claire Tonry, Esq. Knoll D. Lowney, Esq. SMITH & LOWNEY, PLLC  2317 E. John Street  Seattle, WA 98112  Telephone: (206) 860-2883  Facsimile: (206) 860-4187 E-mail: claire@smithandlowney.com knoll@smithandlowney.com - and - Indira J Cameron-Banks, Esq. CAMERON JONES LLP Telephone: (424) 757-0585 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 800 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 E-mail: indira@cameronjones.law JANI-KING INT'L: Cossette Seeks to Extend Class Cert Deadlines -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN COSSETTE, et al., v. JANI-KING INTERNATIONAL INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-01057-N (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending all deadlines in the class certification scheduling order entered on Oct. 17, 2025, including the deadline for the Plaintiffs to serve their motion for class certification on the Defendant, by a period of six months. The requested extension of time is necessary for discovery on facts pertinent to class certification and develop a sufficient record for the Court to conduct a rigorous analysis of certification issues as required. The action arises from a cyber-attack where, the Plaintiffs allege, cybercriminals successfully targeted and gained access to and copied files contained within certain segments of Defendant's computer systems, which stored the Plaintiffs' and the Class's PII. The Data Incident allegedly resulted in the compromise of PII belonging to Plaintiffs and Class Members. On April 29, 2025, the Plaintiff Cossette filed a class action lawsuit against Defendant alleging claims for (i) negligence and negligence per se; (ii) breach of implied contract; (iii) invasion of privacy; (iv) unjust enrichment; and (v) declaratory judgment. The Defendant is a commercial cleaning franchise company that was established in 1969. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2rLm0e at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 4131 N. Central Expressway, Suite 900 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (800) 237-1277 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com - and - Melissa R. Emert, Esq. KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C. 135 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200 Montvale, NJ 07645 Telephone: (201) 391-7000 Facsimile: (201) 307-1086 E-mail: memert@kgglaw.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com JOHN SHAHIDI: Smith Suit Seeks Class Certification -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRENTON SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. JOHN SHAHIDI, an individual; NELK, INC. dba NELK, FULL SEND, a Canadian Company, METACARD, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; NELK USA, INC., a Delaware Corporation; KYLE FORGEARD, an individual, Case No. 8:25-cv-00161-FWS-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting class certification or alternatively granting the Plaintiff adequate time to complete discovery related to class certification issues and set a deadline for the Plaintiff to file an amended motion for class certification on March 1, 2026, at the earliest. In addition, the Plaintiff requests that Plaintiff's Counsel be appointed Class Counsel in this case. Alternatively, the Plaintiff requests this Court stay the current deadline of Nov. 13, 2025, for filing a class certification motion until after the Jan. 13, 2026, deadline for Defendants to produce additional documents per Magistrate Judge Douglas McCormick's order on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. The Defendants in this case obfuscated discovery efforts by refusing to fully respond to discovery requests, causing the Plaintiff to seek relief from the court and resulting in difficulties for the Plaintiff in preparing the current Motion. The Plaintiff has made his prima facie showing of the Rule 23 requirements and also demonstrated that discovery measures are likely to produce persuasive information substantiating his class allegations. Pre-certification class discovery is warranted, and thus, any determination of the class certification issue at this juncture is premature and improper according to Ninth Circuit precedent. Accordingly, the Plaintiff requests that if this Court is inclined to deny Plaintiff's request for class certification, then the Court instead extend the deadline for filing the request for class certification until March 1, 2026, at the earliest, which will provide Plaintiff time to receive and analyze Defendants’ discovery responses and prepare an amended motion for class certification. The Plaintiff brought this lawsuit to address Defendants' role in a calculated scheme to sell the illusion of investment in a certain non-fungible tokens ("NFT") known as the "Full Send Metacard". The Plaintiff and thousands of others were lured into purchasing the Metacard based on Defendants' unequivocal promises: that cardholders would receive exclusive access to lucrative business ventures, investment opportunities, and meaningful perks. Defendants never intended to comply with those promises. Instead, Defendants fleeced Plaintiff and the Class Members of over $23 million. Rather than delivering on the promises made to purchasers, Defendants flagrantly used the funds raised by the Metacard sale for their own personal benefit. Such acts of flagrant misuse included the transfer of revenues from consumers to online casino platforms soon after Defendants received the funds. The Plaintiff requests certification of the following class: "All persons who purchased a Metacard through the date of class certification." Excluded from the Class are the Defendant's officers and directors, and any entity in which the Defendant has a controlling interest; and the affiliates, legal representatives, attorneys, successors, heirs, and assigns of Defendant. Excluded also from the Class are Members of the judiciary to whom this case is assigned, their families and Members of their staff. Finally, excluded from the Class are any individuals who signed the "Token Rescission Agreement" with the Defendant. The Defendants Kyle Forgeard and John Shahidi (collectively "Founder Defendants") are YouTube personalities known for their YouTube Channel "Nelk Boys," which currently has a following of 8.22 million subscribers. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qWBBbQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John P. Kristensen, Esq. KRISTENSEN LAW GROUP 120 Santa Barbara Street, Suite C9 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805)837-2000 E-mail: john@kristensen.law - and - Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq. Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. Tommy Kherkher, Esq. EKSM, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 JONES LANG: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Feb. 19, 2027 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY VILLA, v. JONES LANG LASALLE AMERICAS, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-04560-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered a case management and pretrial scheduling order: Filing of motion to remand/opt-out forms: Nov. 17, 2025 Non-expert discovery cutoff: July 31, 2026 Expert discovery cutoff: Nov. 20, 2026 Motion for class certification to be Feb. 19, 2027 filed by: Opposition: April 2, 2027 Reply: May 14, 2027 Motion for class certification hearing: June 8, 2027, at 2:00 p.m. Jones provides commercial real estate and investment management services. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=J4WTXv at no extra charge.[CC] KAPSCH TRAFFICCOM: Overcharges Drivers' Toll Amounts, RJL Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- RJL INDUSTRIES INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KAPSCH TRAFFICCOM USA, INC., NEOLOGY, INC., TRANSCORE, LP, CONDUENT INCORPORATED, Defendants, Case No. 7:25-cv-09277 (S.D.N.Y., November 6, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for unjust enrichment, violation of the New York General Business Law, conversion, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and relief under Declaratory Judgment Act. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of itself and a Class of all similarly situated individuals and entities who have paid tolls in excess of what was due as a result of using New York's cashless toll systems (called "E-ZPass" and "Tolls-By-Mail") for bridges, tunnels, and roads in New York. According to the complaint, the Defendants, who equip, operate, maintain and otherwise service the E-ZPass cashless tolling systems, have improperly charged the Plaintiff and hundreds and thousands of other drivers, inflated and arbitrary toll amounts, including excessive amounts without notice and their knowledge and without providing any meaningful process to dispute or appeal such charges. The Defendants engaged in this conduct in bad faith, knowing that their actions were contrary to law, in order to unjustly enrich themselves at the expense of the Plaintiff and other Class members, suit says. RJL Industries Inc. is a provider of professional transportation and freight services, headquartered in Blauvelt, New York. Kapsch TrafficCom USA, Inc. is an equipment supplier based in Duluth, Georgia. Neology, Inc. is a provider of radio frequency identification (RFID) products based in Carlsbad, California. TransCore, LP is company that processes electronic toll collection transactions based in Nashville, Tennessee. Conduent Incorporated is a provider of transaction processing, account management and financial management systems based in Florham Park, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrea Farah, Esq. Radhika Gupta, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 Email: afarah@lowey.com rgupta@lowey.com KARS4KIDS INC: Savva Sues Over Deceptive Vehicle Donation Campaign ------------------------------------------------------------------ PAVEL SAVVA and ALEXANDER VICKERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KARS4KIDS INC. and OORAH INC., inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-09498 (N.D. Cal., November 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, California False Advertising Law, and California Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of the proposed Classes to seek redress for the Defendants' scheme to deceive unwitting donors into donating their vehicles to Kars4Kids for undisclosed and misrepresented purposes. According to the complaint, the Defendants publicly disseminated, and conspired to disseminate, false and misleading advertisements soliciting vehicle donations to purportedly help local needy or disadvantaged children in the areas where they advertise regardless of religious affiliation, inducing the Plaintiffs and Class members to donate their vehicles under false pretenses. Instead of helping local needy children as advertised, the Defendants used those donations to fund a separate organization, Oorah, and its narrow purpose of promoting orthodox religious ideology to Jewish families in New York and New Jersey, and to fund their own significant expenses and investments, suit says. Had the Plaintiffs and Class members known the truth, they would not have donated their vehicles, says the suit. Oorah, Inc., previously known as Oorah Kiruv Rechokim Fund, Inc., is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization based in New Jersey. Kars4Kids, also referred to as Kars 4 Kids Inc., is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization based in New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eric A. Grover, Esq. Sarah R. Holloway, Esq. KELLER GROVER LLP 1965 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94103 Telephone: (415) 543-1305 Facsimile: (415) 543-7861 Email: eagrover@kellergrover.com sholloway@kellergrover.com KINDERCARE EDUCATION: Ceasear Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Bobbie Ceasear, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, and as an aggrieved employee pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") v. KINDERCARE EDUCATION LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; KCE CHAMPIONS LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTERS LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; KINDERCARE EDUCATION AT WORK LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25CV015246 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on Nov. 10, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-at-01546. The Complaint asserts claims for: Unpaid Overtime; Unpaid Minimum Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Periods; Non-Compliant Wage Statements and Failure to Maintain Payroll Records; Wages Not Timely Paid Upon Termination; Failure to Timely Pay Wages During Employment; Unreimbursed Business Expenses; Unlawful Business Practices; and Unfair Business Practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Elizabeth A. Falcone, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. The KOIN Center 222 SW Columbia Street, Suite 1500 Portland, OR 97201 Phone: 503-552-2140 Facsimile: 503-224-4518 Email: elizabeth.falcone@ogletree.com - and - Matthew J. Gagnon, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 155 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 4300 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312-558-1220 Facsimile: 312-807-3619 Email: matthew.gagnon@ogletree.com KNIGHT PORT SERVICES: Smith Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Emery Smith, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. KNIGHT PORT SERVICES, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION INC., an unknown business entity; SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; BARR-NUNN TRANSPORTATION INC., an unknown business entity; ABILENE MOTOR EXPRESS, INC., an unknown business entity; KOLD TRANSPORTATION, an unknown business entity; MIDNITE EXPRESS INC., an unknown business entity; KNIGHT REFRIGERATED, LLC, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV23291 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Nov. 10, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-10797. The Plaintiff's putative class claims arise from allegations that Defendants failed to comply with California's wage and hour laws in compensating its employees as follows: failure to pay overtime wages under Labor Code; failure to pay meal period premiums under Labor Code; failure to pay rest periods and rest period premiums under Labor Code; failure to pay minimum wages under Labor Code; failure to timely pay final wages under Labor Code; failure to timely pay wages during employment under Labor Code; failure to provide compliant wage statements under Labor Code; failure to keep requisite payroll records under Labor Code; failure to reimburse business expenses under Labor Code; and violation of California Business and Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Paul S. Cowie, Esq. John D. Ellis, Esq. Alexis S. Cherry, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4109 Phone: 415.434.9100 Facsimile: 415.434.3947 Email pcowie@sheppardmullin.com jellis@sheppardmullin.com acherry@sheppardmullin.com KOCHAVA INC: Class Action Settlement in Murphy Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CINDY MURPHY, SCOTT CONNELLY, JENNY WATSON, ADRIANA INGRAM, SHAHNAZ ZARIF, SHERE BATE and JULIE MAATTALA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. KOCHAVA, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00058-BLW (D. Idaho), the Hon. Judge Winmill entered an order approving class action settlement and granting motion for attorneys' fees. The Settlement Agreement is approved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. The Court finds and concludes that, for the purposes of approving this Settlement only, the proposed Settlement Class meets the requirements for certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). The Court accordingly certifies, for settlement purposes only, a class consisting of: "All persons over the age of 18 in the United States whose data, including but not limited to their geolocation data, was sold by Kochava without their consent." The Parties and this Court approved a nationwide Notice Program administered by Angeion Group, LLC that included digital publication, targeted banner advertising, and a dedicated Settlement Website containing key documents, deadlines, and instructions. The Court has also considered Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, Expenses, and Incentive Award, as well as the supporting declarations, and adjudges that the payment of attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses in the amount of $1,500,000 is reasonable under federal law. Records submitted by counsel establish a presumptively lodestar figure of $1,288,460, based on 1,533.5 hours billed at a blended rate of approximately $840 per hour. A multiplier of 1.1 is justified based on the novelty and complexity of the legal issues, the results obtained, and the risk of nonpayment. This award also includes Class Counsel's unreimbursed litigation expenses. Such payment shall be made pursuant to and in the manner provided by the terms of the Settlement Agreement, as clarified by counsel's stipulation at the Nov. 12, 2025, final approval hearing. Kochava provides online advertising services. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WeBxUY at no extra charge.[CC] KOHLER CO: Cazares Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------- Amelia Cazares, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Kohler Co., Case No. 2:25-cv-01762 (E.D. Wis., Nov. 11, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services Broken Trophies provides to their non-disabled customers through https://www.kohler.com (hereinafter "Kohler.com" or "the website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's website, Kohler.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Kohler provides to the public a website known as Kohler.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a wide range of products including kitchen and bathroom fixtures, faucets, sinks, toilets, bathtubs, showers, furniture, cabinetry, and lighting.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (630)-478-0856 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law KROGER COMPANY: Womick Suit Seeks to Certify Classes ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY WOMICK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. THE KROGER COMPANY, Case No. 3:21-cv-00574-NJR (S.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- certifying the Classes; -- appointing the Plaintiff Anthony Womick as Class Representative for the Classes and Kevin P. Green, Thomas P. Rosenfeld, and Daniel S. Levy of Goldenberg Heller & Antognoli, P.C. and Mike Arias and Anthony Jenkins of Arias Sanguinetti Wang & Team LLP as Class Counsel. The Plaintiff seeks to certify a Multi-State Consumer Fraud Class consisting of: "All persons who purchased one or more of the Class Products during the Class Period in any of the following states: Illinois, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, or Washington." The Plaintiff also seeks to certify an Illinois Class for his ICFA unfair practices and unjust enrichment claims, consisting of: "All persons who purchased one or more of the Class Products during the Class Period in the state of Illinois. The "Class Period" is defined as the time within the applicable statute of limitations through the date of class certification. Specifically, for the Illinois unjust enrichment claim the Class Period commences on May 12, 2016, and for the ICFA claims of the Illinois class the Class Period commences on May 12, 2018. For the states in the multi-state class, the applicable statute of limitations are set forth in Exhibit 13. The Class Products are the specific flavors and sizes of Kroger-brand canisters of ground coffee identified above. Statement of Facts A class action is thus the most efficient and effective method to resolve this controversy and a review of the applicable factors shows that the superiority requirement is satisfied. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant unlawfully misrepresents the number of cups of coffee that can be brewed from select Kroger brand ground coffee products (the "Class Products"). During the Class Period and until early 2021, the Plaintiff purchased the Medium Roast Supreme Blend and the Medium Roast Select Blend Class Products. Kroger is an American retail company that operates supermarkets and multi-department stores. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=baClVz at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas P. Rosenfeld, Esq. Kevin P. Green, Esq. Daniel S. Levy, Esq. GOLDENBERG HELLER & ANTOGNOLI, P.C. 2227 South State Route 157 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 656-5150 E-mail: tom@ghalaw.com kevin@ghalaw.com daniel@ghalaw.com - and - Mike Arias, Esq. Anthony Jenkins, Esq. ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TEAM LLP 6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90045 Telephone: (310) 844-9696 Facsimile: (310) 861-0168 E-mail: mike@aswtlawyers.com anthony@aswtlawyers.com LACKIE DRUG: Bid for More Time to File Class Cert. Response OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lackie Drug Store Inc., v. Arkansas CVS Pharmacy LLC, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-01515 (E.D. Ark., Filed Dec. 30, 2020), the Hon. Judge James M. Moody Jr. entered an order granting motion to extend time to file a response to Defendant's motion to deny class certification. The nature of suit states Statutory Actions -- Declaratory Judgement. CVS offers services such as prescription filling, vaccinations, and health clinics.[CC] LAKEVIEW LOAN: Bid to Certify Class Tossed as Moot -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Morrill v. Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-20955 (S.D. Fla., Filed March 29, 2022), the Hon. Judge Darrin P. Gayles enteredC an order as follows: -- denying as moot sealed motion; -- denying as moot motion to certify class; -- denying as moot motion to strike; The parties' request for a 45-day period for the filing of a motion for preliminary approval of a class settlement is GRANTED. The parties' request for a stay of any current/pending deadlines in the action is also granted. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Other Personal Injury. Lakeview is a mortgage loan servicer.[CC] LAMPO GROUP: 9th Cir. Affirms Denial of Arbitration in Patrick Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the order denying a motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuits captioned ANNA PATRICK; DOUGLAS MORRILL; ROSEANNE MORRILL; LEISA GARRETT; ROBERT NIXON; SAMANTHA NIXON; DAVID BOTTONFIELD; ROSEMARIE BOTTONFIELD; TASHA RYAN; ROGELIO VARGAS; MARILYN DEWEY; PETER ROLLINS; KATRINA BENNY; SARA ERICKSON; GREG LARSON; JAMES KING; RACHAEL ROLLINS, Plaintiffs - Appellees v. DAVID L. RAMSEY III; THE LAMPO GROUP, INC., a Tennessee limited liability company, Defendants - Appellants, and HAPPY HOUR MEDIA GROUP LLC, a Washington limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 24-5710; and TASHA RYAN; ROGELIO VARGAS; MARILYN DEWEY; PETER ROLLINS; KATRINA BENNY; SARA ERICKSON; GREG LARSON; JAMES KING; RACHAEL ROLLINS; ANNA PATRICK; DOUGLAS MORRILL; ROSEANNE MORRILL; LEISA GARRETT; ROBERT NIXON; SAMANTHA NIXON; DAVID BOTTONFIELD; ROSEMARIE BOTTONFIELD, Plaintiffs - Appellees v. HAPPY HOUR MEDIA GROUP LLC, Defendant - Appellant, and THE LAMPO GROUP, INC., DAVID L. RAMSEY III, Defendants, Case No. 24-5711. The matter is an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (D.C. No. 2:23-cv-00630-JLR, James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding). The Ninth Circuit panel consists of Consuelo M. Callahan, Morgan Christen and Andrew D. Hurwitz, Circuit Judges. In this putative class action, David L. Ramsey III, the Lampo Group LLC, and Happy Hour Media Group LLC (collectively, "Appellants") challenge the district court's order denying their motion to compel arbitration. The Court of Appeals affirms. According to the Court's Memorandum, arbitration is a matter of contract. Therefore, the general rule is that a party cannot be required to arbitrate a dispute he or she has not agreed to arbitrate. No appellant is a party to the contract between the Plaintiffs and Reed Hein & Associates that contains the relevant arbitration clause, nor is Reed Hein a party in this action. The Appellants nonetheless claim that the Plaintiffs are equitably estopped from objecting to arbitration. Because the Washington Supreme Court has not addressed a case in which a nonsignatory defendant seeks to compel a signatory plaintiff to arbitrate based on equitable estoppel, the Panel says it may rely on "intermediate appellate court decisions, statutes, and decisions from other jurisdictions as interpretive aids," citing Gravquick A/S v. Trimble Navigation Int'l Ltd., 323 F.3d 1219, 1222 (9th Cir. 2003). The operative complaint asserts that the Appellants deceptively and fraudulently marketed Reed Hein's services and are, therefore, liable under Washington statutory and common law. The allegedly unlawful conduct occurred, however, before the Plaintiffs contracted with Reed Hein. Moreover, the Plaintiffs' claims do not rest on interpreting their contracts with Reid Hein. Thus, the Panel notes that the complaint and the contracts are not inextricably intertwined. The Panel finds, among other things, that the cases the Appellants rely upon are readily distinguishable. The Panel opines that Reed Hein, the signatory to the Plaintiffs' contracts, forfeited its right to compel arbitration because of its past conduct, and is not party to this case. The Panel points out that it would be neither fair nor equitable to allow the nonsignatory Appellants to arbitrate claims that a signatory defendant could not. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated Nov. 12, 2025, is available at https://tinyurl.com/5n793y2x from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. LAUNDRY DEPOT: Leong Appeals Decertification Order to 2nd Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- NYOK MOY LEONG is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendants' motion to decertify class in the lawsuit entitled Nyok Moy Leong, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Laundry Depot, LLC d/b/a Laundry Depot, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-03545-HG-PK, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought by the Plaintiff to remedy claims of employment discrimination on the basis of age pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), and the Suffolk County Human Rights Law ("SCHRL"), and on the basis of disability pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), the NYSHRL, and the SCHRL. On Sept. 17, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to decertify class, which Judge Hector Gonzalez granted on Oct. 28, 2025. Accordingly, the Court finds that this action may not proceed by way of a class because the requirements of Rule 23 are not satisfied. The appellate case is entitled Nyok Moy Leong v. Laundry Depot, LLC d/b/a Laundry Depot, et al., Case No. 25-2820, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on November 3, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner NYOK MOY LEONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 110 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 Email: troylaw@troypllc.com Defendants-Respondents LAUNDRY DEPOT, LLC D/B/A LAUNDRY DEPOT, et al. are represented by: Aleksander B. Milch, Esq. THE KASEN AND LIU LAW FIRM, PLLC 136-33 37th Avenue, Suite 9C Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 337-8012 Email: aleksander@kasenlawfirm.com - and - Robert J. Adinolfi, Esq. THE KASEN AND LIU LAW FIRM, PLLC 136-33 37th Avenue, Suite 9B Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 337-8012 Email: robertadinolfiesq@gmail.com LAVANDERIA TU CASA: Casiano Sues Over Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------- Felicita Castillo Casiano, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. LAVANDERIA TU CASA CORP. (D/B/A LAVANDERIA TU CASA) and ADULLAH HADMAN, Case No. 1:25-cv-09407 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 11, 2025), is brought for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law (the "NYLL"), including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff Castillo worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that she worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff Castillo appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Castillo the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which she had to work over 10 hours a day. The Defendants' conduct extended beyond Plaintiff Castillo to all other similarly situated employees. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff Castillo and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Castillo was employed as a general assistant at the dry cleaner. The Defendants own, operate, or control a dry cleaner, located in New York City under the name "Lavanderia Tu Casa."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 LCMC HEALTH: Williams Privacy Suit Removed to E.D. La. ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as KATRINA PARKER WILLIAMS & IRYON PARKER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. LCMC HEALTH CLINICAL SERVICES, LLC d/b/a EAST JEFFERSON GENERAL HOSPITAL, Case No. 2025-10429, was removed from the Civil District Court (also known as 41st Judicial District Court) for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on November 14, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02324-SM-DPC to the proceeding. The Complaint alleges that LCMC failed to adequately protect information systems with certain personally identifiable information and personal health information; that there was an alleged breach and disclosure of confidential information (the "Data Breach") which allegedly harmed Plaintiffs and members of the putative class; and that Defendant failed to properly notify Plaintiffs and members of the putative class of the Data Beach. The Complaint asserts various claims under federal law including that (i) LCMC allegedly violated Health Insurance the Portability and Accountability Act and (ii) LCMC allegedly violated the Federal Trade Commission Act. The state law claims asserted involved the same case or controversy as the federal claims as all the claims arise from the alleged improper conduct or practice of LCMC which allegedly resulted in the Data Breach. LCMC Health Clinical Services LLC is a comprehensive medical group that provides health and allied services.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Peter J. Butler, Jr., Esq. Richard G. Passler, Esq. Thomas M. Benjamin, Esq. BREAZEALE, SACHSE & WILSON, L.L.P. 909 Poydras Street Suite 1500 New Orleans, LA 70112 Telephone: (504) 619-1800 E-mail: Peter.Butler@bswllp.com Richard.Passler@bswllp.com Thomas.Benjamin@bswllp.com - and - Thomas R. Temple, Jr., Esq. BREAZEALE, SACHSE & WILSON, L.L.P. 301 Main Street Suite 2300 Baton Rouge, LA 70801 Telephone: (225) 387-4000 E-mail: Thomas.Temple@bswllp.com LEADPOINT INC: Rush Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Missouri ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Leadpoint, Inc. The case is styled as Jennifer Rush, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Leadpoint, Inc., Case No. 6:25-cv-03331-BCW (W.D. Mo., Nov. 12, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Leadpoint -- https://www.leadpoint.com/ -- is an IT company offering a lead generation marketplace for data and voice leads.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tylor Whitham, Esq. WHITHAM LAW FIRM 12120 State Line Rd., Ste. Box 265 Leawood, KS 66209 Phone: (816) 522-3399 Email: tylor@whithamlawfirm.com LENS.COM INC: Martin Suit Seeks Class Certification --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICKEY MARTIN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. LENS.COM, INC., Case No. 0:24-cv-60489-DSL (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the proposed class, appointing undersigned counsel as class counsel, and allowing the Plaintiff 60 days following certification to present the Court with a proposal for class notice. On behalf of these putative class members, the Plaintiff moves to certify a Florida class under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA"): "All Florida residents and consumers who, within the applicable statute of limitations preceding the filing of this action to the date of class certification, purchased products from the Defendant and paid a charge labeled "Taxes & Fees"." Lens.com operates as a specialty online retailer. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mdSAmb 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 LG ELECTRONICS: Kurant Sues Over Refrigerators' Defective Component ------------------------------------------------------------------- MARK KURANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01549-FJS-MJK (N.D.N.Y., November 3, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of New York General Business Law, breach of express warranty, and breach of implied warranties. The case arises from the Defendant's design, manufacturing, distribution, and sale of LG refrigerators. According to the complaint, the refrigerators are defective because they contain "linear compressors" that fail early in the refrigerators' operating life, rendering the refrigerators suddenly and permanently unable to perform their basic cooling function. As a result of the Defendant's omissions, the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers suffered damages. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. is a manufacturer of consumer electronics products based in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Harris, Jr., Esq. HARRIS LLP 501 West Broadway, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 213-1102 Email: david@harrisllp.com LIBERTY BANKERS: Filing for Class Cert. Due May 21, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Herrera, v. Liberty Bankers Insurance Group, Case No. 3:25-cv-06775-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Thompson entered a case management and scheduling order: Trial date: Oct. 04, 2027 Final pretrial conference: Aug. 19, 2027 Expert discovery cut-off: March 23, 2027 Fact discovery cut-off: Dec. 29, 2026 Motion for Class Certification: Last day to be heard: Nov. 3, 2026 Last day to reply to class certification motion: Aug. 5, 2026 Opposition to class certification motion due: July 6, 2026 Class certification motion due: May 21, 2026 Liberty offers life insurance, annuity, and health insurance products. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yhEoaw at no extra charge.[CC] LIBERTY MUTUAL: Faces Powers Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------------ YEVONNE POWERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-13288-DLC (D. Mass., November 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of sending unwanted telemarketing communications to the cellular phone numbers of the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers in an attempt to promote its products or services without obtaining prior consent. As a result of the Defendant's action, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered harm. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company is an insurance firm, headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig Thor Kimmel, Esq. KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, PC 30 East Butler Ave. Ambler, PA 19002 Telephone: (215) 540-8888 Facsimile: (877) 788-2864 Email: kimmel@creditlaw.com - and - Alexander H. Burke, Esq. BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC 909 Davis St., Suite 500 Evanston, IL 60201 Telephone: (312) 729-5288 Email: aburke@burkelawllc.com LINEAGE INC: IPO Documents "Misleading," Public Employees Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF MISSISSIPPI and INDIANA PUBLIC RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LINEAGE, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-13544-FKB-EAS (E.D. Mich., November 6, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged draft and dissemination of false and misleading documents in connection with Lineage's initial public offering, commenced on or about July 25, 2024. According to the complaint, the IPO documents were materially false and misleading when made because they failed to disclose the adverse facts that existed at the time of the IPO. As a result of the Defendants' misrepresentations, the Plaintiffs and the Class have sustained damages. Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi is a state government office in Jackson, Mississippi. Indiana Public Retirement System is a state government office in Indianapolis, Indiana. Lineage, Inc. is a cold storage focused real estate investment trust ("REIT") headquartered in Novi, Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew I. Henzi, Esq. ASHERKELLY, PLLC 25800 Northwestern Hwy., Suite 1100 Southfield, MI 48075 Telephone: (248) 746-2762 Email: mhenzi@asherkellylaw.com - and - Marco A. Duenas, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 10 Bank Street, Suite 882 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 437-8551 Facsimile: (888) 216-2220 Email: mduenas@saxenawhite.com - and - Maya Saxena, Esq. Lester R. Hooker, Esq. 7777 Glades Road, Suite 300 Boca Raton, FL 33434 Telephone: (561) 394-3399 Facsimile: (561) 394-3382 Email: msaxena@saxenawhite.com lhooker@saxenawhite.com - and - Francis P. McConville, Esq. Connor C. Boehme, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 Email: fmcconville@labaton.com cboehme@labaton.com LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Appeals Class Cert. and Strike Order to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- LOANDEPOT.COM, LLC is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Jeffrey Kearns, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. loanDepot.com, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:22-cv-01217-JWH-JDE, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. On Jan. 26, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class. On Apr. 25, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to strike. On Oct. 20, 2025, Judge John W. Holcomb entered an Order granting the Plaintiff's motion to certify class and denying the Defendant's motion to strike. The Court finds that all of the Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) requirements for class certification are met, thus class certification is appropriate. The appellate case is entitled Kearns v. loanDepot.com, LLC, Case No. 25-7005, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 5, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on November 10, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on December 15, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on January 14, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee JEFFREY KEARNS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Adrian Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD FRIEDMAN, PC 23586 Calabasas Road, Suite 105 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 Email: abacon@toddflaw.com - and - Garrett Berg, Esq. GARRETT BERG LAW, P.A. 555 NE 15th Street, Penthouse A Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 298-2253 Email: garrett@gberglega1.com Defendant-Appellant LOANDEPOT.COM, LLC is represented by: Eric J. Troutman, Esq. Puja J. Amin, Esq. Maxwell Levins, Esq. TROUTMAN AMIN, LLP 400 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1550 Irvine, CA 92618 LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Appeals Class Certification Order in Kearns Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- LOANDEPOT.COM, LLC is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiff's motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Jeffrey Kearns, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. loanDepot.com, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:22-cv-01217-JWH-JDE, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. On Jan. 26, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class. On Apr. 25, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to strike. On Oct. 20, 2025, Judge John W. Holcomb entered an Order granting the Plaintiff's motion to certify class and denying the Defendant's motion to strike. The Court finds that all of the Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) requirements for class certification are met, thus class certification is appropriate. The appellate case is entitled Jeffrey Kearns v. loanDepot.com, LLC, Case No. 25-6992, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 4, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee JEFFREY KEARNS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Adrian Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD FRIEDMAN, PC 23586 Calabasas Road, Suite 105 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 Email: abacon@toddflaw.com - and - Garrett Berg, Esq. GARRETT BERG LAW, P.A. 555 NE 15th Street, Penthouse A Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 298-2253 Email: garrett@gberglega1.com Defendant-Petitioner LOANDEPOT.COM, LLC is represented by: Eric J. Troutman, Esq. Puja J. Amin, Esq. TROUTMAN AMIN, LLP 400 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1550 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 412-5436 (949) 350-3663 Email: troutman@troutmanamin.com amin@troutmanamin.com LOB INC: Blue Suit Removed to N.D. California --------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Timothy Blue, David Brewer, and Michael Collins, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. LOB, INC., PREMIUM PARKING SERVICES, LLC, MUNICIPAL PARKING SERVICES, INC., GOVCIO, LLC, and THOMPSON REUTERS CORP., Case No. CGC-25-630018 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on Nov. 12, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-09741. This is a putative class action brought by Plaintiffs, who assert a single cause of action against Defendants for violation of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act ("DPPA"). The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated the DPPA by obtaining Plaintiffs' and putative Class Members' personal information from non-public motor vehicle state records, and by using the information to send parking tickets to Plaintiffs' and putative Class Members' homes. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated the DPPA by obtaining Plaintiffs' and putative Class Members' personal information from non-public motor vehicle state records, and by using the information to send parking tickets to Plaintiffs' and putative Class Members' homes.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Stephen Beke, Esq. CARLTON FIELDS, LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 843-6300 Facsimile: (310) 843-6301 Email: sbeke@carltonfields.com - and - D. Matthew Allen, Esq. Kevin P. McCoy, Esq. Brooke Patterson, Esq. CARLTON FIELDS, P.A. 4221 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Suite 1000 Tampa, FL 33607-5780 Phone: (813) 229-1212 Facsimile: (813) 229-4133 Email: mallen@carltonfields.com kmccoy@carltonfields.com bpatterson@carltonfields.com LOUISIANA: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Giroir Suit to 5th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ JAMES M. LEBLANC, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting Plaintiff Joel Giroir's motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Joel Giroir, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. James M. LeBlanc, Secretary, Department of Public Safety and Corrections, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00233, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. According to the complaint, the Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections (DOC) has been unlawfully and knowingly over detaining thousands of Louisiana residents in its custody every year. On Sept. 22, 2025, Judge John W. deGravelles entered an Order granting Plaintiff Joel Giroir's motion for class certification, and a class will be certified as follows: All persons who have been, or will be, sentenced to the custody of the Louisiana DOC, and who were, or will be, entitled to release at the time of their sentencing, but who nevertheless remain in custody, now or in the future, due to the Defendants failure to implement and maintain an adequate process for timely releasing inmates, for more than 48 hours past their sentencing dates. The appellate case is entitled Giroir v. LeBlanc, Case No. 25-30644, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on November 5, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee Joel Giroir, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Michael Allen, Esq. Samantha Bosalavage Pourciau, Esq. PROMISE OF JUSTICE INITIATIVE 1024 Elysian Fields Avenue New Orleans, LA 70117 Telephone: (504) 529-5955 (845) 826-1883 - and - William Brock Most, Esq. MOST & ASSOCIATES 201 Saint Charles Avenue New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 509-5023 Defendants-Appellants JAMES M. LEBLANC, Secretary, Department of Public Safety and Corrections, et al. are represented by: Elizabeth Lauren Brown, Esq. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1885 N. 3rd Street Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Telephone: (225) 406-1864 M. GREEN AND COMPANY: Sanchez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against M. Green and Company Real Estate Holding Company, LLC. The case is styled as Guadalupe Sanchez, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. M. Green and Company Real Estate Holding Company, LLC, Case No. VCU328075 (Cal. Super. Ct., Tulare Cty., Nov. 10, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil – Other Employment." M. Green and Company LLP create homes, communities and spaces with thoughtful attention to detail.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung L. Yang, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 355 S. Grand Ave., Suite 1450 Los Angeles, California 90071 Phone: (213) 985-1150 Fax: (213) 985-2155 Email: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com MARINER FINANCE: Delacruz Suit Removed to E.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Dalanii Delacruz, an individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. MARINER FINANCE, LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CU25-09280 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Solano, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on Nov. 12, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-03286-JDP. The Complaint alleges 11 claims for relief against Defendant and unnamed Doe defendants. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges claims for: Unfair Competition; Failure to Pay Minimum Wage; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Statements; Failure to Reimburse Employees for Required Expenses; Failure to Provide Wages When Due; Failure to Pay Sick Wages; Discrimination in Violation of FEHA; and Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Alexander M. Chemers, Esq. Matthew R. Richardson, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-239-9800 Facsimile: 213-239-9045 Email: zander.chemers@ogletree.com matthew.richardson@ogletree.com MARYS LONG BEACH: Gonzalez Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marys Long Beach Inc. The case is styled as Cesar Castillo Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Marys Long Beach Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-10818 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 12, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Marys Long Beach Inc. -- https://www.hamburgermarys.com/longbeach/ -- is an American bar & grill chain where diner classics & cocktails meet quirky entertainment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN PA 237 South Dixie Hwy 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com MAXIMUS BUILDING: Faces Sanford Suit Over Disability Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY SANFORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAXIMUS BUILDING SUPPLY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-03024 (W.D. Tenn., November 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for disability discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the common law. Mr. Sanford worked for the Defendant as a load builder from on or about August 21, 2023, until his wrongful termination on or about March 21, 2024. Maximus Building Supply, LLC is a distributor of building supplies, headquartered in Collierville, Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William A. Wooten, Esq. WOOTEN LAW OFFICE 120 Court Square East Covington, TN 38019 Telephone: (901) 475-1050 Facsimile: (901) 234-0028 Email: William@wootenlawoffice.com MCCREARY MODERN: Trull Appeals ERISA Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ CALVIN TRULL is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled Calvin Trull, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. McCreary Modern, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-00011-KDB-SCR, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by failing to engage in a prudent process to select and monitor an appropriate reinvestment policy for stock dividends earned by the McCreary Modern, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan. On Mar. 31, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which Judge Kenneth D. Bell granted on Oct. 1, 2025. Accordingly, the Court finds that Trull has failed to plausibly allege a breach of fiduciary duty, and his claims will be dismissed. The appellate case is entitled Calvin Trull v. McCreary Modern, Inc., Case No. 25-2337, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on November 3, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant CALVIN TRULL, on behalf of McCreary Modern, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, is represented by: Daniel Ray Francis, Esq. DAN FRANCIS LAW FIRM, PLLC P.O. Box 575 Lexington, NC 27293 Telephone: (314) 258-0259 - and - Jennifer K. Lee, Esq. ENGSTROM LEE 323 Washington Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 305-8349 Defendants-Appellees MCCREARY MODERN, INCORPORATED, et al. are represented by: Benjamin L. Ellison, Esq. Kristin Kate Zinsmaster, Esq. JONES & DAY 90 S. Seventh Street, Suite 4950 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 217-8800 - and - Emily Carney, Esq. Mark A. Nebrig, Esq. Joseph M. Piligian, Esq. MOORE & VAN ALLEN 100 North Tryon Street Charlotte, NC 28202 Telephone: (704) 331-1056 (704) 331-3602 (704) 331-1116 MDL 2262: Mayor Appeals Final Judgment in Antitrust Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled In Re: Libor-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:11-md-2262, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case is brought against the Defendants for alleged antitrust law violations. On Sept. 25, 2025, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants on both "Upstream" issues of (1) suppression and (2) conspiracy. On Oct. 9, 2025, the Court entered an order that the parties show cause no later than October 24, 2025, as to why actions should not be closed, given that the Court has resolved the "Upstream" issues of (1) suppression and (2) conspiracy. On Oct. 28, 2025, Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald entered a final judgment disposing all remaining claims against all remaining parties. The appellate case is entitled In Re: Libor-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 25-2792, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on November 3, 2025. [BN] MEDICREDIT INC: Allowed Leave to File Class Cert Sur-Reply ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Saggio v. Medicredit, Inc., Case No. 4:22-cv-01005 (E.D. Mo., Filed Sept. 26, 2022), the Hon. Judge John A. Ross entered an order granting the Defendants' motion for leave to file sur-reply to Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion for class certification. The nature of suit states Statutory Actions. Medicredit is a debt collection agency.[CC] MEDIMPACT HEALTHCARE: Sales Sues Over Clients' Compromised Info --------------------------------------------------------------- LAURA SALES and JOANN MCKENZIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MEDIMPACT HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS, INC. and MEDIMPACT DIRECT, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-03005-AJB-MMP (S.D. Cal., November 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, and violations of California's Unfair Competition Law and California's Confidentiality of Medical Information Act. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals stored within MedImpact's network systems following a data breach discovered on or about October 27, 2025. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiffs and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. MedImpact Healthcare Systems, Inc. is an independent pharmacy and benefit health solutions company, with its principal place of business in San Diego, California. MedImpact Direct, LLC is a prescription delivery service provider, with its principal place of business in San Diego, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carly M. Roman, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: croman@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com MEDTRONIC PLC: Phoenix Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 8th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- THE PHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled The Trustees of the Welfare and Pension Funds of Local 464A - Pension Fund, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Medtronic PLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 0:22-cv-02197-LMP, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought on behalf of a class of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Medtronic common stock between June 8, 2019, and May 25, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). On Oct. 21, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their first amended consolidated complaint (FACC), which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Dec. 6, 2024. On Sept. 30, 2025, Judge Laura M. Provinzino entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice. The Court concludes that neither of Phoenix's theories of liability under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act withstand the applicable heightened pleading standards, so Count I is dismissed. For that reason, the Court also dismissed Count II, Phoenix's derivative controlling-person claim. Finally, because this was Phoenix's second chance at amending its complaint, the FACC is dismissed with prejudice. The appellate case is entitled The Phoenix Ins. Co., Ltd., et al. v. Medtronic PLC, et al., Case No. 25-3190, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on November 3, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants THE PHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Darryl James Alvarado, Esq. Jack Abbey Gephart, Esq. Steven Francis Hubachek, Esq. Erika Limpin Oliver, Esq. Ashley M. Price, Esq. ROBBINS & GELLER 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 - and - June Pineda Hoidal, Esq. Charles R. Toomajian, III, Esq. ZIMMERMAN & REED 1100 IDS Center 80 S. Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 Defendants-Appellees MEDTRONIC PLC, et al. are represented by: Benjamin L. Ellison, Esq. Kristin Kate Zinsmaster, Esq. JONES & DAY 90 S. Seventh Street, Suite 4950 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 217-8800 - and - Amanda Margaret MacDonald, Esq. Aden MacMillan, Esq. Jamie Wolfe, Esq. WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY 680 Maine Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20024 Telephone: (202) 434-5000 MEIJER INC: Faces Trout Suit Over Illegal Tobacco Surcharges ------------------------------------------------------------ JUSTIN TROUT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEIJER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01378-HYJ-SJB (W.D. Mich., November 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and breach of fiduciary duty. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of charging a tobacco surcharge that unjustly forces certain employees to pay higher premiums for their health insurance. The Defendant's Plan does not provide the required reasonable alternative standard, and even if it did, it has failed to adequately notify employees about the availability of such an alternative in all its Plan communications. Consequently, the Defendant's tobacco surcharge violates ERISA's anti-discrimination provisions by imposing additional costs on employees who use tobacco products without meeting the legal requirements for a wellness program. As a result of the imposition of the unlawful and discriminatory tobacco surcharge, the Defendant enriched itself at the expense of the Plan, says the suit. Meijer, Inc. is a company that operates a chain of supercenters and retail stores, with its principal place of business located in Grand Rapids, Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Haskins, Esq. Oren Faircloth, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Email: shaskins@sirillp.com ofaircloth@sirillp.com META PLATFORMS: Faces Class Suit Over Unreasonable Selling Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that Meta Platforms has neglected to properly issue payment to several users who sold goods through Facebook Marketplace, and also tacks on an "unreasonable" selling fee to all sales. The 11-page complaint contends that Facebook has violated California's Unfair Competition Law by pocketing from a seller's sale price a 10-percent "selling fee" that's based not on the sales price of a product, but on the total amount paid by a buyer, including the product price, shipping costs and estimated taxes. "For example, if a seller sells a product at $50.00, and the buyer pays $10.00 for shipping the $5.00 in taxes, the buyer will pay a total of $65.00. 10% of $65.00 is $6.50," the case explains. "Facebook retains $6.50 as a so-called 'Selling fee' for itself, and in this example Facebook pays the seller only $43.50." In addition, the plaintiff, a California consumer, alleges she was never paid $29 she is owed from a Facebook Marketplace sale in December 2024, even though Facebook retained the buyer's payment. "After the seller ships the item, Facebook is supposed to promptly deposit the seller's payout amount in the seller's bank account or PayPal account, whichever the seller chooses to receive payouts via Marketplace," the case reiterates. The plaintiff asks the court for an injunction to order Facebook to create and implement policies and procedures to ensure that sellers who ship items through Marketplace are promptly paid the money they are due. The plaintiff also asks that the court move to get Facebook to end its assessment of its 10-percent selling fee based on the total amount paid by the buyer, and instead assess the 10-percent fee based on the sales price only. The Facebook Marketplace class action lawsuit looks to cover all United States residents who sold and shipped an item through Facebook Marketplace and did not receive their payout, and/or were assessed a 10-percent selling fee based on the total amount paid by the buyer during the relevant statute of limitations period. [GN] MICROSOFT CORP: Singla Sues Over Rejection of Qualified Applicants ------------------------------------------------------------------ DIPESH SINGLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-10660-JWH-E (N.D. Cal., November 6, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for employment discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act, disparate impact under the Civil Rights Act, violations of California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Equal Protection Act, Unfair Competition Law, and Federal Trade Commission Act, privacy violations, negligence and gross negligence, and unjust enrichment. According to the complaint, the Defendants operate automated, artificial intelligence (AI) driven and algorithmic applicant tracking systems (ATS) that unlawfully reject qualified applicants without human review. The alleged discrimination includes disparate treatment and disparate impact based on race, national origin, disability, gender, and age. Moreover, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants profit from misuse of applicant data and facilitates scam solicitations, causing economic and reputational harm. Microsoft Corporation is a technology company, headquartered in Redmond, Washington. [BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. MIIR HOLDINGS LLC: Cazares Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- Amelia Cazares, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Miir Holdings, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01756-SCD (E.D. Wis., Nov. 10, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services Broken Trophies provides to their non-disabled customers through https://www.miir.com (hereinafter "Miir.com" or "the website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's website, Miir.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Miir Holdings provides to the public a website known as Miir.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a variety of drinkware and kitchenware such as bottles, tumblers, mugs, coffee canisters, and pour-over sets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (630)-478-0856 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law MOBILE MEDIC: Class Settlement in Oliver Suit Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDIN OLIVER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. MOBILE MEDIC AMBULANCE SERVICES, INC. Case No. 1:24-cv-00180-HSO-BWR (S.D. Miss.), the Hon. Judge Ozerden entered an order granting final approval of settlement. 1. The settlement agreement is approved pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. 2. The Court awards Class Counsel attorneys' fees of $41,666.67 and litigation costs of $4,221.85. 3. The Court approves the Service Award to Plaintiff, Brandin Oliver, in the amount of $6,000.00. 4. The Court approves ILYM Group's request for $6,200.00 for its work in administering the Settlement. 5. The Court finally certifies the Class for settlement purposes. The Court finds that the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are satisfied in all respects, including numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority. 6. The Court finally approves the designation of the Plaintiff Brandin Oliver as class representative and finally approves the appointment of Simpson, PLLC as Class Counsel. 7. All members of the Class who have not submitted a valid and timely Request for Exclusion shall be bound by the terms of the Settlement Agreements, the Final Judgment, and this Order. Mobile provides emergency medical and transport services. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TcoCcR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: William "Jack" Simpson, Esq. SIMPSON, PLLC 100 South Main Street Booneville, MS 38829-0382 Telephone: (662) 913-7811 Facsimile: (662) 728-1992 E-mail: jack@simpson-pllc.com The Defendant is represented by: Maja Veselinovic, Esq. Patrick F. Hulla, Esq. Juan B. Hernandez, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 700 W. 47th St., Suite 500 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 410-2226 Facsimile: (816) 471-1303 E-mail: patrick.hulla@ogletree.com Maja.veselinovic@ogletree.com juan.hernandez@ogletreedeakins.com MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due May 7, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kruzel v. Molina Healthcare, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:23-cv-01183 (D. Or., Filed Aug. 14, 2023), the Hon. Judge Ann L. Aiken entered an order Granting Joint Motion for Extension of Discovery & PTO Deadlines. The Plaintiff's class certification expert disclosures are due by Feb. 12, 2026. The Defendants' class certification expert disclosures are due by March 30, 2026. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is due by May 7, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Molina is a managed care company.[CC] MOR CONSTRUCTION: Horner Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as John Horner and Dean Dicrescenzo, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. MOR CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., f/k/a MOORE OUTDOOR REJUVENATION, INC., VISU-SEWER, LLC, VISU-SEWER EAST LLC, and VISU-SEWER OF OHIO LLC, Case No. 251000323 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Nov. 10, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-06347-RBS. The Plaintiffs' Complaint in the State Court Action asserts claims under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968 ("PMWA"), the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law ("PWPCL"), and Pennsylvania common law. All claims arise out of the work Plaintiffs performed for one or more Defendants.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Daniel F. Thornton, Esq. David L. Hackett, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street, Suite 2800 Philadelphia, PA 19103-7325 Phone: 215-665-2000 Email: dthornton@cozen.com dhackett@cozen.com - and - Matthew P. Kellam, Esq. Michael DeMarino, Esq. LANER MUCHIN, LTD. 515 North State St. Suite 2400 Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: 312-467-9800 Email: mkellam@lanerlaw.com mdemarino@lanerlaw.com - and - Christopher M. Lucca, Esq. CLARK HILL PLC Two Commerce Square 2001 Market St, Suite 2620 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-640-8500 Email: clucca@clarkhill.com MOTT OPTICAL: Appeals Denied Suit Dismissal Bid to 2nd Circuit -------------------------------------------------------------- MOTT OPTICAL GROUP, LLC is taking an appeal from a court order denying its motion to dismiss in the lawsuit entitled Roberto Solis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mott Optical Group, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00311, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit alleged that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.mottoptical.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of their rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. On Mar. 29, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, which Judge Brian M. Cogan denied on Apr. 28, 2025. The appellate case is entitled Solis v. Mott Optical Group, LLC, Case No. 25-2803, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on November 4, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee ROBERTO SOLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Defendant-Appellant MOTT OPTICAL GROUP, LLC is represented by: Morton S. Minsley, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MORTON S. MINSLEY 101 Lafayette Street, 10th Floor New York, NY 10013 MUSEUM OF MODERN: Trippett Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- ALFRED TRIPPETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE MUSEUM OF MODERN ART d/b/a MOMA DESIGN STORE, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09275 (S.D.N.Y., November 6, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law, New York State Civil Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://store.moma.org/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. The Museum of Modern Art, doing business as Moma Design Store, is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, PC 1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 Email: Glevy@glpcfirm.com MV PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION: Reese Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as David Reese, individually, and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act v. MV PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, INC., a California corporation; MV TRANSPORTATION, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25CMCV01365 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Nov. 10, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-10791. The Complaint contains a single cause of action seeking civil penalties under the California Private Attorney's General Act ("PAGA") for the following underlying Labor Code claims: Failure to Pay Overtime; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Timely Pay Wages Upon Termination; Failure to Timely Pay Wages During Employment; Failure to Provide Complete and Accurate Wage Statements; Failure to Keep Complete and Accurate Payroll Records; and Failure to Reimburse Necessary Business-Related Expenses and Costs.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Gregory G. Iskander, Esq. Michael W. Nelson, Esq. Ronak Patel, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Treat Towers, 1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Phone: 925.932.2468 Facsimile: 925.946.9809 Email: giskander@littler.com mwnelson@littler.com ropatel@littler.com MY CREDIT CARE: Redick Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against My Credit Care. The case is styled as William Redick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. My Credit Care, Case No. 1:25-cv-01539-CDB (E.D. Cal., Nov. 12, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. My Credit Care -- https://www.carecredit.com/ -- specialize in credit repair and improving your credit scores on a monthly basis.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com NAKED WHEY: Triana Sues Over Vegan Mass Gainer's Safe Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ OLIVER TRIANA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NAKED WHEY, INC. d/b/a NAKED NUTRITION, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-25168-CMA (S.D. Fla., November 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of Naked Nutrition Vegan Mass Gainer. According to the complaint, the Defendant markets the product as safe and fit for consumption. However, recent independent testing revealed that a single serving of the product contains so much lead, which exceeds a safe weekly threshold. Had the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers known the truth, they would not have purchased or would not have paid premium price for the product. Naked Whey, Inc., doing business as Naked Nutrition, is a producer of powdered protein and other health supplements, with its principal place of business in Miami, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq. COULSON P.C. 300 River Place Drive, Suite 1700 Detroit, MI 48207 Telephone: (313) 644-2685 Email: Nick@CoulsonPC.com NELLIS AUCTION: Reply in Support of Class Cert Bid Due Dec. 16 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN SCHAAF, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. NELLIS AUCTION HOLDINGS, LLC, a domestic limited liability company; CRET LLC, a domestic limited liability company; NELLIS AUCTION ARIZONA LLC, a foreign limited liability company; NELLIS AUCTION COLORADO, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; NELLIS AUCTION NEW JERSEY, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; NELLIS AUCTION TEXAS, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; SAC TRUST 2, a Nevada trust; SPENCER CHUPINSKY, individually and as trustee of SAC Trust 2; HALCYON THIRD MILLENIUM TRUST, a Nevada trust; KENNETH CHUPINSKY, individually and as trustee of Halcyon Third Millenium Trust; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-00647-JCM-NJK (D. Nev.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary certification and circulation of notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). The Parties have agreed to extend the briefing deadlines as follows: a. The Defendants' opposition to the Motion through and including Nov. 25, 2025; and b. The Plaintiff's reply in support of the motion through and including Dec. 16, 2025. On Oct. 30, 2025, the Plaintiff filed the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary certification and circulation pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). Nellis provides auctioning services such as retail returns, estate, and business liquidations. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bm4pRI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Kuller, Esq. RAFII & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1120 N. Town Center Dr., Ste. 130 Las Vegas, NV 89144 Telephone: (725) 245-6056 Facsimile: (725) 220-1802 E-mail: jason@rafiilaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Bradley T. Austin, Esq. Swen Prior, Esq. Theresa C. Trenholm, Esq. Eric D. Hone, Esq. Jennifer W. Arledge, Esq. Kelly B. Stout, Esq. SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. 1700 South Pavilion Center Dr., Suite 700 Las Vegas, NV 89135-1865 Telephone: (702) 784-5200 Facsimile: (702) 784-5252 E-mail: baustin@swlaw.com sprior@swlaw.com ttrenholm@swlaw.com ehone@hone.law jarledge@hone.law kstout@hone.law NEW ENGLAND: $2.16MM Class Settlement in Serra Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY SERRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-40022-MRG (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Guzman entered a final approval order and judgment: The Court grants final approval of the Settlement, including, but not limited to, the Settlement Amount of $2,160,000.00, the Releases in the Settlement, and the plans for distribution of the settlement relief. For purposes of the Settlement and this Final Approval Order and Judgment, the Court finally certifies for settlement purposes only the following Settlement Class: "All individuals residing in the United States who are or have been users of the Patriots App with location services enabled, and who requested or obtained any prerecorded (including on- demand replay) videos available on the Patriots App, during the Class Period." Excluded from the Settlement Class are (1) any judge presiding over this action, the judge's staff, and members of the judge's immediate family; (2) Defendant, its subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendant or its parents have a controlling interest and their current or former officers, directors, agents, attorneys, and employees; (3) persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the class; and (4) the legal representatives, successors, or assigns of any such excluded persons. The Court grants final approval to the appointment of Anthony Serra as Class Representative. The Court grants final approval to the appointment of Berman Tabacco; Taus, Cebulash & Landau, LLP; Gustafson Gluek, PLLC; Wexler Boley & Elgersma, LLP as Class Counsel. The Court awards Class Counsel 1/3 of the gross Settlement Fund, or $720,000 as an award of attorneys’ fees and $39,855.06 as an award of costs and expenses to be paid in accordance with the Settlement, to be paid to Class Counsel for the Action. Additionally, a Service Award of $5,000 is approved for the Settlement Class Representative, Anthony Serra. The Defendant operates as a professional football team within the NFL. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Yab1Ok at no extra charge.[CC] NEWELL BRANDS: Oster Ovens "Defective," Hoyes Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- ALAN HOYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEWELL BRANDS INC. d/b/a SUNBEAM PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-at-01506 (E.D. Cal., November 3, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, and Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, unjust enrichment, and breach of express warranty. The case arises from the Defendant's manufacturing, distribution, advertising, marketing, labeling, and sale of Oster-brand French Door Countertop Ovens. According to the complaint, the Ovens contain an identical defect in spring-loaded door mechanism. This defect can unexpectedly cause the door mechanism to snap shut and cause burn injuries to users. Sunbeam failed to disclose the existence of this defect to consumers prior to sale. As a result of the Defendant's omissions, the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers suffered damages, says the suit. Sunbeam Products, Inc. is a manufacturer of electric home appliances, with a principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Trenton R. Kashima, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 19800 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 270 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (212) 946-9389 Email: tkashima@brysonpllc.com - and - Nick Suciu, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 6905 Telegraph Road, Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Telephone: (616) 678-2180 Email: nsuciu@bryson.com NEXSTAR BROADCASTING: Carlig Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Philip Carlig, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. NEXSTAR BROADCASTING, INC., a Corporation; NEXSTAR BROADCASTING GROUP, INC., a Corporation; NEXSTAR MEDIA INC., a Corporation; TRIBUNE MEDIA COMPANY, a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV24426 was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Nov. 12, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-10860. The Complaint alleges the following purported eleven causes of action under California law: unfair competition in violation of California Business & Professions Code section 17200; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide required meal periods; failure to provide required rest periods; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failure to reimburse employees for required expenses; failure to timely pay wages at separation; (9) failure to pay proper sick pay; discrimination and retaliation; and wrongful termination.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Geoffrey C. Westbrook, Esq. Kyle W. Owen, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2300 Sacramento, CA 95814-4428 Phone: (916) 448-0159 Facsimile: (916) 558-4839 Email: gwestbrook@seyfarth.com kowen@seyfarth.com NHL ENTERPRISES: Joiner Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------- ZACHARY JOINER, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Zachary Joiner, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NHL Enterprises, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-2083, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act by allegedly failing to disclose that subscribers' personal identifying information would be captured by the Facebook Pixel utilized by the Defendants on their Team Websites. On Dec. 12, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which Judge Lewis A. Kaplan granted without prejudice on Sept. 29, 2025. Accordingly, the Court will afford the Plaintiffs an opportunity to move for leave to amend the complaint in a manner that would provide an appropriate basis for coming to a conclusion. The appellate case is entitled Joiner v. NHL Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 25-2789, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on November 3, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants ZACHARY JOINER, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Mark S. Reich, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Defendants-Appellees NHL ENTERPRISES, INC., et al. are represented by: Mark Melodia, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 513-3200 OCTOPUS RESTAURANT: Bibian Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Octopus Restaurant Group LLC. The case is styled as Rosie Bibian, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Octopus Restaurant Group LLC, Case No. 25STCV32983 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 10, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Octopus Restaurant Group LLC -- https://www.octopusrestaurant.com/ -- is a hospitality company that operates a restaurant group focused on serving Japanese cuisine with a passion for hospitality.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung L. Yang, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 355 S. Grand Ave., Suite 1450 Los Angeles, California 90071 Phone: (213) 985-1150 Fax: (213) 985-2155 Email: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com ONE FAST CAT INC: Cole Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Morgan Cole, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. One Fast Cat, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-01463-JEH-RLH (N.D. Ill., Nov. 11, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services the Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through https://onefastcat.com (hereinafter "Onefastcat.com" or "the website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's website, Onefastcat.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. One Fast Cat provides to the public a website known as Onefastcat.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a variety of cat exercise wheels and other pet accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (844) 731-3343 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law ONTRAC LOGISTICS: Escarcega Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Samuel Escarcega, an individual, on behalf of himself, the State of California, as a private attorney general, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ontrac Logistics, Inc., HVFP Express, Inc., Does 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No. 30-02025-01490042-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of California, Orange County, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Nov. 11, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-02568-DOC-DFM to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor for Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. OnTrac -- https://www.ontrac.com/ -- helps retailers and shippers with fast, flexible reliable last-mile delivery that reaches 80% of the US population in 31 states & D.C.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Melmed, Esq. Laura Michele Supanich, Esq. Trishta Dordi, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP P.C. 1801 Century Park E, Ste. 850 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2346 Phone: 310-824-3828 Fax: 310-862-6851 Email: jm@melmedlaw.com lms@melmedlaw.com td@melmedlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Damian Moos, Esq. SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON AND FEARY LLP 2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 560 Pasadena, CA 91101 Phone: (949) 800-8601 Fax: (626) 795-4790 Email: dmoos@scopelitis.com PADUCAH BANK: Summers Sues Over Improper Overdraft Fee Charges -------------------------------------------------------------- LISA SUMMERS, ARVID SUMMERS, and REBECCA HALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE PADUCAH BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-00194-BJB (W.D. Ky., November 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act, Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and the Electronic Fund Transfers Act. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged improper assessment and collection of (a) overdraft (OD) fees on debit card transactions authorized on sufficient funds, (b) OD fees on ATM transactions and one-time debit card transactions, and (c) multiple fees on an item that the accountholder only presented for payment once. As a result of the Defendant's improper and deceptive practices, its customers, including the Plaintiff, have been economically harmed. The Paducah Bank and Trust Company is a banking company based in Kentucky. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew E. Mize, Esq. Martin F. Schubert, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Email: amize@stranchlaw.com mschubert@stranchlaw.com - and - David M. Berger, Esq. GIBBS MURA LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 Email: dmb@classlawgroup.com - and - Shawn K. Judge, Esq. Mark H. Troutman, Esq. GIBBS MURA LLP 1554 Polaris Parkway, Suite 325 Columbus, OH 43240 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 Email: skj@classlawgroup.com mht@classlawgroup.com PARSEC INC: $4.47MM Settlement in Tyrone Suit Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tyrone Johnson et al., v. Parsec, Inc. et al., Case No. 22-cv-06930-AH-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Anne Hwang entered an order granting in part motion for final approval of class action settlement, class representative service payments, class counsel fees payment, and class counsel litigation expenses payment. 1. The Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class action settlement and PAGA settlement is granted. The Defendant shall pay a gross settlement amount of $4,476,098, to be distributed under the terms of the Settlement Agreement and consistent with this Order. 2. The Plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees and costs is granted in part. The Court awards Class Counsel 25 percent of the gross settlement amount, amounting to $1,119,024.50, in attorney's fees and $39,063.57 in reimbursement for litigation costs and expenses. 3. The Plaintiffs' motion for class representative service awards is granted in part. The Court awards $10,000 to Johnson, $7,500 to Kennedy, and $5,000 to Walker. 4. The Plaintiffs' motion for administration costs is granted. The Administrator shall receive $18,000 in administration costs. Class Counsel is ordered to file a proposed final judgment within five (5) days of entry of this Order. In August 2022, Johnson and Kennedy filed an enforcement action under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") and a putative wage-and-hour class action complaint in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. The certified settlement class is defined as: "All current and former non-exempt or hourly-paid employees employed by the Defendant in the State of California who worked for the Defendant at any time during the Class Period from Aug. 8, 2018, through Sept. 27, 2023." Parsec provides contracted terminal management services. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CC5puB at no extra charge.[CC] PENUMBRA INC: Settlement Deal Payments Completed ------------------------------------------------ Penumbra, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2025, that on March 12, 2025, the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda issued its final approval of a settlement of two labor suits lodged in said court. On April 7, 2023, a former contractor who had been retained by the company through a third party staffing agency filed a putative class action lawsuit as well as a Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) representative action complaint against the company in said court, on behalf of the contractor and similarly situated Company contractors and employees in California, alleging various claims pursuant to the California Labor Code related to wages, overtime, meal and rest breaks, reimbursement of business expenses, wage statements and records, and other similar allegations. Additionally, on April 10, 2023, a current employee of the company filed a PAGA representative action complaint against the company in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda, on behalf of the employee and similarly situated company employees in California, alleging similar claims. Following mediation in April 2024, in May 2024 the parties entered into a formal agreement to settle the claims for an aggregate amount of $4.6 million, subject to approval by the court. The proposed settlement agreement was initially submitted to the court for preliminary approval on June 18, 2024, and the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement on October 14, 2024. The company completed substantially all payments under the settlement agreement during the three months ended June 30, 2025. Penumbra is a global healthcare company that designs, develops, manufactures and markets a broad portfolio of products for thrombectomy, embolization, access and immersive healthcare technologies. PERPAY INC: Courtney Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Perpay, Inc. The case is styled as Lacheryle Courtney, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Perpay, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-03070-H-JLB (S.D. Cal., Nov. 10, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Perpay, Inc. -- https://perpay.com/ -- is dedicated to building simple and inclusive financial products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mona Amini, Esq. Gustavo Ponce, Esq. Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (800) 400-6808 ext. 8 Fax: (800) 520-5523 Email: mona@kazlg.com gustavo@kazlg.com ak@kazlg.com - and - David James McGlothlin, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 3240 E. Union Hills Drive, Suite 105 Phoenix, AZ 85050 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Email: david@kazlg.com PHH MORTGAGE: Jones Suit Seeks Class Certification -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNTWANETTE JONES and LUCINDA ALLARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION d/b/a PHH MORTGAGE SERVICES, Case No. 1:23-cv-01040-CPO-SAK (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs, on Jan. 19, 2026, shall move, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3), for entry of an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The proposed Classes are defined as follows: New York Class: "All persons (1) with a residential mortgage loan securing a property in the state of New York, (2) serviced or subserviced by PHH, (3) with a mortgage or deed of trust incorporating standard uniform covenants from Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, FHA or similar government-backed model mortgages, and (4) who paid a fee to PHH for making a loan payment by telephone, internet, or IVR, during the applicable statutes of limitations through the date a class is certified." Nationwide Default Class: "All persons (1) with a residential mortgage loan securing a property in the United States, (2) whose loans were in default when PHH and/or Ocwen began servicing or subservicing them and (3) who paid a fee to PHH for making a loan payment by telephone, internet, or IVR, during the applicable statutes of limitations through the date a class is certified." The Plaintiffs further ask that they be appointed class representatives and that their counsel, Bailey Glasser LLP and Tycko & Zavareei LLP, be appointed class counsel. PHH provides mortgage financing solutions. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mdvejI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patricia M. Kipnis, Esq. James L. Kauffman, Esq. Allison A. Bruff, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 923 Haddonfield Rd., Suite 300 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Telephone: (215) 274-9331 E-mail: pkipnis@baileyglasser.com jkauffman@baileyglasser.com abruff@baileyglasser.com - and - Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq. F. Peter Silva, Esq. Robin Bleiweis, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com kaizpuru@tzlegal.com psilva@tzlegal.com rbleiweis@tzlegal.com PHONE LCD: Bilir Bid to Certify Class Terminated ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bilir, et al., v. Phone LCD Parts LLC, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-13643 (D.N.J., Filed Aug. 31, 2023), the Hon. Judge Esther Salas entered an order administratively terminating the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Defendant provides wholesale cell phone, LCD, and mobile device replacement parts to organizations.[CC] PINKHASOV CONSULTING: Datsyshyna Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Yana Datsyshyna, and all those similarly situated v. PINKHASOV CONSULTING INC. and YURIY PINKHASOV, Case No. 2025-021148-CA-01 was removed from Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the United States District Court for Southern District of Florida on Nov. 10, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-25219-XXXX. In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts a claim for recovery of unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") (Count I), and a state-law claim for breach of agreement (Count II), and alleges that the amount in controversy exceeds $50,000.00, exclusive of interest, fees and costs.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Andre G. Raikhelson, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ANDRE G. RAIKHELSON 7000 W. Palmetto Park Road, Suite 210 Boca Raton, FL 33433 Phone: (954) 895-5566 Email: arlaw@raikhelsonlaw.com PORSCHE CARS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Hybrid Charger Speeds ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sepehr Daghighian, writing for CCA, reports that Porsche is facing a class action lawsuit alleging it intentionally reduced the charging speeds of its Porsche Mobile Charger Plus (PMC+) and Porsche Mobile Charger Connect (PMCC) devices after discovering potential overheating issues. Filed on September 26, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta Division), the lawsuit, Herdtner, et al. v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc. claims Porsche issued a software update that cut charging speeds in half, forcing some owners to wait up to 20 hours for a full charge instead of the previously advertised 9.5–10.5 hours. The chargers were marketed as premium accessories designed to provide faster home charging for the Taycan and E-Hybrid models. However, after overheating complaints and a recall, Porsche allegedly limited charging output to 20 amperes, down from 40 amperes. Plaintiffs argue the update was a downgrade rather than a repair, leaving them with costly chargers that no longer perform as advertised. Claims Made by the Plaintiffs Lead plaintiffs Paul Herdtner (2020 Porsche Taycan 4S) and John Holby (2021 Porsche Taycan Turbo) claim they paid thousands for chargers that no longer deliver their promised performance. The lawsuit says Porsche's marketing highlighted rapid home charging as a key benefit but failed to deliver that experience after the software changes. According to court filings, Porsche breached its warranties and misled consumers, depriving owners of a major selling point. The inability to quickly charge at home, the suit argues, reduces the usability and enjoyment of Porsche's EVs and plug-in hybrids. The plaintiffs seek restoration of full charging capabilities, reimbursement for charger costs, and actual, discretionary, and punitive damages, along with a jury trial to determine liability. What Porsche Owners Should Do Next Owners of Porsche Taycan or E-Hybrid models who purchased a PMC+ or PMCC charger and are experiencing slower charging speeds should document performance data, keep receipts, and record dealership communications or software updates. These records may be useful if they qualify to join the class or pursue individual claims. How Porsche Owners Can Take Back Control While this class action has been filed, many Porsche owners report similar issues with charging speed reductions and limited resolutions from the automaker. Such cases highlight the importance of protecting consumer rights and holding manufacturers accountable. If your EV or charger isn't performing as promised, expert help can make a difference. With extensive experience and proven results, The Lemon Firm is your best bet. With dedicated team members always at your disposal, the package becomes too good to be true. So, if your car is giving you a headache, don't hesitate to reach out! {GN} POST CONSUMER: Sciarabba Sues Over "False" Serving Representations ------------------------------------------------------------------ LORI SCIARABBA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. POST CONSUMER BRANDS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:25-cv-09315-UA (S.D.N.Y., November 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of New York General Business Law and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its Fruity Pebbles cereal. According to the complaint, the Defendant prominently represents that the product is a "Family Size" box of cereal. At the back label, the Defendant states that the product contains approximately 15 servings. In reality, consumers who purchase the product bearing the family size representation only receive approximately 12 servings of cereal. Had the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers known the truth, they would not have purchased or would not have paid premium price for the product. Post Consumer Brands, LLC is a food manufacturer based in Lakeville, Minnesota. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frederick J. Klorczyk, III, Esq. KAMBERLAW, LLC 305 Broadway, Suite 713 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (646) 964-9604 Facsimile: (212) 202-6364 Email: fklorczyk@kamberlaw.com - and - Naomi B. Spector, Esq. KAMBERLAW, LLP 3451 Via Montebello, Suite 192-212 Carlsbad, CA 92009 Telephone: (310) 400-1053 Facsimile: (212) 202-6364 Email: nspector@kamberlaw.com POST CONSUMER: Sweeney Sues Over "False" Family Size & Serving Ads ------------------------------------------------------------------ ERIN SWEENEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. POST CONSUMER BRANDS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:25-cv-09263 (S.D.N.Y., November 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of New York General Business Law and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its Fruity Pebbles cereal. According to the complaint, the Defendant prominently represents that the product is a "Family Size" box of cereal. At the back label, the Defendant states that the product contains approximately 15 servings. In reality, consumers who purchase the product bearing the family size representation only receive approximately 12 servings of cereal. Had the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers known the truth, they would not have purchased or would not have paid premium price for the product. Post Consumer Brands, LLC is a food manufacturer based in Lakeville, Minnesota. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frederick J. Klorczyk, III, Esq. KAMBERLAW, LLC 305 Broadway, Suite 713 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (646) 964-9604 Facsimile: (212) 202-6364 Email: fklorczyk@kamberlaw.com - and - Naomi B. Spector, Esq. KAMBERLAW, LLP 3451 Via Montebello, Suite 192-212 Carlsbad, CA 92009 Telephone: (310) 400-1053 Facsimile: (212) 202-6364 Email: nspector@kamberlaw.com PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP: Dismissal of Securities Claims Upheld ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the dismissal of securities claims against PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP in the lawsuit entitled JAMES EVERETT HUNT; JUAN RODRIGUEZ; KURT VOUTAZ; JOEL WHITE; ANDREW AUSTIN; SCOTT KLINE; RYAN FISHMAN, Plaintiffs - Appellants v. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP (PWC), Defendant - Appellee, and BLOOM ENERGY CORPORATION, JP MORGAN SECURITIES, LLC, MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY, LLC, CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, KEYBANC CAPITAL MARKETS INC., MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, ROBERT W. BAIRD & CO. INCORPORATED, COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC, HSBC SECURITIES (USA) INC., OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC., RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 24-3568 (9th Cir.). The matter is an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (D.C. No. 4:19-cv-02935-HSG, Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., District Judge, Presiding). The Ninth Circuit panel consists of Milan D. Smith, Jr., and N. Randy Smith, Circuit Judges; and District Judge Douglas L. Rayes from the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. Judge N. Randy Smith wrote the Court's Opinion. The Panel affirms the district court's dismissal of claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 against PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC), an outside accountant for Bloom Energy Corp., based on an audit opinion on Bloom Energy's financial statements included with its registration statement for an initial public stock offering. At issue was the manner in which Bloom Energy, a designer, manufacturer, and seller of fuel-cell servers that converted natural gas or biogas into electricity for on-site power generation, accounted for Managed Services Agreements (MSAs), a type of sale-leaseback arrangement. On appeal, the Plaintiffs challenged the alleged incorrect statements of revenue, net loss, and net loss per share in Bloom Energy's 2017 financial statement, due to the improper treatment of MSAs as operating rather than capital leases. The Panel holds that under Section 11, an independent accountant is not strictly liable for the information in a registration statement or a client's financial statements simply because the accountant certified the financial statements prepared by the issuer. Instead, under 15 U.S.C. Section 77k(b)(3)(B)(i), an independent accountant certifies the underlying statements without liability if, "after reasonable investigation, [the accountant has a] reasonable ground to believe and did believe, at the time such part of the registration because effective, that the statements therein were true and that there was no omission to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein not misleading," citing Under Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers Dist. Council Const. Indus. Pension Fund, 575 U.S. 175 (2015), an independent accountant is also protected from liability for its opinions (not factual statements) made about those underlying documents as long as the opinion was sincerely held. The Panel holds that PwC was not liable as a preparer of Bloom Energy's financial statements. PwC also was not liable as a certifier of Bloom Energy's financial statements because PwC's audit opinion did not make any material misstatements of fact or omissions but rather was merely a statement of opinion based upon the subjective judgment of the MSA classification. The Panel holds that the district court's decision also must be affirmed because, under Omnicare, Bloom Energy's financial statements regarding classification of the MSAs were opinions. Because the Plaintiffs failed to show that Bloom Energy's subjective opinions were based on untrue facts or information that it did not believe, Judge Smith points out that the Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that PwC certified untrue facts or information. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have failed to establish liability for PwC's opinion. Judge Smith opines that the record demonstrates that the classification of MSAs was a judgment call, and the Registration Statement thoroughly explained how it reached the classification. PwC was reasonable under the circumstances to certify Bloom Energy's classification based on the evidence at that time. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Nov. 10, 2025, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4uudru2b from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Nicholas I. Porritt -- nporritt@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP, in Washington, D.C.; Adam M. Apton -- aapton@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP, in San Francisco, California; Reed R. Kathrein -- reed@hbsslaw.com -- Lucas Gilmore -- lucasg@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, in Berkeley, California; Kevin K. Green -- keving@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, in San Diego, California, for the Plaintiffs-Appellants. E. Joshua Rosenkranz -- jrosenkranz@orrick.com -- Eliza Lehner -- elehner@orrick.com -- Jodie C. Liu -- jodie.liu@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, in New York City, New York; Edward H. Williams II -- edward.williams@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, in Washington, D.C.; Lisa Bugni -- lbugni@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding LLP, in San Francisco, California, for the Defendant-Appellee. Linda T. Coberly -- lcoberly@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, in Chicago, Illinois; Lauren Gailey -- lgailey@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, in Washington, D.C.; Janet Galeria, Tyler S. Badgley, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, in Washington, D.C.; Kevin Carroll, Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, in Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association. David M. Parker -- dparker@hunton.com -- Elizabeth K. Brightwell -- ebrightwell@hunton.com -- Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, in Richmond, Virginia; Matthew P. Bosher -- mbosher@hunton.com -- Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, in Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. PROGRESS RESIDENTIAL: Parties Seek to Stay Case Deadlines --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHEYENNE HARRIS and ROBERT WHITAKER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. PROGRESS RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 6:24-cv-00859-CEM-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting joint motion to stay case deadlines pending a final ruling on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Accordingly, because all requirements are satisfied, the Court should stay all remaining case deadlines. The Parties jointly move to stay all remaining case deadlines until the Court issues final rulings on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiffs' motion for Class Certification, each of which is fully briefed. On Aug. 1, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed the first amended complaint. Progress answered on Aug. 15, 2024. On Aug. 27, 2024, the Court entered the case management and scheduling order. The Defendant is the property management subsidiary of Pretium Partners LLC and Progress Residential, LLC. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6vGQge at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey L. Newsome, II, Esq. Brian W. Warwick, Esq. Janet R. Varnell, Esq. Christopher J. Brochu, Esq. Pamela G. Levinson, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A. 400 N. Ashley Drive, Suite 1900 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (352) 753-8600 Facsimile: (352) 504-3301 E-mail: jnewsome@vandwlaw.com bwarwick@vandwlaw.com jvarnell@vandwlaw.com cbrochu@vandwlaw.com plevinson@vandwlaw.com ckoerner@vandwlaw The Defendant is represented by: Ardith Bronson, Esq. Jose M. Espinosa, Esq. Angela C. Agrusa, Esq. Christine E. Ellice, Esq. Dustin A. Linden, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 2200 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2500 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 423-8562 Facsimile: (305) 503-9583 E-mail: ardith.bronson@us.dlapiper.com jose.espinosa@us.dlapiper.com angela.agrusa@us.dlapiper.com christine.ellice@us.dlapiper.com dustin.linden@us.dlapiper.com PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Narcisse Can File Exhibit Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Narcisse v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-04690-JGK (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Koeltl entered an order granting motion for leave to file under seal the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and Exhibits 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7-10. The Defendant is an insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PzeHzS at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lee Lowther, Esq. CARNEY, BATES & PULLIAM PLLC 1 Allied Dr, Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Narcisse Suit Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEANINE NARCISSE, PAMELA PALASZYNSKI, JENNIFER CHANDLER, and PIERRE ANELIS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED INSURANCE CO., PROGRESSIVE MAX INSURANCE COMPANY, and PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:23-cv-04690-JGK (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an granting motion for class certification. Accordingly, the case is eminently suitable for class treatment: The Plaintiffs' claims are based on (1) identical form contract language and (2) practices that applied uniformly across the Classes. The Plaintiff believes the PSA deduction was always improper, while Progressive believes it was always proper. Whether a jury agrees with Plaintiff or Progressive, resolution of that question will resolve virtually the entirety of Class members’ claims in a single stroke. The Plaintiffs claim Progressive breached its contractual promise to "determine" the actual cash value of their totaled vehicles based on "the market value, age, and condition of the vehicle[.]." Progressive breached this obligation by systematically applying a discrete deduction—the "projected sold adjustment" (PSA) -- to reduce insureds' total-loss payments below market value. The Defendant operates as an insurance company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XBm2zT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Hank Bates, Esq. Lee Lowther, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC One Allied Drive, Suite 1400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 Facsimile: (501) 312-8505 E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com llowther@cbplaw.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. Edwin E. Elliott, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE First Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com edwine@shamisgentile.com - and - Jacob L. Phillips, Esq. Joshua R. Jacobson, Esq. JACOBSON PHILLIPS PLLC 2277 Lee Road, Suite B Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (321) 447-6461 E-mail: jacob@jacobsonphillips.com joshua@jacobsonphillips.com - and - Edmund Normand, Esq. NORMAND PLLC 3165 McCrory Place, Suite 175 Orlando, FL 32803 Telephone: (407) 603-6031 E-mail: ed@normandpllc.com - and - Thomas M. Mullaney, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. MULLANEY 530 Fifth Ave—23 Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 223-0800 Facsimile: (212) 661-9860 E-mail: tmm@mullaw.org PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED: Bid to Restrict Portion of Class Cert OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rodriguez v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-01086 (D. Colo., Filed April 7, 2025), the Hon. Judge S. Kato Crews entered an order granting Plaintiff's motion for leave to restrict portions of plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Clerk of Court is instructed to maintain Level 1 Restriction on the unredacted version of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. The nature of suit states Insurance -- Diversity-Breach of Contract. Progressive provides insurances services.[CC] PROVIDENCE HOMEOWNERS: Seeks More Time to File Class Sur-Reply -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEWANNA JOHNSON. SHEILA NATHAN, ALONZO TUTSON; EVORA SYKES, CHANELL HOBBS, REVISHA SILAS, EVETTE TOWNSEND v. PROVIDENCE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, FIRSTSERVICE RESIDENTIAL TEXAS, INC. Case No. 4:25-cv-00418-ALM (E.D. Tex.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their unopposed motion for an extension of their sur-reply to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and enter an order extending its deadline to reply to Nov. 28, 2025. Providence governs over 2,250 homes in the town of Providence Village, a suburb about an hour north of Dallas. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UU3JFP at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Sarah R. Smith, Esq. David A. Talbot, Esq. DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP JPMorgan Chase Tower 600 Travis St., Suite 7350 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (346) 293-7878 Facsimile: (346) 293-7877 E-mail: Sarah.Smith@dinsmore.com David.Talbot@dinsmore.com - and - Roger L. McCleary, Esq. James C. Burnett, Esq. Max Wagner, Esq. PARSONS MCENTIRE MCCLEARY PLLC One Riverway, Suite 1800 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 960-7315 Facsimile: (713) 960-7347 E-mail: rmccleary@pmmlaw.com jburnett@pmmlaw.com Mwagner@pmmlaw.com PYRAMID LA MANAGEMENT: Sanchez Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ana Sanchez, and Lilia Sotelo, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. PYRAMID LA MANAGEMENT L.P., a Delaware limited partnership; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV26503 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Nov. 12, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-10867. The Complaint is a purported class action alleging the following causes of action: Unfair Competition; Non-Provision of Meal and Rest Periods; Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages; Failure to Indemnify; Breach of Written Contract for Failure to Pay Holiday Pay; Waiting Time Penalties; and Wage Statement Penalties.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Efthalia S. Rofos, Esq. Anita Lodi, Esq. O'HAGAN MEYER LLP 4695 MacArthur Ct., Suite 900 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: 949.519.2080 Email: trofos@ohaganmeyer.com alodi@ohaganmeyer.com QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: .rCir. Affirms Dismissal of Cole's Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled ANGELA COLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; BEATRICE ROCHE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellants v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INC., Case No. 25-1449 (3d Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirms the orders dismissing the Plaintiffs-Appellants' claims. The matter is an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. No. 2:23-cv-20647, Judge William J. Martini). The Third Circuit panel consists of Patty Shwartz, Paul B. Matey and Tamika R. Montgomery-Reeves, Circuit Judges. Judge Shwartz wrote the Court's Opinion. The Plaintiffs, users of websites operated by Quest Diagnostics Inc., allege that Quest transmitted to Facebook their browsing data in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, California Penal Code Section 631(a) ("CIPA") and the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, California Civil Code Section 56.06(a) ("CMIA"). Quest operates two websites: www.questdiagnostics.com (the "General Website") and www.myquest.diagnostics.com ("MyQuest"). The General Website is available to all internet users, who can browse articles, read publications, and access Quest's other services and products. MyQuest is a password-protected platform that allows users to create an account and review test results, schedule appointments, or pay bills for clinical lab services Quests provides to its patients. Both websites incorporate the Facebook tracking pixel, which collects information about internet users' activity for advertising purposes. The Plaintiffs allege that when they retrieved their medical test results by navigating to the General Website, which redirected them to MyQuest, Quest transmitted to Facebook their personal information. They filed a putative class-action complaint alleging this violated (1) CIPA because Quest aided, agreed with, and conspired with Facebook to track and intercept the Plaintiffs' and Class members' internet communications, and (2) CMIA because Quest disclosed the URL of the webpage the Plaintiffs accessed to review test results along with the Plaintiffs' identifying information connected to their Facebook accounts. Quest moved to dismiss. In separate rulings, the District Court dismissed both the CIPA and CMIA claims (Cole v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc. (Cole I), 2:23-CV-20647-WJM, 2024 WL 3272789 (D.N.J. July 2, 2024); Cole v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc. (Cole II), 2:23-CV-20647-WJM, 2025 WL 88703 (D.N.J. Jan. 14, 2025). The Plaintiffs appeal. Because the Plaintiffs directly transmitted to Facebook their browsing data and none of that data was substantive medical information, the Court of Appeals affirms the District Court's orders dismissing the Plaintiffs' claims. The Panel finds that the Plaintiffs' CIPA claim lacks merit. Because there was no eavesdropping, the Panel holds that the Plaintiffs' CIPA claim was properly dismissed. The Panel also holds that the District Court correctly dismissed the Plaintiffs' CMIA claim. The Panel explains that the Plaintiffs allege that Quest disclosed the URL of the webpage a patient accessed to review test results, but did not allege that Quest disclosed those test's nature or results or any other substantive medical information. Thus, at most, the Plaintiffs alleged that Quest disclosed the Plaintiffs had been its patients, which is not medical information protected by CMIA. For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirms. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Nov. 13, 2025, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4v9p3puv from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. R.I. CRANSTON: Pavao Seeks Unpaid Wages for Exotic Dancers, Servers ------------------------------------------------------------------- KERSTEN PAVAO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. R.I. CRANSTON ENTERTAINMENT, INC. d/b/a WONDERLAND GENTLEMEN'S CLUB and ANDRES KUNHARDT, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00592 (D.R.I., November 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages and unlawful tip sharing in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Rhode Island Minimum Wage Act, the Rhode Island Payment of Wages Law, and the Rhode Island Tip Protection Law. Ms. Pavao worked for the Defendant as an exotic dancer at Wonderland Gentlemen's Club in Providence, Rhode Island from approximately 2022 to 2024. Thereafter, she worked as a server at Wonderland until approximately August 2025. R.I. Cranston Entertainment, Inc., doing business as Wonderland Gentlemen's Club, is an adult entertainment club based in Providence, Rhode Island. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas J. Enright, Esq. ENRIGHT LAW LLC 696 Reservoir Avenue Cranston, RI 02910 Telephone: (401) 526-2620 Email: tom@enrightlawoffice.com - and - Matthew Thomson, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, PC 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Email: mthomson@llrlaw.com - and - David Dishman, Esq. DISHMAN LAW, PC 224 Lewis Wharf Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 523-5252 Email: david@dishmanlaw.com RAC ACCEPTANCE EAST: Zarate Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against RAC Acceptance East, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Anthony G. Zarate, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. RAC Acceptance East, LLC, ACIMA Digital LLC, Upbound Group, Inc., Case No. 25STCV33185 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 12, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Regional Acceptance -- https://www.regionalacceptance.com/ -- is a national auto finance company with over 40 years of lending experience and a reputation for unparalleled customer service.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alvin B. Lindsay, Esq. William Tran, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N. Brand Blvd. Suite 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: (818) 962-6465 Fax: (818) 962-6469 Email: alindsay@d.law w.tran@d.law RAISE MARKETPLACE: Yusuf Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls -------------------------------------------------------------- IBRAHIM YUSUF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RAISE MARKETPLACE, LLC d/b/a GCX, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-09632-LJC (N.D. Cal., November 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of sending unwanted telemarketing communications to the cellular phone numbers of the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers in an attempt to promote its products or services without obtaining prior consent. As a result of the Defendant's action, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered harm. Raise Marketplace, LLC, doing business as GCX, is a digital commerce company, with its place of business in Dover, Delaware. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. David J. McGlothlin, Esq. Mona Amini, Esq. Gustavo Ponce, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Email: ak@kazlg.com david@kazlg.com mona@kazlg.com gustavo@kazlg.com RALPH LAUREN: Merrell Seeks to Seal Supporting Evidence ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD PAUL MERRELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 4:23-cv-06669-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting administrative motion to seal Plaintiff's supporting evidence in connection with Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Specifically, the Plaintiff conditionally files under seal the following: (1) The Plaintiff's motion for class certification; (2) Exhibit 9 to the declaration of Thiago M. Coelho in support of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification; and (3) Exhibit 11 to the declaration of Thiago M. Coelho in support of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Ralph markets products in apparel, home, accessories, and fragrances A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NCflR5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. Chumahan B. Bowen, Esq. Jennifer M. Leinbach, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 9701 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90212 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com chumahan.bowen@wilshirelawfirm.com jleinbach@wilshirelawfirm.com reuben.aguirre@wilshirelawfirm.com RALPH LAUREN: Merrell Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD PAUL MERRELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 4:23-cv-06669-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Jan. 15, 2026, will move for an order granting class certification, on the grounds that all the prerequisites of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, including both Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3) have been satisfied. The Plaintiff seeks to certify two classes: Nationwide Class: "All legally blind individuals who have attempted to access the Defendant's website using screen-reading software from January 2022 up to and including final judgment in this action." California Subclass: "All legally blind individuals in the State of California who have attempted to access the Defendant's website using screen- reading software during January 2022 to July 31, 2023." The Plaintiff is legally blind and accesses websites with the aid of a screen reader. During the class period, including May 15, 2022, and June 1, 2022, he visited ralphlauren.com to browse products, identify a local store, and complete an online purchase for in store pickup. He encountered multiple barriers in the process. Ralph markets products in apparel, home, accessories, and fragrances. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nZ4QRd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. Chumahan B. Bowen, Esq. Jennifer M. Leinbach, Esq. Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq. Jesse S. Chen, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 9701 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90212 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com chumahan.bowen@wilshirelawfirm.com jleinbach@wilshirelawfirm.com reuben.aguirre@wilshirelawfirm.com jesenia.martinez@wilshirelawfirm.com jesse.chen@wilshirelawfirm.com RICHEMONT NORTH: Freitas Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to S.D. Fla. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case CLAUDIA DE FREITAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RICHEMONT NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. CACE-25-015199, was removed from the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on November 3, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned Case No. 0:25-cv-62215 to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Richemont North America, Inc. is a manufacturer of luxury products, headquartered in New York, New York. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Steven A. Siegel, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 201 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1700 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 847-4724 Email: ssiegel@fisherphillips.com RICOH USA: Class Cert. Hearing Continued to Jan. 26, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------- 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 Hon. Judge Walter entered an order granting second joint stipulation to continue hearing on plaintiff’s motion for class certification. The Court further entered an order that the hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is continued from Dec. 8, 2025, to Jan. 26, 2026. The Defendant shall file its opposition to the Plaintiff's motion on or before Dec. 8, 2025, and the Plaintiff shall file its reply papers on or before Dec. 15, 2025. Ricoh is an information management and digital services company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HNW4mD at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq.` Jennifer A. Riley, Esq. Deanna J. Lucci, Esq. Betty Luu, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 865 South Figueroa St., #3100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 689-7442 Facsimile: (213) 403-6511 E-mail: gmaatman@duanemorris.com; jariley@duanemorris.com djlucci@duanemorris.com BLuu@duanemorris.com SAINT FRANCIS: Discovery in Corrine Suit Due Feb. 17, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CORRINE ROBERTSON, et al., v. SAINT FRANCIS HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-00078-CVE-MTS (N.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Claire Eagan entered a second amended scheduling order as follows: Discovery cutoff: Feb. 17, 2026 Dispositive motions cutoff: Mar. 20, 2026 The Defendant's expert identification Dec. 8, 2025 and reports: Motions in limine cutoff: May 11, 2026 Agreed proposed pretrial order: June 22, 2026 Pretrial conference at 9:30 a.m.: June 29, 2026 Saint Francis is an integrated health system. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2I8rQ8 at no extra charge.[CC] SALLY BEAUTY: Beltran Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Airam Beltran, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. SALLY BEAUTY HOLDINGS, INC.; SALLY BEAUTY SUPPLY LLC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV29787 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Nov. 11, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-10809. The Complaint asserts claims for: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to authorize or permit meal periods; failure to authorize or permit rest periods; failure to indemnify employees for employment-related losses/expenditures; failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements; failure to timely pay all earned wages and final paychecks due at time of separation of employment; and unfair business practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Spencer C. Skeen, Esq. Marlene M. Moffitt, Esq. Stephen Dolar, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92122 Phone: 858-652-3110 Facsimile: 858-652-3101 Email: spencer.skeen@ogletree.com marlene.moffitt@ogletree.com stephen.dolar@ogletree.com SALON REPUBLIC LLC: Davis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Salon Republic, LLC. The case is styled as Vahkiah Davis, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated current and former employees v. SALON REPUBLIC, LLC, Case No. 25CV154338 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 12, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Salon Republic -- https://salonrepublic.com/ -- provides a complete solution for independent beauty professionals looking to open their own salon[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rastegar Farzad, Esq. RASTEGAR LAW GROUP, APC 22760 Hawthorne Blvd., Ste. 200 Torrance, CA 90505-3666 Phone: 310-961-9600 Fax: 310-961-9094 Email: farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com SAMFIN RESOURCES: Farrell Can Conduct Class Cert. ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HUYEN FARRELL, v. SAMFIN RESOURCES, LLC, and NORMAN J. VELEZ JR., Case No. 3:25-cv-00399-MOC-DCK (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Keesler entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for leave of court to conduct class certification and damages discovery. The Plaintiff is allowed through Feb. 13, 2026, to conduct discovery related to class certification and damages, including third-party discovery as necessary. The Court further entered that the Plaintiff shall file a status report regarding discovery and any additional proposed case deadlines on or before Feb. 18, 2026. The Plaintiff moves the Court for leave to conduct class certification and damages related discovery against Defendants, SamFin Resources, LLC and Norman J. Velez, Jr., for their violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. section 227 (TCPA). The Plaintiff contends that the requested discovery is necessary "to identify members of the Classes and determine the amount of damages they are entitled to." A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gPkpzz at no extra charge.[CC] SANIDERM MEDICAL: Stange Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Brooklynne Stange, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SANIDERM MEDICAL, LLC, Case No. 50-2025-CA-010164-XXX-AMB was removed from the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, to the United States District Court for Southern District of Florida on Nov. 12, 2025, and assigned Case No. 9:25-cv-81403-XXXX. The Complaint asserts a single cause of action under Florida's Telephone Solicitation Act. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated Florida Statute by sending unwanted text message solicitations without complying with the required Caller ID Rules, and by transmitting calls from a telephone number incapable of receiving telephone calls.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Yasmin Restrepo, Esq. BRIONES PC 1801 Century Park, Suite 1840 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (786) 385-3384 SANTA MONICA, CA: Murcia Seeks Settlement Prelim. Approval ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as REYES CONTRERAS MURCIA and SHERMAN A. PERRYMAN, individually and as class representatives, v. CITY OF SANTA MONICA, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-05253-FLA-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Dec. 19, 2025, will move the Court for an order as follows: -- preliminarily approving the settlement and preliminary certifying a class for settlement purposes only with the class defined as follows: "Owners of vehicles impounded by employees of the defendants City of Santa Monica and/or Santa Monica Police Department at any time from July 28, 2020 through Nov. 22, 2022, where such impounds were pursuant to Cal. Veh. Code section 14602.6(a)(1)"; -- Preliminarily appointing the Plaintiffs Reyes Contreras Murcia and Sherman A. Perryman as settlement class representatives; -- Preliminarily appointing attorneys Cynthia Anderson-Barker, Christian Contreras and Donald W. Cook as settlement class counsel for settlement purposes; -- Preliminarily finding that the terms of the settlement as set forth in ECF 80-7 are fair, reasonable, adequate and comply with F.R.Cv.P. 23(e); -- Approving Class Action Claims Administration, Inc., 59 Damonte Ranch Pkwy. B224, Reno, NV 89521-1907 as the Settlement Class Administrator; -- Approve the form, substance and requirements of the proposed class notice; the opt-out form and the update form; -- Setting a date for final approval of the class settlement, as well as a date for a class member (a) to object to the settlement and any of its terms, including attorneys' fees, costs and incentive awards; or (b) to exclude him- or herself from the settlement by opting-out; -- Setting a date for distribution of settlement funds to class members; and -- Setting a date for hearing the Plaintiffs' motion for an award of attorneys' fees and costs. The June 2024 Settlement Agreement seeks to resolve, on a class settlement basis, all claims this lawsuit raises via the City funding a class settlement in the amount of $475,000.00. This amount covers all damages, attorneys' fees, and costs of whatever type (i.e., including costs not recoverable by statute). Santa Monica is a city situated along Santa Monica Bay on California's South Coast. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Wl3y86 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christian Contreras, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTIAN CONTRERAS, A PROF. CORP. 360 E. 2nd Street, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (323) 435-8000 Facsimile: (323) 597-0101 fax E-mail: cc@contreras-law.com - and - Donald W. Cook, Esq. ATTORNEY AT LAW 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2910 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 252-9444 Facsimile: (213) 252-0091 E-mail: manncooklaw@gmail.com - and - Cynthia Anderson-Barker, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF CYNTHIA ANDERSON-BARKER 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2910 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-3246 Facsimile: (213) 252-0091 E-mail: cablaw@hotmail.com SAPUTO CHEESE USA: Chavez Suit Removed to E.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Sonia Chavez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SAPUTO CHEESE USA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25CV-009217 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Stanislaus, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on Nov. 12, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-at-01554. In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts claims for Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Breaks; Failure to Indemnify Necessary Business Expenses; Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at Termination; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; and Unfair Business Practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Koree B. Wooley, Esq. Cindi L. Ritchey, Esq. Jayce E. Gustafson, Esq. JONES DAY 4655 Executive Drive, Suite 1500 San Diego, CA 92121.3134 Phone: +1.858.314.1200 Facsimile: +1.844.345.3178 Email: kbwooley@jonesday.com critchey@jonesday.com jgustafson@jonesday.com SARAH O. BY: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Randolph Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- ERIKA RANDOLPH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SARAH O. BY OOH!AAH! JEWELRY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-13665 (N.D. Ill., November 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, declaratory relief, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.sarahojewelry.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Sarah O. by Ooh!Aah! Jewelry, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com SAVORY SPICE SHOP: Cole Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Morgan Cole, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Savory Spice Shop, Inc., Case No. 4:25-cv-04205-SLD-RLH (N.D. Ill., Nov. 10, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services the Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through https://www.savoryspiceshop.com (hereinafter "Savoryspiceshop.com" or "the website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's website, Savoryspiceshop.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Savory Spice Shop provides to the public a website known as Savoryspiceshop.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a variety of aromatic spices and herbs, regional seasonings from Africa and Asia, all-purpose blends, baking ingredients and extracts, classic American pantry staples, and options that are gluten-free or garlic-free.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (844) 731-3343 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law SEEK BAMBOO LLC: Davis Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Davis, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Seek Bamboo, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-13811 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 11, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services the Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through https://seekbamboo.com (hereinafter "Seekbamboo.com" or "the website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's website, Seekbamboo.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Seek Bamboo provides to the public a website known as Seekbamboo.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a variety of shampoo bars, conditioner bars, natural soap bars, bamboo toilet paper, bamboo paper towels, tissues, and reusable paper towels.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (844) 731-3343 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law SELECT PORTFOLIO: Webb Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practice ------------------------------------------------------------------ JEFFREY WEBB, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:25-cv-03054 (M.D. Fla., November 6, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and breach of contract. This case arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful attempts to collect a consumer debt from the Plaintiff, namely, a mortgage loan for household purposes. According to the complaint, the Defendant continued its debt collection efforts despite a written dispute from the Plaintiff. The Defendant also failed to provide a complete response to the Plaintiff's dispute within the deadlines required by statute. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful practice, the Plaintiff has been harmed. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. is a debt collector, headquartered in Utah. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Alex Wasylik, Esq. RICARDO & WASYLIK PL P.O. Box 2245 Dade City, FL 33526 Telephone: (352) 567-3173 Facsimile: (352) 567-3193 Email: service@ricardolaw.com - and - Brian L. Shrader, Esq. Alejandro J. Mendez, Esq. Kellie N. O'Connell, Esq. SHRADER, MENDEZ & O'CONNELL 902 N. Armenia Ave. Tampa, FL 33609 Telephone: (813) 360-1529 Facsimile: (813) 336-0832 Email: bshrader@shraderlawfirm.com amendez@shraderlawfirm.com koconnell@shraderlawfirm.com SIG SAUER: Sells Pistols Without Safety Features, Shepherd Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOSHUA SHEPHERD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIG SAUER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-02023 (S.D. Ill., November 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The case arises from the Defendant's design, production, and selling of a defective pistol, the Sig Sauer P320. According to the complaint, the defect has three components: (1) the P320 is effectively fully energized and ready to fire the instant that a round is chambered; (2) the P320 has a minimal trigger pull because it is short and lightweight; and (3) the P320 lacks any external safety features. The Defendant does not tell consumers about the P320's defect nor does it warn consumers that the P320 is extraordinarily dangerous compared to similar pistols. As a result, P320 users have experienced a slew of unintended discharges across the country, says the suit. Sig Sauer, Inc. is a firearms manufacturer, headquartered in Newington, New Hampshire. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd C. Werts, Esq. LEAR WERTS LLP 103 Ripley Street Columbia, MO 65201 Telephone: (573) 875-1991 Facsimile: (573) 279-0024 Email: werts@learwerts.com - and - Matthew L. Dameron, Esq. Clinton J. Mann, Esq. WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC 1100 Main Street, Suite 2600 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 945-7110 Facsimile: (816) 945-7118 Email: matt@williamsdirks.com mwilliams@williamsdirks.com cmann@williamsdirks.com SKYE BIOSCIENCE: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Skye Bioscience, Inc. ("Skye" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:SKYE) and certain officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, and docketed under 25-cv-03177, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Skye securities between November 4, 2024 and October 3, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are an investor who purchased or otherwise acquired Skye securities during the Class Period, you have until January 16, 2026, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.  Skye is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company that focuses on developing molecules that modulate G protein-coupled receptors ("GPCRs") to treat obesity, overweight, and metabolic diseases. The Company's lead product candidate is nimacimab, a peripherally restricted negative allosteric modulating antibody targeting cannabinoid receptor type-1, a key GPCR involved in metabolic regulation. In August 2024, Skye initiated its "CBeyond" clinical trial, a twenty-six-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2a proof-of-concept study designed to assess nimacimab as a treatment for obesity and overweight. The CBeyond trial's primary endpoint was to demonstrate an 8% difference in mean weight loss using nimacimab versus placebo at twenty-six weeks, with a thirteen-week follow-up. At all relevant times while the Phase 2a Beyond trial was ongoing, Defendants touted nimacimab's purported "differentiated" mechanism of action and efficacy results as purportedly demonstrated in other various studies. Critically, Defendants cited to nimacimab's purportedly potent efficacy as observed in these various studies to suggest that the results of the Phase 2a CBeyond trial were likely to be favorable, while consistently touting nimacimab's overall clinical, regulatory, and commercial prospects. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Skye's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) nimacimab was less effective than Defendants had led investors to believe; (ii) accordingly, nimacimab's clinical, regulatory, and commercial prospects were overstated; and (iii) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On October 6, 2025, Skye issued a press release "announcing the topline data from its 26-week Phase 2a CBeyon proof-of-concept study of nimacimab." The press release disclosed that the "the nimacimab monotherapy arm did not achieve the primary endpoint of weight loss compared to placebo" and that "preliminary pharmacokinetic analysis showed lower than expected drug exposure, potentially indicating the need for higher dosing as a monotherapy." On this news, Skye's stock price fell $2.85 per share, or 60%, to close at $1.90 per share on October 6, 2025. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. [GN] SLATE CRAFT: Milk Shakes' Protein Claims "False," Sicairos Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- CLAUDIA SICAIROS and MARNIE SCHULMAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SLATE CRAFT GOODS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-10617 (C.D. Cal., November 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the Unfair Competition Law, and the False Advertising Law, unjust enrichment, and breach of express warranty. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its Slate high protein milk shakes. According to the complaint, the milk shakes contain less grams of protein than is claimed on the labels. Had the Plaintiffs and similarly situated consumers known the truth, they would not have purchased, or would have only been willing to pay a substantially reduced price for the products. Slate Craft Goods, Inc., is a beverage company, with its principal place of business in Westwood, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Charles C. Weller, Esq. CHARLES C. WELLER, APC 11412 Corley Court San Diego, CA 92126 Telephone: (858) 414-7465 Facsimile: (858) 300-5137 SMG FOOD: Parties Seek to Extend Class Cert Deadlines ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as John Ordono, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; v. SMG Food & Beverage, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-05019-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending class certification deadlines as follows: 1. The Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion for class certification is now Feb. 13, 2026. 2. The Defendant's deadline to oppose is March 16, 2026. 3. The Plaintiff's deadline to file his reply to the Defendant's opposition is now April 15, 2026. 4. The hearing for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification will be continued until May 28, 2026, subject to change depending on the Court's availability. The Parties are continuing to work on scheduling depositions due to both counsel's earlier unavailability. The parties agree that the Defendants will produce two witnesses for the Plaintiff's Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, one on Dec. 10, 2025, and the second on Dec. 12, 2025. The parties agree that the Plaintiff will appear for deposition on Jan. 14, 2026. Because the discovery process is ongoing, the parties have agreed to extend the deadline for Plaintiff to file his Class Certification motion. SMG provides management consulting services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qAJGzg at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Steven M. Kroll, Esq. KROLL LAW, P.C. 6230 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1135 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (310) 845-7801 E-mail: skroll@krollpc.com SOAPY JOE'S INC: Tate Files Suit in S.D. California --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Soapy Joe's Inc. The case is styled as Maryssa Tate, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Soapy Joe's Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-03119-AGS-KSC (S.D. Cal., Nov. 12, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for the Electronic Funds Transfer Act. Soapy Joe's, Inc. -- https://soapyjoescarwash.com/ -- was founded in 2011. The company's line of business includes washing motor vehicles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Ellersick, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 6420 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1080 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Phone: (877) 500-8780 Email: ryan.ellersick@zimmreed.com SOAPY JOE'S: Faces Class Suit Over Automatic Membership Renewal --------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that car wash operator Soapy Joe's has deceived consumers by signing them up for automatically renewing memberships and charging them without their knowledge or consent. According to the 37-page filing, customers who visit any of Soapy Joe's more than 20 locations in California "fall prey" to a scheme whereby they believe they are buying only a single car wash, or a single month of car washes, before unknowingly being enrolled into a recurring membership that's renewed automatically each month. The plaintiff, a San Diego County resident, alleges that funds were repeatedly taken from her bank account without consent or authorization, in violation of California law and the federal Electronic Funds Transfer Act. According to the case, the California Automatic Renewal Law (ARL) requires businesses to explain automatic renewal terms "in a clear and conspicuous manner before the subscription or purchasing agreement is fulfilled." The law also requires a business to clearly and conspicuously disclose prior to sign-up how to cancel the membership, the suit adds. The lawsuit points out that companies are aware "where the recurring nature of the service, billing practices, or cancellation process is unclear or complicated" consumers may let automatic charges slide. Per the case, "[Soapy Joe's] employees . . . omit that memberships will automatically renew unless the customer cancels and omit to tell the consumers how to cancel the membership." In effect, Soapy Joe's has deliberately obstructed the details of paid memberships and the cancellation process in the interest of turning a profit, the complaint alleges. Often, companies will use tactics known as dark patterns to obfuscate information and confuse customers, preventing them from cancelling a service, the suit explains. Furthermore, the case claims that Soapy Joe's also disguised the true prices of the memberships customers purchased, as the defendant allegedly gave customers a promotional "discount" price for a one-month membership without disclosing that the membership price would increase after the expiration of the promotional deal. The plaintiff in this case visited a Soapy Joe's carwash on or about January 13, 2025, when she signed up for a one-month, $13 membership. According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff wasn't given any information about pricing or membership renewal, and the consumer didn't realize she had been incurring additional $25-per-month charges for two months. Once the plaintiff discovered the charges, she attempted to cancel the membership and obtain a refund, arguing she did not authorize these payments, the lawsuit says. Per the case, Soapy Joe's did not provide a refund to the plaintiff. "Contrary to the requirements of ARL," the lawsuit states, "Defendant did not clearly and conspicuously disclose before the plaintiff was signed up that this membership would automatically renew each month until it was cancelled, how to cancel the membership, or that the membership would increase in price and what new price would be charged." According to the filing, Soapy Joe's is "well aware" that its car wash membership model is deceptive and difficult to navigate. This class action lawsuit aims to cover any consumers in the United States who, within the appropriate statute of limitations, were charged on a recurring basis by Soapy Joe's without the business obtaining a written authorization (signed or similarly authenticated) for preauthorized electronic fund transfers, or after the authorization was revoked. [GN] SONIC INDUSTRIES: Irvin Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sonic Industries Services, LLC. The case is styled as Joe Irvin, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Sonic Industries Services, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00242-LMM (N.D. Ga., Nov. 11, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Sonic Industries Services Inc. was founded in 1953. The company's line of business includes owning or leasing franchises, patents, and copyrights.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (508) 221-1510 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Valerie Lorraine Chinn, Esq. CHINN LAW FIRM, LLC 245 N. Highland Ave., Suite 230 #7 Atlanta, GA 30307 Phone: (404) 626-2098 Email: vchinn@chinnlawfirm.com SOUTH CAROLINA: Ward Sues Over Injuries Sustained From Car Accident ------------------------------------------------------------------- ALISON CHRISTINE WARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MELISSA AUTREY BROWNELL, Defendant, Case No. 2025CP1006265 (S.C. Comm. Pl., November 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence/automobile wreck. According to the complaint, the Defendant owes the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals a duty to properly control her vehicle, and to operate it in a reasonable and prudent manner in accordance with the laws of South Carolina. As a result of the Defendant's negligent acts, the Plaintiff was injured and suffered damages. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Milton D. Stratos, II, Esq. JOYE LAW FIRM, LLP 5861 Rivers Ave. North Charleston, SC 29406 Telephone: (843) 725-4269 Facsimile: (843) 529-9180 Email: mstratos@joyelawfirm.com SOUTHERN OREGON CREDIT: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due June 12, 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 the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for extension as follows: -- Discovery deadline is March 20, 2026 -- Motion for Class Certification is due June 12, 2026 The nature of suit states Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Southern offers debt collection services for consumer and commercial debts.[CC] SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Rizzo Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Phillip Rizzo, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., Case No. 2025CH10075 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, to the United States District Court for Northern District of Illinois on Nov. 7, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-13705. In his Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that Southwest's compensation policies violate the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"). The Plaintiff also seeks to represent a putative class of "all persons who worked for Defendant on a full-time basis as flight attendants based at Chicago Midway International Airport at any point" from October 1, 2022 to present. The Plaintiff seeks alleged unpaid overtime compensation, treble damages, penalties, attorneys' fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief on behalf of himself and the alleged putative class.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Micah D. Dawson, Esq. Hillary R. Ross, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 1125 17th Street, Suite 2400 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: (303) 218-3650 Facsimile: (303) 218-3651 Email: mdawson@fisherphillips.com hross@fisherphillips.com SPROUTS FARMERS: Armas Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages ---------------------------------------------------------- Alicia Armas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SPROUTS FARMERS MARKET, INC., Case No. CACE-25-017282 (Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Nov. 10, 2025), is brought against the Defendant's violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA") as a result of the Defendant's unsolicited text messages. To promote its goods, services, and/or properties, Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging and continues to text message consumers after they have opted out of Defendant's solicitations. Defendant also engages in telemarketing without the required policies and procedures, and training of its personnel engaged in telemarketing. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct, which has resulted in the intrusion upon seclusion, invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of Plaintiff and members of the Class. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person entitled to bring this action under the TCPA and a resident of Broward County, Florida. The Defendant is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters located in Phoenix, Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell D. Hansen, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: mitchell@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com SPRUCE POWER: Caplan Sues Over Unfair Business Practice ------------------------------------------------------- Adam Caplan, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SPRUCE POWER HOLDING CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; ENERGY SERVICE EXPERTS, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 5:25-cv-09725 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 12, 2025), is brought seeking an order enjoining the Defendants' from continuing to engage in this unfair business practice, to provide a full accounting to class members concerning the amounts that are owed for True-Up and Performance Guarantee payments, and to pay the Plaintiff and the Class all amounts that are owed under their PPAs. For most consumers, it is difficult to keep track of the amounts that might be owed from year to year for Performance Guarantee and True-Up payments. As a result, they rely on the solar energy provider to provide an accounting and ensure that the appropriate payments are issued. Spruce engages in a business practice that is designed to take advantage of the difficulties consumers face keeping track of these payments. Specifically, instead of issuing timely accountings to customers showing the amount of electricity paid for and whether the solar panels met any performance guarantees, Spruce does nothing. It is only when consumers notice through their own research that a payment is owed and call to complain, that Spruce makes the payments that are owed. And, to make matters worse, Spruce has in place enormous barriers to make it difficult for consumers to obtain their payments. Consumers who notice they have not received their annual payment must spend hours on the phone with various call center employees and email inquiries go unreturned. And, even after Spruce acknowledges that payments are owed, it often takes months to issue payments. This is all done with the hope that large numbers of consumers will either not notice that payments are owed under their contract or will simply give up trying to navigate Spruce's unresponsive customer service department, says the complaint. The Plaintiff entered into a PPA with Greenday Finance I, LLC with a term of 20 years on January 6, 2012. SPRUCE POWER HOLDING CORPORATION is a Delaware corporation that owns and/or administers PPAs throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William A. Kershaw, Esq. Stuart C. Talley, Esq. Ian J. Barlow, Esq. KERSHAW TALLEY BARLOW PC 401 Watt Avenue Sacramento, CA 95864 Phone: (916) 779-7000 Facsimile: (916) 244-4829 Email: bill@ktblegal.com stuart@ktblegal.com ian@ktblegal.com STANDARD LITHIUM: Arata Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ CURTIS T. ARATA is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing the lawsuit entitled Curtis T. Arata, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Standard Lithium Ltd., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-507, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Plaintiff Arata, who first purchased Standard Lithium's common shares in October 2021, brought this securities-fraud action on behalf of himself and a putative class of similarly situated shareholders who purchased Standard Lithium shares on the NYSE American or an over-the-counter marketplace called OTCQX. On June 29, 2022, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Sept. 28, 2022. On Sept. 28, 2025, Judge Eric R. Komitee entered an Order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to allege any misstatements or omissions by Standard Lithium or the individual defendants that survive a motion to dismiss. The appellate case is entitled Arata v. Standard Lithium Ltd., Case No. 25-2821, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on November 5, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant CURTIS T. ARATA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Natalie Pang, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Defendants-Appellees STANDARD LITHIUM LTD., et al. are represented by: Alexander Drylewski, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP One Manhattan West New York, NY 10001 STARTEK USA: Class Settlement in Harris Suit Gets Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAKAYLA HARRIS, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. STARTEK USA, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-00437-RM-TPO (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Raymond Moore entered an order granting final approval of settlement. 1. Sommers Schwartz, P.C., is appointed as Class Counsel. 2. The Named Plaintiffs are appointed as Class Representatives. 3. The following amounts shall be distributed by the Settlement Administrator from the Gross Settlement Amount: a. Attorney fees to be paid to Class Counsel in the amount of $833,333.33; b. Litigation expenses to be paid to Class Counsel in an amount not to exceed $55,000; c. Settlement administration fees to Atticus Administration, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $81,000; and d. Class Representative service awards to the Named Plaintiffs in the cumulative amount of $51,000, which shall be distributed as follows: i. $6,000 each to: Makayla Harris, Colleen Lewin, and Tiffany Williams; and ii. $1,500 each to: Daniel Colwill Mauch, Kristopher Flagg, Matthew Berg, Alicia Jenkins, Anissa Bates, Brittany Young, Kimberly Pitney, Dawn Badger, Paula Kemp, Rhonda Davis, Tiffany Patterson, Brittney Christian, Phanthasia King, Tauri Schuler Bonner, Amelia Kurtz, Matthew Pavey, Rachel Dubose, Lexus Ransom, Claudine Miudo. Richard Dean, Stephanie St. George, and Sasha Ransey. 4. The Court grants final approval of the Settlement in accordance with the terms of the parties' Settlement Agreement and finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate in all respects. StarTek provides computer software. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=W5lRfb at no extra charge.[CC] STONEBRIDGE GOLF: Umanzor Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Cooks ----------------------------------------------------------------- DANIS MANUEL RIVERA UMANZOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STONEBRIDGE GOLF LINKS & COUNTRY CLUB, LLC d/b/a STONEBRIDGE COUNTRY CLUB, BRENTWOOD GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB, INC. and LESSING'S INC., and STEVEN M. KIRSCHBAUM, as an individual, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-06220 (E.D.N.Y., November 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide wage notice, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cook from in or around October 2021 until in or around September 2025. Stonebridge Golf Links & Country Club, LLC, doing business as Stonebridge Country Club, is a golf and country club operator, located in Smithtown, New York. Brentwood Golf and Country Club, Inc. is a golf and country club operator, located in Brentwood, New York. Lessing's Inc. is a restaurant operator located in Great River, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 SUNRUN INC: Filing for Class Certification Due May 29, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHERRY STRICKLAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SUNRUN INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-05034-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Tigar entered an amended scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline Discovery cut-off: Jan. 13, 2026 Last day to file replies to dispositive Apr. 10, 2026 motions: Dispositive motion hearing: May 7, 2026 Last day to file motion for class May 29, 2026 certification: Last day to file opposition to class June 19, 2026 certification: Last day to file reply in further support July 10, 2026 of class certification: Sunrun is an American provider of photovoltaic systems and battery energy storage products, primarily for residential customers. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=j2kMo2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 Facsimile: (508) 318-8100 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Edward A. Broderick, Esq. BRODERICK LAW, P.C. 176 Federal Street, Fifth Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 738-7080 Facsimile: (617) 830-0327 E-mail: ted@brodericklaw.com - and - Dana J. Oliver, Esq. OLIVER LAW CENTER, INC. 8780 19th Street, #559 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 Telephone: (855) 384-3262 Facsimile: (888) 570-2021 The Defendant is represented by: Lauri A. Mazzuchetti, Esq. Glenn T. Graham, Esq. Emily E. Clark, Esq. KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 7 Giralda Farms, Suite 340 Madison, NJ 07940 Telephone: (973) 503-5900 Facsimile: (973) 503-5950 E-mail: lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com ggraham@kelleydrye.com eclark@kelleydrye.com SWIFT VENTURES: Simpson Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Cita Simpson, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SWIFT VENTURES NORTH AMERICA, INC., a corporation; JBS USA FOOD COMPANY, an unknown corporate entity; JBS USA FOODS GROUP HOLDINGS, INC., a corporation; JBS USA IMPORTS, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2025-01513875-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Nov. 10, 2025, and assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-02513. In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts, on behalf of Plaintiff and others allegedly similarly situated, four causes of action under the California Labor Code against Defendants for failure to: pay overtime compensation; permit lawful meal periods and pay meal period penalties; permit lawful rest periods and pay rest period penalties; and provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff also asserts a claim under the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), which is a derivative claim that extends the statute of limitations for Plaintiff's claims to four years, according to Plaintiff.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jonathon M. Watson, Esq. SPENCER FANE LLP 1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 2000 Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303) 839-3800 Facsimile: (303) 839-3838 Email: jmwatson@spencerfane.com T-MOBILE USA INC: Ghrabeti Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Purya Ghrabeti, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. T-MOBILE USA, INC., and DOES 1-10, Inclusive, Case No. CVRI2505245 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Riverside, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Nov. 12, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-03031. As alleged in the complaint, the Plaintiff is a customer of T-Mobile who alleges that he and other T-Mobile customers were induced to purchase additional phone lines or devices based on $200 promotional offers that T-Mobile failed to honor. The Plaintiff alleging a claim for violation of the Unfair Competition Law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: James H. Moon, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, 27th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 633-6800 Facsimile: (213) 633-6899 Email: jamesmoon@dwt.com TAQUERIA AL PASTOR: Faces Puzul Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- NELSON IVAN PAR PUZUL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TAQUERIA AL PASTOR INC., TAQUERIA #3 2024 CORP., and CLARIBEL RESTAURANT UNO, INC., and PEDRO RAMALES, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-06231 (E.D.N.Y., November 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide spread-of-hours compensation, failure to provide wage notice, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a food preparer from in or around May 2024 until in or around September 2025. Taqueria Al Pastor Inc. is a restaurant operator, located at 128 Wyckoff Avenue, Brooklyn, New York. Taqueria #3 2024 Corp. is a restaurant operator, located at 119 Court Street, Brooklyn, New York. Claribel Restaurant Uno, Inc. is a restaurant operator, located at 55-30 Myrtle Avenue, Flushing, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 TERMAS DEL: Operates Illegal Casino Websites, Snedeker Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- KURT SNEDEKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TERMAS DEL ARAPAY MANAGEMENT SA and BOL-SB HOUSE SA, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00179-TC (D. Utah, November 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of Utah's Gambling Act. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged illegal gambling operation in Utah through their online casinos available at Betonline.ag, Sportsbetting.ag, Tigergaming.com, WildCasino.ag, SuperSlots.ag, HighRollerCasino.ag, and QueenBeeCasino.ag. According to the complaint, the websites offer chance games, which are already declared unlawful and unconstitutional in Utah. As a result of the Defendants' misconduct, the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals wagered money or other things of value on the Defendants' casino websites and lost. Termas Del Arapay Management SA is an online casino operator, with a place of business in Panama. BOL-SB House SA is an online casino operator, with a place of business in Panama. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elliot O. Jackson, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 Email: ejackson@hedinllp.com - and - David W. Scofield, Esq. PETERS SCOFIELD, Esq. 7430 Creek Road, Suite 303 Sandy, UT 84093 Telephone: (801) 322-2002 Email: dws@psplawyers.com - and - Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. GUCOVSCHI ROZENSHTEYN, PLLC 140 Broadway, FL 46 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 Email: adrian@gr-firm.com TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Burge Files Suit in D. Massachusetts --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., et al. The case is styled as Dena Burge, Leigh Hockett, Jordan Furlan, Cristine Ridey, Patricia Sawczuk, Anne Arundel County, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., Teva Neuroscience, Inc., Teva Sales & Marketing, Inc., Cephalon, Inc., Case No. 1:25-mc-91527 (D. Mass., Nov. 10, 2025). Teva Pharmaceuticals -- https://www.tevapharm.com/en/ -- is a leading innovative biopharmaceutical company.[BN] The Plaintiffs appears pro se. The Defendants are represented by: Katharine K. Foote, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 100 Northern Avenue Boston, MA 02210 Phone: (617) 570-1656 Fax: (617) 523-1231 Email: kfoote@goodwinlaw.com THERAPYMATCH INC: Brower-Walsh Class Suit Removed to S.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as TESSA BROWER-WALSH, an individual, on behalf of Plaintiff, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THERAPYMATCH, INC. dba HEADWAY, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 25CU053855C, was removed from the Superior Court for the County of San Diego, State of California to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on November 14, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-03168-AGS-BJW to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's complaint alleges ten causes of action against Headway: (1) Violation of Unfair Competition Law; (2) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; (3) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; (4) Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods; (5) Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods; (6) Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements; (7) Failure to Provide Wages When Due; (8) Failure to Indemnify Necessary Business Expenses; (9) Unlawful Deductions; and (10) Failure to Pay Vacation Wages Due. The Plaintiff alleges that the putative class members are entitled to unpaid wages, including statutory penalties for wages earned and unpaid at time of termination and premium wages for meal and rest break violations, restitution, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. TherapyMatch, Inc. dba Headway develops healthcare software, offering platform that helps therapists accept insurance and helps patients find those therapists. It is incorporated under the laws of Delaware and has its principal place of business in New York.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Theane Evangelis, Esq. Dhananjay S. Manthripragada, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Telephone: 213.229.7000 Facsimile: 213.229.7520 E-mail: tevangelis@gibsondunn.com dmanthripragada@gibsondunn.com TOWNSHIP BUILDING: 9th Cir. Flips Denial of Arbitration in Larios ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled SALVADOR FLORES LARIOS; BORYS ARROLIGA, Plaintiffs - Appellees v. TOWNSHIP BUILDING SERVICES, INC.; TOWNSHIP RETAIL SERVICES, INC., Defendants - Appellants, Case No. 25-1936 (9th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reverses the denial of a motion to compel arbitration. The matter is an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (D.C. No. 3:24-cv-05838-TLT, Trina L. Thompson, District Judge, Presiding). The Ninth Circuit panel consists of Richard A. Paez, Carlos T. Bea and Danielle J. Forrest, Circuit Judges. Township Building Services, Inc. and its subsidiary Township Retail Services, Inc. appeal the district court's order denying its motion to compel arbitration in a wage and hour class and collective action brought by former employees. Township challenges only the district court's determination that the arbitration agreement in the Plaintiffs' employment contract was substantively unconscionable. The Panel concludes that the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") governs the arbitration agreement and that, applying the FAA, the agreement was not substantively unconscionable. Hence, the Court of Appeals reverses and remands. Applying the FAA, the Panel finds the district court erred in holding that the arbitration agreement was substantively unconscionable under California law. The Panel points out that the district court erred in concluding that the arbitration agreement was substantively unconscionable because it contained a class action waiver and because it is overbroad. On the contrary, the Panel finds the arbitration agreement is expressly limited to claims arising out of the employment relationship. Because the Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that the contract was substantively unconscionable, the Panel concludes that the district court erred in denying Township's motion to compel arbitration. The ruling is reversed and remanded. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated Nov. 13, 2025, is available at https://tinyurl.com/49jsw5a5 from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls Over 1 Million Vehicles Over Software Glitch ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing is recalling more than 1.02 million Toyota, Lexus and Subaru vehicles. Why: A software error in the Panoramic View Monitor system may cause the rearview camera to freeze or display a blank screen. Where: The recall is effective in the United States. Toyota has issued a recall for more than 1.02 million vehicles due to a software glitch that affects the rearview camera system. This issue could potentially increase the risk of accidents by impairing the driver's view when reversing. The recall was announced by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on Oct. 30. It affects a wide range of models from the 2022 to 2026 model years, including the Lexus ES, GX, LC, LS, LX, NX, RX, TX and RZ, as well as the Subaru Solterra and several Toyota models such as the BZ4X, Camry Hybrid, Crown, Highlander, Land Cruiser, Mirai, Prius, Rav4, Sienna Hybrid and Venza Hybrid. According to the NHTSA recall notice, a software error in the Panoramic View Monitor system can cause the rearview camera to malfunction, leading to a blank or frozen screen when the vehicle is in reverse. This error fails to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard number 111. “A rearview camera that fails to display an image can reduce the driver's view behind the vehicle, increasing the risk of a crash,” the recall notice states. Toyota to offer software update at no cost to vehicle owners The recall notice states that owners will get two letters about the Toyota recall. The first will be mailed on Dec. 16, with the second coming when the fix is available. Toyota has committed to resolving the issue by updating the parking-assist software at no cost to vehicle owners. This remedy will be available through authorized dealers, ensuring that affected vehicles comply with safety standards. For further information, consumers can contact Toyota's customer service at 1-800-331-4331. Toyota has assigned the internal recall numbers 25TB13 and 25LB06, while Subaru's recall number is WRE25. Toyota says it has not received any reports of injuries related to the recall so far. The company is not currently facing legal action over the Toyota recall, but Top Class Actions follows recalls closely as they sometimes lead to class action lawsuits. In other news, Toyota, Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. and Connected Analytic Services are facing a class action lawsuit claiming the companies shared vehicle data without owner consent. [GN] TPUSA INC: Payne Seeks Conditional Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEE PAYNE, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TPUSA, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00908-JNP-JCB (D. Utah), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting opposed motion for conditional certification. Specifically, the Plaintiff requests as follows: (1) conditionally certifying action for purposes of notice and discovery; (2) directing judicially-approved notice be sent to all Putative Collective Members; (3) approving the form and content of Plaintiff's proposed judicial notice and reminder notice; (4) directing TPUSA to produce to the Plaintiff's counsel the contact information (including the names, address, telephone number and e-mail address) for each Putative Collective Member in a usable electronic format; (5) authorizing a 90-day notice period for Putative Collective Members to join the case; and (6) authorizing notice to be disseminated via First Class mail, e-mail, posting and text-message to the Putative Collective Members. The Plaintiff requests that the Court conditionally certify the following collective pursuant to the FLSA: "All Hourly Call-Center Employees Who Were Employed by TPUSA, Inc., Anywhere In The United States, At Any Time In The Past Three Years Through the Final Disposition of This Matter ("Putative Collective Members")." The Putative Collective Members that Plaintiff seeks to represent performed similar (if not identical) job duties, were subject to the same company-wide policy, and suffered a common injury. The Plaintiff has met the lenient standard for conditional certification and requests that this Court conditionally certify this case as a collective action and authorize notice to be sent to the Putative Collective Members. Notice at this stage is critical so that these workers can make an informed decision about whether to join this suit and stop the statute of limitations from running on their claims for unpaid overtime compensation. On Dec. 6, 2024, the Plaintiff Lee Payne commenced this collective/class action against TPUSA, Inc. alleging that the company failed to pay its Hourly Call-Center Employees for all hours worked, including the correct amount of overtime compensation. The Plaintiff asserted her FLSA claim as a collective action under Section 16(b) of the FLSA, and her Illinois state law claim as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. TPUSA provides telecommunication services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=x5t2bQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lauren Braddy, Esq. Carter Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline, Blvd, Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: lauren@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com - and - Andrew W. Stavros, Esq. STAVROS LAW P.C. 8915 South 700 East, Suite 202 Sandy, UT 84070 Telephone: (801) 758-7604 Facsimile: (801) 893-3573 E-mail: andy@stavroslaw.com TRENTON'S HELPING HANDS: Belcher Sues Over Denied Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------------------------- Kirsten Belcher, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRENTON'S HELPING HANDS, LLC, d/b/a THH CLEANING, TRENTON BUELL, Individually, BRYAN BUELL, Individually, Case No. 1:25-cv-00818-DRC (S.D. Ohio, Nov. 11, 2025), is brought against the Defendants because she was unlawfully denied overtime pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("OMFWSA"). The Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants did not pay her the statutorily mandated overtime pay at the rate of one and one-half times her regular hourly rate in violation of the FLSA and the OMFWSA. The Plaintiff seeks unpaid overtime pay for the 3 years preceding the filing of this action, liquidated damages in an equal amount, declaratory and injunctive relief and reasonable attorney's fees and costs, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from May 28, 2024 to October 24, 2025. THH Cleaning provides various cleaning services for residential and commercial clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Isl Robb S. Stokar, Esq. Robb S. Stokar, Esq. STOKAR LAW, LLC 9200 Montgomery Road Bldg. E. - Suite 18B Cincinnati, OH 45242 Phone: 513-500-8511 Email: rss@stokarlaw.com TRIPLE CANOPY: Bid to Supplement Bid to Dismiss OK'd ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY WILLIAMS, and DEIRDRE WILSON, v. TRIPLE CANOPY, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-01633-RBW (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Walton entered an order granting the Defendant's consent motion to supplement the Defendant's memorandum in support of motion to dismiss. The Court further entered an order that the: -- Defendant Triple Canopy, Inc.'s memorandum in support of its motion to dismiss is accepted as filed as of Aug. 8, 2025, and the Clerk of the Court shall file it as a separate entry on the docket. -- The Plaintiffs' consent motion to enlarge time for filing motion for class certification is granted. -- The Plaintiffs shall file their motion for class certification on or before a date to be set by the Court in its Initial Scheduling Order. Triple is an American private security company and private military company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Wtezwx at no extra charge.[CC] TRUE HOUSE: Reinhardt Sues Over Sex Discrimination, Retaliation --------------------------------------------------------------- AMBER REINHARDT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRUE HOUSE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01336 (M.D. Fla., November 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation in violation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. The Plaintiff began working for the Defendant in or around August 2020 until her termination on or around May 17, 2024. True House, Inc. is a company that operates in Duval County, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Hannah E. Debella, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA PA 1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 Email: bhill@wfclaw.com hdebella@wfclaw.com aketelsen@wfclaw.com TRUE RELIGION APPAREL: Jesse Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Jaqueline Jesse, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. True Religion Apparel, Inc., True Religion Sales LLC, Case No. 25-00002-29841-8 SEA was removed from the King County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on Nov. 10, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02239 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. True Religion Brand Jeans -- https://www.truereligion.com/ -- is an American clothing company established in 2002 by Jeff Lubell and fashion designer Kym Gold and is based in Vernon, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beth E. Terrell, Esq. Blythe H. Chandler, Esq. Eden B. Nordby, Esq. Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 N 34th St., Ste. 300 Seattle, WA 98103-8869 Phone: (206) 816-6603 Fax: (206) 319-5450 Email: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com bchandler@terrellmarshall.com enordby@terrellmarshall.com jmurray@terrellmarshall.com The Defendants are represented by: Andrew S DeCarlow, Esq. Damon Clay Elder, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (WA) 1301 Second Ave., Ste. 3000 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 274-6400 Fax: (206) 274-6401 Email: andrew.decarlow@morganlewis.com damon.elder@morganlewis.com TRUMBULL INSURANCE: Wins Bid to Compel Appraisal in "Rodriguez" --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Pearl Rodriguez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Trumbull Insurance Company, Hartford Insurance Company of the Southeast, and John Does 1 through 21, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-CV-1993 (VDO) (D. Conn.), Judge Vernon D. Oliver of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut granted the Defendant's motion to compel appraisal, stayed the breach of contract claim pending completion of appraisal, and granted the motion to dismiss the declaratory judgment claim for lack of standing. This consolidated putative class action concerns the alleged failure of insurance companies to pay the full actual cash value owed to insureds when a vehicle is declared a total loss. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a proposed class, brought claims for breach of contract, negligence, tortious interference with contract, and declaratory judgment. The remaining defendants, Trumbull Insurance Company and Hartford Insurance Company of the Southeast, subsidiaries of The Hartford Insurance Group, Inc., write personal automobile insurance policies. The defendants allegedly directed a third-party vendor, Mitchell International, Inc., to determine the actual cash value of total loss automobiles by applying a Projected Sold Adjustment. The PSA results in a downward adjustment to the value of each comparable vehicle used in the report to determine the ACV to account for what the defendants describe as typical consumer purchasing behavior, namely that vehicles sell for less than their listed prices. The Plaintiff, a resident of Illinois, insured a 2007 Ford Focus through a personal automobile insurance policy written by Trumbull. After the Ford Focus sustained damage in an accident in June 2020, the Plaintiff filed a claim with Trumbull. The Plaintiff's car was declared a total loss and, subsequently, Trumbull made a payment on the Plaintiff's total loss claim. Application of the PSAs to the comparable vehicles used in Mitchell's Vehicle Valuation Report resulted in the Plaintiff being paid approximately $437.60 less than the full ACV. The Plaintiff currently insures a 2019 Nissan Rogue under a personal auto insurance policy written by Hartford Southeast. The Plaintiff is concerned that, if her Nissan Rogue is declared a total loss, Hartford Southeast will underpay her total loss claim by again decreasing the ACV by the PSA for that totaled vehicle. The defendants moved to: (1) compel the Plaintiff to comply with their demand for an appraisal of the disputed amount of loss calculated for her June 2020 total loss claim with Trumbull under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. Section 1 et seq.; or (2) in the alternative, dismiss the Plaintiff's breach of contract claim against Trumbull for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); and (3) dismiss the Plaintiff's declaratory judgment claim against Hartford Southeast for lack of standing under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). The defendants asserted that the Plaintiff cannot identify an imminent threat of future harm sufficient to confer standing because she cannot show that she is likely to total another car. In response, the Plaintiff argued that there is a substantial risk that she will be subjected to a PSA adjustment in the future because Hartford Southeast itself concedes that she is at heightened risk of totaling her current vehicle. The Court held that Article III of the United States Constitution requires a plaintiff to have standing to invoke federal jurisdiction. At the pleading stage, a plaintiff must allege facts that affirmatively and plausibly suggest that it has standing to sue. The Court found that the Plaintiff's claims and requests for relief against Hartford Southeast fail at the onset because the Plaintiff does not affirmatively show an injury in fact. The Supreme Court has been quite clear in holding, repeatedly, that threatened injury must be certainly impending to constitute injury in fact, and that allegations of possible future injury are not sufficient. The Plaintiff thus overinterprets Hartford Southeast's decision to apply a surcharge to the Plaintiff's insurance premium as being conclusive evidence of an injury in fact. A higher insurance premium, standing alone, does not show that a totaled car is certainly impending. Because the Plaintiff does not show there is a real, immediate, imminent likelihood that she will total her car, the Plaintiff lacks standing to bring a claim for declaratory judgment. The Court accordingly concluded that the Plaintiff's claim for declaratory judgment against Hartford Southeast must be dismissed for lack of standing. In moving to compel appraisal, the defendants asserted the personal automobile insurance policy the Plaintiff maintained with Trumbull includes a provision for appraisal that governs this dispute. The Plaintiff acknowledged that she agreed to the Trumbull Policy but contended that the Appraisal Provision is not an agreement for arbitration within the meaning of the FAA and that this dispute does not fall within its scope. The Court applied federal common law to determine whether the appraisal provision is in fact an agreement to arbitrate under the FAA. A contractual provision that clearly manifests an intention by the parties to submit certain disputes to a specified third party for binding resolution is arbitration within the meaning of the FAA. The Appraisal Provision provides: If we and you do not agree on the amount of loss, either may demand an appraisal of the loss. In this event, each party will select a competent appraiser. The two appraisers will select an umpire. The appraisers will state separately the actual cash value and the amount of loss. If they fail to agree, they will submit their differences to the umpire. A decision agreed to by any two will be binding. The plain text of the contract reveals that the parties intended the independent third parties' conclusion to be binding. The Court accordingly found that the parties agreed to appraisal within the meaning of the FAA. The Court found the allegations in the Complaint squarely fit within matters covered by the Appraisal Provision. The breach of contract claim brought by the Plaintiff arises out of a disagreement about the amount of loss suffered by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff not only alleged that she was injured because she did not receive the full total loss benefits under a contract, but also that Trumbull's conduct in breaching the Plaintiff's insurance contract by applying a baseless PSA reduced the value of the Plaintiff's totaled automobile and thus constituted a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Because the pertinent language of the Appraisal Provision unambiguously provides that if we and you do not agree on the amount of loss, either may demand an appraisal of the loss, the Court must find that dispute here fall within the scope of the agreement to arbitrate. The crux of the Plaintiff's breach of contract claim is the Plaintiff's allegation that her loss was $437.60 higher than what Trumbull calculated because Trumbull thought the amount of loss was $2,095.78 and the Plaintiff thought the amount of loss was $2,533.38. The text, structure, and underlying policy of the FAA mandate a stay of proceedings when all of the claims in an action have been referred to arbitration and a stay requested. The Court accordingly found that the requested stay is warranted because the decision to compel appraisal would affect the breach of contract claim, the remaining claim in this case. Because the Court held that appraisal must be compelled, it does not reach the issue of whether the Plaintiff fails to state a breach of contract claim. This litigation is stayed pending the completion of appraisal proceedings. The parties shall file a status report within 120 days of this order. A copy of the Court's decision dated 10th November is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=L2fo6m from PacerMonitor.com TTI CONSUMER: Wood Sues Over Nailer's Defective Engagement System ----------------------------------------------------------------- PRESTON WOOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TTI CONSUMER POWER TOOLS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-13291-RMG (D.S.C., November 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of implied warranty of merchantability and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's design, manufacturing, and sale of RIDGID 18-volt nail gun. According to the complaint, the dual action engagement system on the framing Nailer can malfunction and involuntarily discharge a nail by pulling the trigger alone, posing a laceration hazard to consumers. The Plaintiff and the Class would not have purchased the products, or would have paid significantly less, had they known of the defect and limited recourse available. As a result of the Defendant's omissions, the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers suffered damages. TTI Consumer Power Tools, Inc. is a manufacturer of power tools located in South Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 Email: Paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com TYSON FOODS: Rodriguez Wage and Hour Suit Removed to E.D. Wash. --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as AYLIN RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. TYSON FOODS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 25-2-00458-35, was removed from the Superior Court for the State of Washington in and for Walla Walla County to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington on November 14, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-05156 to the proceeding. In this complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that Tyson "engaged in a common course" of practices and policies which result in wage and hour violations. The Plaintiff's complaint asserts eight claims for relief including (i) failure to provide rest periods; (ii) failure to provide meal periods; (iii) failure to pay overtime wages; (iv) payment of wages less than entitled; (v) failure to accrue and allow use of paid sick leave; (vi) unlawful deductions and rebates; (vii) failure to pay wages due at termination; and (viii) willful refusal to pay wages. Tyson Foods, Inc. is an American multinational corporation based in Springdale, Arkansas that operates in the food industry. It is one of the world's largest processor and marketer of chicken, beef, and pork.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Adam T. Pankratz, Esq. E. Ashley Paynter, Esq. Nohl C. Speck, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 5150 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: 206-693-7057 Facsimile: 206-693-7058 Email: adam.pankratz@ogletree.com ashley.paynter@ogletree.com nohl.speck@ogletree.com UIPATH INC: Severt Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- PAUL SEVERT is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled Paul Severt, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UiPath, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-7908, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendant for artificially inflating the price of UiPath's stock by misrepresenting difficulties that UiPath was encountering in competing with Microsoft in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On June 9, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed third amended complaint, which the Defendant moved to dismiss on June 26, 2025. On Oct. 2, 2025, Judge Denise L. Cote entered an Order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss the TAC. The Court find that the TAC failed to plausibly allege that any of the four statements at issue on this motion were material misrepresentations, or that they were made with the requisite scienter. The appellate case is entitled Severt v. UiPath, Inc., Case No. 25-2800, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on November 4, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant PAUL SEVERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Max Raphael Schwartz, Esq. SCOTT & SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building, 24th Floor 230 Park Avenue New York, NY 10169 Defendants-Appellees UIPATH, INC. et al. represented by: Edmund Polubinski, III, Esq. DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 UMRO REALTY CORP: Kern Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against UMRO Realty Corp. The case is styled as Steven Kern, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UMRO Realty Corp. doing business as: The Agency, Case No. 2:25-cv-10776 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 10, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. UMRO Realty Corp. is a real estate company that does business as The Agency, providing real estate services like buying, selling, and renting properties, as well as commercial advisory and planning services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN PA 237 South Dixie Hwy 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com UNITED PARCEL: Ware Sues Over UPS MD-11 Aircraft Blast's Damages ---------------------------------------------------------------- SHAKEARA WARE, TRIPLE D, INC., and ENSEY LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.; GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; BOEING COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00720-GNS (W.D. Ky., November 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, trespass, willful & wanton conduct, private nuisance, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and the putative class who suffered injuries and damages as a result of the UPS MD-11 cargo aircraft incident on November 4, 2025 at Louisville Muhammad Ali International Airport in Kentucky. According to the complaint, multiple explosions, and massive plumes of fire and smoke burst from the plane and the structures it hit, causing multiple deaths, personal injuries, and massive property damage. The Plaintiffs seek to ensure that the Defendants pay for their recklessness, and account for the consequences that they have imposed on the community. Triple D, Inc. is an automotive repair shop in Louisville, Kentucky. Ensey, LLC, is a real property owner in Louisville, Kentucky. United Parcel Service, Inc. is a shipping and supply chain management company based in Atlanta, Georgia. General Electric Company is an American multinational conglomerate based in Ohio. Boeing Company is an aircraft manufacturer based in Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: T. Michael Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 209 E. Main St., Suite 400, Louisville, KY 40202 Telephone: (407) 418-2031 Facsimile: (407) 245-3384 Email: mmorgan@forthepeople.com - and - Rene F. Rocha, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 1100 Poydras Street, Suite 2900 New Orleans, LA 70163 Telephone: (954) 318-0268 Facsimile: (954) 327-3018 Email: rrocha@ForThePeople.com - and - Tanner H. Shultz, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, KENTUCKY PLLC 250 West Main Street, Suite 2100 Lexington, KY 40507 Telephone: (859) 469-7946 Facsimile: (859) 367-6146 Email: tshultz@forthepeople.com - and - Ronald Johnson, Esq. HENDY JOHNSON VAUGHN PSC 600 West Main Street, Suite 100 Lexington, KY 40202 Telephone: (859) 578-4444 Email: rjohnson@justicestartshere.com UNITED STATES: King Files Writ of Certiorari Extension to Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------------ WILLIAM KING, et al. received approval to extend the time to file a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court until January 15, 2026, Case No. 2023-1956, seeking a review of the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the case captioned William King, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, vs. United States, Case No. 25-507. [BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners WILLIAM KING, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Noah A. Messing, Esq. MESSING & SPECTOR LLP 250 Park Avenue, 7th Floor New York, NY 10177 Telephone: (212) 960-3720 Email: nm@messingspector.com UNITED STATES: Parties Must File Joint Status Report by Dec. 2 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PRIDE, et al., v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-02292 (D.D.C., Filed Aug. 8, 2023), the Hon. Judge Loren L. Alikhan entered an order that the Parties shall meet and confer and file a joint status report on or before Dec. 2, 2025 that sets forth any remaining disagreements concerning the scope of discovery and proposes an updated schedule for the remainder of discovery and briefing on Plaintiffs' amended complaint and/or Plaintiffs' forthcoming motion for class certification. The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Declaratory Judgment. USDA provides leadership on issues related to food, agriculture, and natural resources.[CC] UNITED STATES: Smirk Sues Over Trump's Unlawful Trading Tariffs --------------------------------------------------------------- SMIRK & DAGGER GAMES, B. STUYVESANT CHAMPAGNE, LLC, and LEO D. BERNSTEIN & SONS INC. d/b/a/ BERNSTEIN DISPLAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-03857 (D.D.C., November 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) and the Administrative Procedure Act. The Plaintiffs challenge President Trump's unlawful use of emergency power to impose a tariff on imports from virtually all of the United States' trading partners, and additional tariffs on China, Mexico, and Canada. According to the complaint, the President ordered these tariffs in a series of Executive Orders he issued beginning on February 1, 2025. The President purported to order these tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, but that is a statute that authorizes presidents to order sanctions as a rapid response to international emergencies. It does not allow a president to impose tariffs on the American people. These Executive Orders are, therefore, ultra vires and unconstitutional, suit says. The Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the implementation and enforcement of these Executive Orders. Smirk & Dagger Games is a family-run board game company with its principal place of business in Sandy Hook, Connecticut. B. Stuyvesant Champagne, LLC, is a beverage company, with its principal place of business in New York, New York. Leo D. Bernstein & Sons Inc. d/b/a Bernstein Display is a manufacturer of mannequins and other storefront display items, with its principal place of business in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kara M. Rollins, Esq. John J. Vecchione, Esq. Andrew J. Morris, Esq. Christian Clase, Esq. NEW CIVIL LIBERTIES ALLIANCE 4250 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 300 Arlington, VA 22203 Telephone: (202) 869-5210 Facsimile: (202) 869-5238 Email: kara.rollins@ncla.legal john.vecchione@ncla.legal andrew.morris@ncla.legal christian.clase@ncla.legal UNITED STATES: Sosa Class Suit Remains Stayed --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hernandez Sosa v. Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-22776 (S.D. Fla., Filed June 19, 2025), the Hon. Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz, II entered an order granting Parties' motion that the matter should remain stayed pending the resolution of class certification in Echazabal-Verdecia v. Noem et al. , No. 25-cv-22335 (S.D. Fla. 2025)." Accordingly, the matter shall remain stayed, and the parties shall file joint status updates regarding the pending related matter every 60 days beginning from the date of this Order. The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus -- Mandamus & Other. DHS is the US federal executive department responsible for public security.[CC] UNIVERSAL MUSIC: Battle Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRE BATTLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-13668 (N.D. Ill., November 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, declaratory relief, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://interscope.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Universal Music Group, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com UNIVERSITY HEALTHCARE: Ganucheau Privacy Suit Removed to E.D. La. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as LEE GANUCHEAU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNIVERSITY HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, L.C., Case No. 2025-10048, was removed from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on November 14, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02316-JTM-EJD to the proceeding. In this complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that UHS failed to comply with industry standards to protect information systems with certain personally identifiable information and personal health information, and that there was an alleged breach and disclosure of confidential information (the "Data Breach") which allegedly harmed Plaintiff and members of the putative class. The Complaint asserts various claims under federal law including that (i) UHS allegedly violated Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and (ii) UHS allegedly violated the Federal Trade Commission Act. The state law claims asserted involved the same case or controversy as the federal claims as all the claims arise from the alleged improper conduct or practice of UHS which allegedly resulted in the Data Breach. University Healthcare System, L.C. ("UHS") is a General Acute Care Hospital in New Orleans, Louisiana.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Peter J. Butler, Jr., Esq. Richard G. Passler, Esq. Thomas M. Benjamin, Esq. BREAZEALE, SACHSE & WILSON, L.L.P. 909 Poydras Street Suite 1500 New Orleans, LA 70112 Telephone: (504) 619-1800 E-mail: Peter.Butler@bswllp.com Richard.Passler@bswllp.com Thomas.Benjamin@bswllp.com - and - Thomas R. Temple, Jr., Esq. BREAZEALE, SACHSE & WILSON, L.L.P. 301 Main Street Suite 2300 Baton Rouge, LA 70801 Telephone: (225) 387-4000 E-mail: Thomas.Temple@bswllp.com UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Faces Kelly Suit Over Unprotected Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHRISTOPHER F. KELLY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-06234-MKC (E.D. Pa., November 3, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory and injunctive relief. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on or around October 31, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. University of Pennsylvania is a private institution of higher learning located within the City and County of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randi Kassan, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 408 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 741-5600 Email: rkassan@milberg.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq. Jonathan Herrera, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com jaw@federmanlaw.com jjh@federmanlaw.com UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Faces Sikora Suit Over Compromised Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- MARY SIKORA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-06262 (E.D. Pa., November 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory and injunctive relief. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on or around October 31, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. University of Pennsylvania is a private institution of higher learning located within the City and County of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randi Kassan, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 408 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 741-5600 Email: rkassan@milberg.com - and - David K. Lietz, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 5335 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 440 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: dlietz@milberg.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Mackey Balks at Unsecured Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- KELLI MACKEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-06266 (E.D. Pa., November 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment/quasi-contract, and declaratory/injunctive relief. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on or around October 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. University of Pennsylvania is a private institution of higher learning located within the City and County of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. Jason S. Rathod, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H. Street NE Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 Facsimile: (202) 800-2730 Email: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com jrathod@classlawdc.com UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Smart Balks at Unsecured Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ ROBBIN WASHINGTON SMART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-06333 (E.D. Pa., November 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence/negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on or around October 31, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. University of Pennsylvania is a private institution of higher learning located within the City and County of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. Daniel Tomascik, Esq. Natalia Perez, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon, Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com dtomascik@laukaitislaw.com nperez@laukaitislaw.com US NURSING: Rubel Ordered to File First Amended Complaint --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HEIDI RUBEL; OLGA MALYSHEVA, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. U.S. NURSING CORPORATION; FASTAFF, LLC; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 1:23-cv-01664-JLT-CDB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order as follows 1. The Plaintiffs shall file within two (2) days of entry of this order their proposed first amended class action complaint; 2. Upon the filing of the first amended class action complaint, the Defendants' pending motion to dismiss and strike the original class action complaint shall be terminated as moot; 3. The Defendants shall file within 30 days from the date of the filing of the first amended class action complaint their responsive pleading thereto; 4. Proposed Intervenors' motion to intervene is deemed withdrawn; and 5. All pending deadlines relating to proposed intervenors' motion to intervene are vacated. U.S. Nursing provides healthcare staffing services. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=67EPhR at no extra charge.[CC] V.F. CORP: Ruzich Sues Over 15.8% Drop of Securities Price ---------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT RUZICH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. V.F. CORPORATION, BRACKEN P. DARRELL, STEVEN E. RENDLE, MATTHEW H. PUCKETT, and PAUL AARON VOGEL, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-03555 (D. Colo., November 6, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding V.F. Corporation's (VFC) business, operations, and prospects in order to trade VFC securities at artificially inflated prices October 27, 2022 and May 20, 2025. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose that: (i) actions more drastic than the Reinvent initiative and VFC's other disclosed turnaround efforts would be necessary to restore the Vans brand to growth; (ii) the foregoing would negatively impact the revenue growth trajectory of the Vans brand specifically and VFC generally to a greater extent than the Defendants had contemplated or cautioned in their public statements; and (iii) as a result, the Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the truth emerged, the price of VFC's stock price fell $2.28 per share, or 15.8 percent, to close at $12.15 per share on May 21, 2025. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of VFC's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. V.F. Corporation is an apparel, footwear, and accessory company based in Denver, Colorado. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Alexander Hood, II, Esq. Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com VESTIS CORP: Parties Seek OK of Bid to Continue Class Cert Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PLUMBERS, PIPEFITTERS AND APPRENTICES LOCAL NO. 112, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. VESTIS CORPORATION, ARAMARK, KIMBERLY SCOTT, RICK DILLON, and JOHN J. ZILLMER, Case No. 1:24-cv-02175-SDG (N.D. Ga.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to continue class certification deadlines. Pursuant to the Court's Sept. 30, 2025, Opinion and Order and Civil Local Rule 23.1(B), the deadline for Lead Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is 30 days after the Defendants filed their answers, or Dec. 1, 2025. Under Civil Local Rule 7.1(B), the Defendants' opposition to that motion would be due 14 days later, or Dec. 15, 2025. The Parties intend to conduct discovery in connection with class certification and believe that the amount of time provided by the default schedule under the Civil Local Rules is insufficient for such discovery. The Parties have conferred and believe that good cause exists to modify the default schedule for the class certification proceedings. This Joint Motion is not intended for the purposes of delay, but rather to allow the Parties sufficient time to conduct discovery and address the issues likely to be raised in connection with Lead Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. To that end, on December 1, 2025, the Parties will submit their Joint Preliminary Report and Discovery Plan, which will contain a proposed comprehensive case schedule that includes proposed deadlines for class certification briefing. Accordingly, the Parties request that the Court grant this Joint Motion and enter the [Proposed] Order continuing the class certification deadlines under Local Civil Rule 23.1(B) pending the Court’s entry of a scheduling order that includes class certification proceedings. Vestis provides clean and safe uniform services and workplace supplies. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zJsJHK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lester R. Hooker, Esq. Dianne M. Pitre, Esq. Jonathan Lamet, Esq. Steven B. Singer, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 7777 Glades Road, Suite 300 Boca Raton, FL 33434 Telephone: (561) 394-3399 Facsimile: (561) 394-3382 E-mail: lhooker@saxenawhite.com dpitre@saxenawhite.com jlamet@saxenawhite.com ssinger@saxenawhite.com - and - W. Thomas Lacy, Jr., Esq. LINDSEY & LACY, PC 200 Westpark Drive, Suite 280 Peachtree City, GA 30269 Telephone: (770) 486-8445 Facsimile: (770) 486-8889 E-mail: tlacy@llptc.com The Defendants are represented by: Simon R. Malko, Esq. Nathan R. Miles, Esq. MORRIS, MANNING & MARTIN 3343 Peachtree Road, NE 1600 Atlanta Financial Center Atlanta, GA 30326 Telephone: (404) 504-7642 Facsimile: (404) 365-9532 E-mail: nmiles@mmmlaw.com - and - Joseph De Simone, Esq. Michelle Annunziata, Esq. Max Hirsch, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 506-2500 E-mail: jdesimone@mayerbrown.com mannunziata@mayerbrown.com mhirsch@mayerbrown.com - and - Christopher S. Turner, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 555 Eleventh Street, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 637-2200 Facsimile: (202) 637-2201 E-mail: christopher.turner@lw.com VIA RENEWABLES: Clark Appeals Tossed Class Cert. Bid to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN CLARK is taking an appeal from a court order denying his motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Brian Clark, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Via Renewables, Inc., f/k/a Spark Energy, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00568-JSC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff, on behalf of four proposed classes, alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). On June 27, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley declined on Oct. 21, 2025. The Court finds that the Plaintiff has not shown his claims or defenses are typical of the class, that he is an adequate representative of the class, or that common issues of law or fact predominate. The appellate case is entitled Brian Clark v. Via Renewables, Inc., f/k/a Spark Energy, Inc., Case No. 25-6993, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 4, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner BRIAN CLARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Justin Prato Esq. Christopher Reichman Esq. PRATO & REICHMAN, APC 3675 Ruffin Road, Suite 220 San Diego, CA 92123 Telephone: (619) 886-0252 Facsimile: (619) 241-8309 Email: Jmprato@gmail.com Defendant-Respondent VIA RENEWABLES, INC., F/K/A SPARK ENERGY, INC. is represented by: Brittany Andres, Esq. Eric Troutman, Esq. TROUTMAN AMIN, LLP 400 Spectrum Center, Ste. 1550 Irvine, CA 92618 Email: troutman@troutmanamin.com brittany@troutmanamin.com VIATRIS INC: 3rd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of EASC Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled IN RE VIATRIS INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirms the dismissal of the class action complaint initiated by Eastern Atlantic States Carpenters Pension Annuity and Health Funds. The matter is an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (District Court No. 2:23-cv-00812, District Judge: Honorable Marilyn J. Horan). The Third Circuit panel consists of Thomas M. Hardiman, Cheryl Ann Krause, and Cindy K. Chung, Circuit Judges. Judge Chung wrote the Court's Opinion. The appellate case is Eastern Atlantic States Carpenters Pension Annuity and Health Funds, (EASC), Appellant v. VIATRIS INC., MICHAEL GOETTLER, and RAJIV MALIK, Case No. 24-2977 (3d Cir.). Eastern Atlantic States Carpenters Pension Annuity and Health Funds ("EASC") appeals the District Court's order dismissing its Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Complaint") alleging that investors were misled by statements made by Defendants Viatris Inc., Michael Goettler, and Rajiv Malik (collectively, "Viatris"). Because the Complaint does not plausibly allege that any of the challenged statements are materially misleading by omission, the Panel affirms. Viatris was formed on Nov. 16, 2020, through a combination of Mylan N.V. and Upjohn Inc. Goettler was Viatris's Chief Executive, Malik was Viatris's President, and both served as Directors since its inception. Viatris touted itself as a "new kind of global healthcare company," developing and selling a variety of pharmaceuticals, including brand-name drugs, generics, complex generics, and biosimilars. From its first 10-K filing for the year ending December 2020, and in later SEC filings, Viatris disclosed to investors that it was engaged in integration and restructuring activities, and would consider various strategic transactions, including divestitures, that may be material both from a strategic and financial perspective. Viatris cautioned that these transactions could reduce the size or scope of its business. On March 1, 2021, the first day of the class period, Viatris held its inaugural Investor Day event. On this call, the Defendants represented that Viatris's biosimilars strategy was a core part of its forward looking portfolio, and stated that it was "committed" to its "focus on biosimilars." But they reminded investors that they expected to begin their strategic planning exercise over the next coming months. They explained that Viatris was on a multiyear journey to transform the company. Thereafter and until the last alleged misleading statement was made on Dec. 1, 2021, the Defendants touted Viatris's strength in biosimilars to investors. On Feb. 28, 2022, at Viatris's Investor Day event, the Defendants announced that Viatris's biosimilars business would be sold to Biocon Biologics, Inc. ("Biocon"). Viatris also filed a Form 8-K that day revealing that on Oct. 26, 2021, Viatris and Biocon had entered into a Confidentiality Agreement. The Defendants told investors that the initiative followed a thorough strategic review of its entire business to determine what was core and what was noncore to the future of the company. They explained that they were unveiling "a significant global reshaping initiative" and that the "Biocon biosimilar announcement is only the first-but-critical step to unlock value and reshape Viatris." On this news, Viatris's common stock fell $3.53 per share, or 24.28%. The Complaint was filed on Oct. 23, 2023, and asserted violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against all Defendants, and Section 20(a) of that Act against Goettler and Malik. EASC alleged that during the class period, the Defendants made material misstatements by omission in their SEC filings, investor conferences, and calls with investors, regarding Viatris's commitment to biosimilars ("biosimilars statements"). The Defendants moved to dismiss the entire Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and the District Court granted their motion on Sept. 20, 2024. On appeal, EASC argues that the District Court erred in concluding that the biosimilars statements alleged to be fraudulent were not actionable and abused its discretion by failing to grant EASC leave to further amend the Complaint. The Panel finds that the Complaint does not plausibly allege any materially misleading statements. Because the Panel concludes that the Complaint does not plausibly allege that the challenged statements were materially misleading by omission, the Court of Appeals affirms the dismissal of both its Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) claims. The Panel also finds that the District Court did not abuse its discretion by denying EASC leave to amend. EASC contends that the District Court improperly dismissed the Complaint without granting its request for leave to amend. However, Judge Chung explains, EASC did not attach a draft amended complaint to its request for leave to amend, nor even explain--either in its briefing before the District Court or in its appeal--how it intends to amend its pleading to state a plausible claim. Accordingly, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying EASC leave to amend. For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirms. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Nov. 10, 2025, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2pnhvbvf from GovInfo.gov. Colin J. Callahan -- ccallahan@flannerygeorgalis.com -- Flannery Georgalis, in Pittsburgh, PA 15219; Jan Messerschmidt -- jmesserschmidt@cohenmilstein.com -- Brendan R. Schneiderman -- bschneiderman@cohenmilstein.com -- Steven J. Toll -- stoll@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, in Washington, DC 20005; Christina D. Saler -- csaler@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, in Philadelphia, PA 19103, Counsel for Appellants Eastern Atlantic States Carpenters Pension Annuity and Health Funds, (EASC). Sheryl S. Bassin -- sbassin@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, in New York, NY 10019; Steffen N. Johnson -- sjohnson@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, in Washington, DC 20006; Nina F. Locker -- nlocker@wsgr.com -- Betty C. Rowe -- browe@wsgr.com -- Evan L. Seite -- eseite@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, in Palo Alto, CA 94304, Counsel for Appellees Viatris, Inc., Michael Goettler, and Rajiv Malik. VOLUME SERVICES: Class Cert Bid Filing in Adler Due March 23, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Adler, et al., v. Volume Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-01939 (S.D. Cal., Filed July 30, 2025), the Hon. Judge Anthony J. Battaglia entered an order setting the deadline to file a motion for class certification as March 23, 2026. The nature of suit states Labor Litigation. Volume is an American company that operates food, beverage, and merchandise services for entertainment and convention venues.[CC] VOLVO CAR: Thomson Sues Over Vehicles' Brake and Display Defects ---------------------------------------------------------------- CATHY JO THOMSON and DONALD FRED THOMSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VOLVO CAR NORTH AMERICA, LLC, and VOLVO CAR USA, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-17193-JKS-MAH (D.N.J., November 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and Kansas Consumer Protection Act, breach of express warranty, and breach of implied warranty. The case arises from the Defendants' design, manufacturing, and sale of 2022-2024 XC40 and C40 vehicles. According to the complaint, the vehicles have brake-related and dashboard drive display-related defects, which can pose serious risks of injury to drivers. Volvo was made aware of these defects as early as 2021 through its review of data within Volvo's own control and to which it had ready access. Yet, instead of addressing, repairing, or providing an adequate warning of the safety risks to consumers, Volvo concealed the defects, consistently denying responsibility despite clear recognition and acknowledgment of these defects by Volvo's authorized dealers. As a result of the Defendant's omissions, the Plaintiffs and similarly situated consumers suffered damages, says the suit. Volvo Car North America, LLC is an automobile manufacturer, with its principal place of business in Mahwah, New Jersey. Volvo Car USA, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Volvo AB, with its principal place of business in Mahwah, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James C. Shah, Esq. Natalie Finkelman, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 2 Hudson Place #303 Hoboken, NJ 07030 Telephone: (866) 540-5505 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 Email: jcshah@millershah.com nfinkelman@millershah.com - and - John F. Edgar, Esq. Alexander C. Melin, Esq. EDGAR LAW FIRM LLC 2600 Grand Blvd., Ste. 440 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 531-0033 Facsimile: (816) 531-3322 Email: jfe@edgarlawfirm.com acm@edgarlawfirm.com WALGREENS BOOTS: Keedi Suit Removed to S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jessica Keedi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC., Case No. CACE-25-015115 was removed from the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, to the United States District Court for Southern District of Florida on Nov. 12, 2025, and assigned Case No. 0:25-cv-62294-XXXX. The Plaintiff claims Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act("TCPA"), and federal regulations. The Plaintiff seeks an award of statutory damages and injunctive relief.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Emanuel L. McMiller, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 300 N. Meridian Street, Suite 2500 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 237-0300 Fax: (317) 237-1000 Email: manny.mcmiller@faegredrinker.com WALMART INC: Bedoy Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Eva Bedoy and Paulette Wellborn, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. WALMART INC., Case No. 25STCV28906 was removed from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Nov. 10, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-10794. The Plaintiffs allege that Walmart refused to permit them to redeem Walmart gift cards with balances less than ten dollars for cash. The Plaintiffs allege causes of action for violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, breach of contract; conversion; common count for money had and received; and violation of the California Unfair Competition Law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Collin J. Vierra, Esq. Jonathan Breit, Esq. EIMER STAHL LLP 1999 South Bascom Avenue, Suite 1025 Campbell, CA 95008 Phone: (408) 889-1668 Email: cvierra@eimerstahl.com jbreit@eimerstahl.com WAYNE LOPEZ: Class Cert Bid Filing in Laccinole Due April 8, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRIS LACCINOLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. WAYNE M. LOPEZ d/b/a VARRO LEON and MICHAEL HERNANDEZ, Case No. 3:24-cv-07764-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order that all pending deadlines are extended by 90 days as follows: Event Deadlines The Plaintiff's expert disclosures: Feb. 11, 2026 The Defendant's expert disclosures: March 11, 2026 Rebuttal expert disclosures: March 31, 2026 The Plaintiff's motion for class April 8, 2026 certification: The Defendant's response to motion May 13, 2026 for class certification: The Plaintiff's reply in support of June 1, 2026 motion for class certification: A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ujl3pV at no extra charge.[CC] WELLS FARGO: $85MM Settlement in SEB Suit Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEB INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT AB, et al., v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-03811-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Thompson entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement. The Court vacates existing deadlines and re-sets deadlines as modified herein. The summary of key dates is below. Event Date Class data to be provided to settlement July 17, 2025 administrator Class notice to be sent by: Nov. 26, 2025 Motion for final approval to be filed by Feb. 27, 2026 Class counsel to file their motion for fees Feb. 27, 2026 and costs and class representative awards: Deadline for counsel to file sworn Feb. 27, 2026 declaration indicating any conflicts with cy pres recipient: Class counsel and settlement administrator April 28, 2026 to submit supplemental statements regarding status of notice: Fairness and final approval hearing: May 5, 2026 On June 28, 2022, the Plaintiff Khosrow Ardalan filed a class action complaint against Well Fargo and its executive officers. On Jan. 31, 2023, the Plaintiffs SEB and WPB filed a consolidated class action complaint against the Defendants. On April 25, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court certified the following Class of investors: "All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Wells Fargo & Company common stock between Feb. 24, 2021 and June 9, 2022, inclusive, and were damaged thereby." Excluded from the Class are the Defendants and their families, the officers, directors, and affiliates of the Defendants, at all relevant times, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity in which the Defendants have or had a controlling interest. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, without admitting liability, Defendants will pay $85,000,000 into an interest-bearing escrow account. Wells is an American multinational financial services company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jWVVvs at no extra charge.[CC] WEST COAST DENTAL: Rodriguez Seeks to Certify Two Classes --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENELLY RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WEST COAST DENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00459-SPG-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Dec. 10, 2025, will move the Court for an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. The Plaintiff seeks certification of the following classes: National Do-Not-Call Class: "All persons within the United States registered on the National Do-Not Call Registry for at least 30 days, who, after opting out of receiving future text messages to a residential telephone, received at least two solicitation text messages within any twelve-month period made by Futuredontics PatientActivator platform on behalf of WCD, between Jan. 18, 2020 and present." Internal Do-Not-Call Class: "All persons within the United States who after opting out of receiving future text messages from the Defendants, and who, within a twelve-month period, received at least two solicitation text messages on a residential telephone, placed by Futuredontics PatientActivator platform on behalf of WCD, between Jan. 18, 2020 and present." On Nov. 13, 2025, the Plaintiff's counsel met and conferred with counsel for the Defendants, pursuant to Local Rule 7-3, wherein the content of Plaintiff's Motion and basis for seeking class certification was discussed between counsel. This Motion is made pursuant to the Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on the grounds that the Rule 23 prerequisites are satisfied. The Plaintiff moves for class certification of claims against the Defendants for its violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). WCD is a dental and orthodontics provider. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Fy7XK5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Matthew R. Snyder, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 23586 Calabasas Rd., Suite 105 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com msnyder@toddflaw.com WEST COAST DENTAL: Rodriguez Seeks to File Docs Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENELLY RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WEST COAST DENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00459-SPG-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting application to file portions of document under seal pursuant to civil local rule 79-5. The Defendants have designated the document to be sealed as confidential. This Declaration refers to a matter which is not subject to disclosure pursuant to Penal Code Section 832.7 and the right to privacy applies. West is a dental and orthodontics provider. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oLlOiu at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Matthew R. Snyder, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 23586 Calabasas Rd., Suite 105 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com msnyder@toddflaw.com WEST TEXAS HEALTH: Jack Files Suit in Tex. Dist. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against West Texas Health PLLC. The case is styled as Carl Jack, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. West Texas Health PLLC f/k/a Abilene Diagnostic Clinic, Case No. 13734-D (Tex. Dist. Ct., Taylor Cty., Nov. 12, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as "Other Debt/Contract." West Texas Health -- https://www.westtexashealth.com/ -- provide medical care to Abilene and the surrounding area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce W. Steckler, Esq. STECKLER WAYNE & LOVE PLLC 12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045 Dallas, TX 75230 Phone: (972) 387-4040 Fax: (972) 387-4041 Email: bruce@stecklerlaw.com WESTERN DENTAL: Gonzalez Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Western Dental Services, Inc. The case is styled as Cesar Castillo Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Western Dental Services, Inc., Case No. 8:25-cv-02520 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 12, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Western Dental -- https://www.westerndental.com/en-us/ -- provides accessible, high-quality dental services, from routine cleanings to advanced orthodontics.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN PA 237 South Dixie Hwy 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com WICKED TACO: Bid for Class Cert. in Gonzalez Due Jan. 9, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gonzalez v. Wicked Taco LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-09555 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 28, 2023), the Hon. Judge Natasha C. Merle entered an order that he parties' motions for summary judgement and plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be briefed on the following schedule: -- The Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and class certification is due Jan. 9, 2026. -- The defendants' opposition and motion for summary judgment is due on or before Jan. 30, 2026. -- The plaintiff's opposition and reply, if any, is due on or before Feb. 20, 2026. -- The defendants' reply, if any, is due on or before March 6, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Defendant is a casual dining establishment that specializes in serving a variety of tacos with unique and bold flavors.[CC] WONG FLEMING: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Ragoonath Says ----------------------------------------------------------- BOBBY RAGOONATH, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WONG FLEMING, PC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-17203 (D.N.J., November 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach between December 13 and December 14, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Wong Fleming, PC is a law firm based in New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick Howard, Esq. SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY, PC 8000 Sagemore Drive, Suite 8303 Marlton, NJ 08053 Telephone: (215) 575-3895 Email: phoward@smbb.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina Borelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com X CORP: Mismanages the Twitter Severance Plan, Ye Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- DIANA YE and BRIAN KURTZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. X CORP., f/k/a/ TWITTER, INC., X HOLDINGS CORP., X.AI HOLDINGS CORP., ELON MUSK, DOES, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-09501-PHK (N.D. Cal., November 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties and liability pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Plaintiffs bring this class action against the Defendants for breaching the duties they owed to the Twitter Severance Plan. According to the complaint, as Defendant Musk assumed control of Twitter, he and other fiduciaries engaged in a campaign of deception towards employees regarding the existence of the Twitter Severance Plan and employees' eligibility for severance benefits. Without providing any notice to Plan participants, and at times affirmatively misleading them, Defendant Musk and the other Defendants caused the Plan to be deprived of its funds and benefit components. When Defendant Musk and the other Defendants then began a course of mass terminations, Plan participants were wrongfully denied the benefits to which the Plan entitled them, some of which Defendants had promised and were obligated to provide. The result of the Defendants' conduct was the wrongful denial of benefits to participants and a Plan that had been disregarded, with benefits accruing to the company and Defendant Musk rather than participants, alleges the suit. X Corp., formerly known as Twitter, Inc., is an American technology company, headquartered in Texas. X Holdings Corp. is a holding company, headquartered in Texas. X.AI Holdings Corp. is a holding company, headquartered in California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kate Mueting, Esq. Shannon Henris, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP MCKNIGHT, LLP 700 Pennsylvania Ave SE, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20003 Telephone: (202) 499-5206 Email: kmueting@sanfordheisler.com - and - Charles Field, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP MCKNIGHT, LLP 7911 Herschel Avenue La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (619) 577-4252 Email: cfield@sanfordheisler.com - and - Kristi Stahnke McGregor, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP MCKNIGHT, LLP 611 Commerce Street, Suite 3100 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 434-7008 Email: kmcgregor@sanfordheisler.com - and - Susannah R. Cohen, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP MCKNIGHT, LLP 17 State Street, 37th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 402-5646 Email: scohen@sanfordheisler.com XGIMI TECHNOLOGY: Court Narrows Claims in Garrido Suit ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUIZ C. PECK GARRIDO, V. XGIMI TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATED, Case No. 1:24-cv-04290-RER-CLP (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ramon Reyes, Jr. entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff maintains his fraud claims (Counts I and II) and breach of express warranty claim (Claim III) on behalf of himself and a nationwide class, and his N.Y. GBL section 349 claim (Claim VII) on behalf of himself and the New York subclass. Counts IV, V, VI and VIII are dismissed, as is Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief. The Epson Settlement is not merely an allegation “in a complaint in another case;” it is a factual allegation in this case. Whether that allegation is sufficient to carry the day for Plaintiff remains to be seen. What does not remain to be seen is whether Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that the original Halo lumens ratings were false. He has done so, and Defendant’s motion to dismiss this claim is therefore denied. This is a purported class action on behalf of consumers who purchased defendant’s home projectors and other similar devices. Plaintiff claims defendant advertised these products on its website and elsewhere with intentionally inflated brightness ratings to deceive consumers and induce them to purchase these products at a premium. The Plaintiff raises eight claims Defendant on behalf of a nationwide class and New York subclass consisting of all persons who purchased a Xgimi Projector prior to September 18, 2023: (1) Deceit and Fraudulent Concealment (Count I), (2) Common Law Fraud via Affirmative Misrepresentation (Count II), (3) Breach of Express Warranty (Count III), (4) Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability (Count IV), (5) Breach of the Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose (Count V), (6) violations of the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301 et seq. ("MMWA") (Count VI), and (7) Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices in Violation of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law section 349, et seq. ("NYGBL") (on behalf of Plaintiff and New York subclass only) (Count VII), and (8) unjust enrichment (Count VIII). Peck Garrido alleges Defendant purposefully deceived consumers by inflating the brightness figures of its home projectors to gain traction in the United States market, including but not limited to the (1) Horizon Pro 4k, (2) Horizon 1080P, (3) Elfin, and (4) Halo models. In November 2022, plaintiff Luiz C. Peck Garrido, a resident of Long Island, New York, purchased an Xgimi Horizon Pro 4K home theater projector directly from the website of defendant Xgimi Technology Incorporated. XGimi is a developer and manufacturer of multi-functional projectors. A copy of the Court's memorandum & order dated Nov. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BwmaJI at no extra charge.[CC] ZILLOW HOME: Faces Expanded Class Action Adding RICO Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Real Estate News reports that the law firms behind the landmark Moehrl commission lawsuit have escalated their legal attack on Zillow, accusing the company of racketeering, "fraudulent" business practices and a coordinated scheme to inflate commissions and steer buyers to Zillow Home Loans. An amended class action complaint in the case known as Taylor was filed on Nov. 19 in a Seattle federal court. It replaces the initial September filing -- which focused on the Zillow Flex referral program -- and expands the case significantly. It names 10 plaintiffs across eight states and adds Zillow Home Loans (ZHL) plus three real estate brokerages/teams as defendants: Oregon-based Works Industries LLC, Nevada-based GK Properties and The Frano Team, which is based in Florida. Attorneys from Hagens Berman and Cohen Milstein now allege that Zillow "designed and operated a fraudulent enterprise" that tricks buyers into working with Zillow-affiliated agents, hides substantial referral fees, pushes agents to send business to ZHL and uses its market power to "monetize every step of the home-buying process -- even if illegally." Real Estate News has reached out to Zillow for comment. A closer look at the allegations: The amended complaint adds two RICO claims, arguing that Zillow and participating real estate brokerages constitute an "enterprise" that uses deceptive digital funnels, scripted sales tactics and undisclosed fees to unlawfully keep commissions "high and inflexible." These claims raise the stakes by framing Zillow's alleged practices as a coordinated effort rather than isolated violations. Specifically, the filing argues that prospective buyers who click "Contact Agent" or "Request a Tour" believe they are contacting the listing agent but are routed to a Zillow Flex agent instead. Those consumers are then encouraged to sign a touring agreement that does not disclose Zillow's 40% Flex referral fees. The amended complaint comes just days after NAR's delegate body declined to approve a proposal requiring real estate agents to disclose referral fees to clients. New witnesses offer perspectives on Flex program: Accounts from 12 confidential witnesses have also been added, expanding the mortgage steering allegations. Among the claims: -- Zillow uses Follow Up Boss to monitor calls and messages, "eavesdrop" on client communications and catch agents who recommend outside lenders. -- Zillow managers allegedly travel to offices to personally deliver instructions "they could not put in writing" about quotas. -- Flex agents who fail to meet quotas for referring buyers to ZHL face losing leads or getting kicked out of the program. -- ZHL "cherry-picks" highly qualified buyers, offers higher interest rates than competitors and provides inaccurate closing disclosures. Multiple Flex agents told investigators that they were dropped from the program specifically because they recommended lenders who better served their clients' needs, the filing states. Echoes of another recent case: The newly amended complaint comes just weeks after a separate class action accused Zillow of using "kickbacks" to boost its mortgage business in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and the Washington Consumer Protection Act. Zillow allegedly pressured agents in its Premier Agent and Flex programs to steer buyers to ZHL for pre-approval. Agents who went along were rewarded with extra or higher-quality leads, while those who didn't risked losing access to the lucrative Flex program, the filing claims. Buyers, meanwhile, were allegedly steered toward ZHL without realizing their agent's business depended on it. The amended filing in the Taylor case also alleges RESPA violations, claiming Zillow is "illegally both giving and receiving a 'thing of value' related to referrals" and "receiving a payment that is not in exchange for completing the property transaction." [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***