250627.mbx

250627.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, June 27, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 128 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Dutmer Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Felix Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Miles Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Nowaczyk Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Schroat Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Scielso Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Shelnutt Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Trimble Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Troxel Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams A&L DELIVERIES: Ramos Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. AIRCRAFT COMPONENT: Albanes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. AIRSLATE INC: Jackson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ALN MEDICAL: Myers's Bid to Consolidate Cases Granted ALN MEDICAL: Peck's Bid to Consolidate Cases Granted ALN MEDICAL: Reed's Bid to Consolidate Cases Granted ALN MEDICAL: Rosenberg's Bid to Consolidate Cases Granted ALN MEDICAL: Safai's Bid to Consolidate Cases Granted AMALGAMATED SUGAR: Fails to Secure Employees' Info, Bernal Alleges AMBI ENTERPRISES: Lewis Sues Over Unlawful Calls AMERICAN HEALTH: Arinatwe Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid APPLE INC: Shin Sues Over Authorizing Malicious Applications APPLIED THERAPEUTICS: Fact Discovery Due Feb. 27, 2026 ARDAGH GLASS: Castaneda Labor Suit Seeks to Certify 8 Classes ARDAGH GLASS: Castaneda Seeks Conditional Collective Cert. AVIS BUDGET: Faces O'Connor Suit Over $6.12/Share Stock Price Drop BACKBLAZE INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims BEIERSDORF INC: Slowinski Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois BLUE SHIELD: Linares Sues over Failure to Maintain Security BLUESKY HEALTHCARE: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to July 7 BLUESKY HEALTHCARE: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert. BREUER PREMIUM PET: Jackson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BRINKER DATA: Bid to Redact Class Hearing Transcript OK'd in Part BROOKDALE SENIOR: Class Settlement in Stiner Gets Initial Nod BRUCE PACKING: Class Certification Bid Filing Due Jan. 27, 2026 CALIFORNIA COMMERCE: Kim Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CARDINAL HEALTH: Hernandez Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages CAREERIST INC: Wright Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania CHECK CITY PARTNERSHIP: Chipman Files Suit in D. Utah CHILDRESS OUTPOST: Herman Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Oklahoma CHRISTOPHER LAROSE: Seeks August 11 as Date to File Response CONSUMER LEGAL: Court Dismisses Senderovic Suit COPINE 891: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Anderson Alleges CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Class Cert Filing in Conriquez Due August 15 CVS PHARMACY: Plaintiffs' Bid for Class Certification Tossed DAEDONG-USA: Bid to Consolidate Cases Granted in Khoune Suit DANIEL BEERS: Parties Seek More Time to Complete Discovery DARVEYS USA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Battle Alleges DEFENSE INTERNATIONAL: Gonzalez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. DIDI GLOBAL: Bid to Seal Exhibit 4 OK'd in Securities Suit DINGHY SHOP: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Agnone Says DOUBLEVERIFY HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over Alleged Securities Fraud DOYON LIMITED: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Launt Suit Says ECONOMY PREFERRED: Miller Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ENDEAVOR GROUP: Garcia Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. EPISOURCE LLC: Fails to Protect Personal, Health Info, Liebau Says FIFTY WEST: Morse Suit Seeks to Certify Class FINCANTIERI MARINE: Court Narrows Claims in Malvitz Suit FORTREA HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Aug. 1 FRANK LAROSE: Bid to Extend Deadline to File TRO Nixed FRESHREALM INC: Mendez Suit Removed to E.D. California FRITO-LAY INC: Baum Sues Over Mislabeled Snack Food Products GIANTS DELI: Basurto Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages GLOBAL ENTERTAINMENT: Harper Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GLOBAL TEL-LINK: Court Narrows Claims in Albert Suit GLOBAL TEL-LINK: Securus' Bid to Stay Discovery Partly OK'd GOODRX INC: Faces Mannino Suit Over Pharmacy Reimbursement Rates GREAT INTERNATIONAL: Combel Illicit Drug Suit Removed to E.D. La. GROUND GAME: Court Sets Scheduling Conference in ATVL Suit HATCHITT TAX CLUB: Parker Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Michigan HUMANA INC: Maxwell-Dillard Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA INNOVATIVE TAX: Faces Hewett Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages IRWIN NATURALS: Jones Sues Over Mislabeled Weight Loss Supplements JM SMUCKER: Plaintiffs Bid for Class Certification Due July 10 JRC INCORPORATED: Averkamp Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY: Thayer Files TCPA Suit in W.D. New York KRISTI NOEM: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response LEXISNEXIS RISK: Baker Sues Over Failure to Secure Information LEXISNEXIS RISK: Rouse Sues Over Failure to Secure Information LEXYL TRAVEL: Canteenwalla Must File Class Cert Reply by July 8 LEXYL TRAVEL: Parties Seeks More Time for Class Cert Briefing LIQUIDITY SERVICES: Auctionz Sues Over False Advertising LITTLE CAESAR: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Cuevas Due June 30 LITTLE: Filing for Class Certification in Pagan Due Oct. 31 LRW TRAFFIC: Parties Seek Approval of Settlement Agreement LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Seeks to Modify Scheduling Order in Gabourel M.I.C SERVICES: Bunay Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York MAKO CATERING: Cook Suit Seeks to Certify Collective Action MARION COUNTY, OR: Marion Must File Class Cert Bid by Oct. 30 MARRIOTT INT'L: Class Cert Bids Referred to Magistrate Judge MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Camas Seeks More Time to File Class Reply MATHWORKS INC: Arutyunyan Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI MBE CPAS: Zak Sues Over Failure to Protect Sensitive Data MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: Simpkins Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois MERCEDES-BENZ: Jamil Seeks Leave to File Class Certification Reply MEYER LOGISTICS: Samano Suit Removed to C.D. California MHF MGMT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Alexander Alleges MINDLANCE INC: Roszhart Suit Removed to C.D. California NESPRESSO USA: Court Dismiss Kolar Suit NEW JERSEY: Faces Hubbard Class Suit Over Racketeering Enterprise NEW YORK, NY: Bid for Class Certification Reply Due July 1 PHILLIP MORRIS: Court Stays Norris Suit PLATINUM NINE: Miller Seeks Conditional Class Certification POST MILLENNIAL: Vetter-Conley Sues Over Failure to Secure SPI PRIORITY BACKGROUND: Smith Files FCRA Suit in W.D. North Carolina PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due April 28, 2026 PSCU LLC: Bid to Strike Class Allegations Granted in Part QUALITY CARRIERS: Plaintiffs Bid for Reconsideration Tossed RB GLOBAL: Faces Class Suit Over Equipment Rental Rate Conspiracy RILEY POPE: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Warren Due April 3, 2026 RITA KIRK: Elmoety Sues Over Wage and Hour Violations RITTENHOUSE PLACE: Cheli Sues Over Inaccessible Property ROB JEFFREYS: Heilner Files Suit in D. Nebraska RSCR CALIFORNIA: Class Cert Deadlines in Delgado Vacated SAIA MOTOR: Moore Bid to Continue Class Cert Hearing Tossed SAMFIN RESOURCES: Farrell Files TCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment v. COH SCENTSY INC: Wenning Suit Removed to N.D. California SECURITY BENEFIT: Carrick Suit Seeks Class Certification SEGWAY INC: Torres Suit Removed to N.D. California SELECT PORTFOLIO: Evans Seeks Class Certification SEMLER SCIENTIFIC: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims SHADE STORE: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Briefing SIAM 90 CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Basurto Alleges SIKA CORPORATION: Cook Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification SONOS INC: Faces Blair Suit Over App's Poor Functionality ST. CHARLES: Wins Summary Judgment v. Reiger STARBUCKS CORP: Bollinger Suit Voluntarily Dismissed STIFEL & NICOLAUS: Faces Clifford Suit Over Cash Sweep Programs STRATEGIC STAFFING: Class Settlement in Norton Gets Final Nod SUBARU OF AMERICA: Plaintiffs' Bid to Certify Class Reinstated SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Class Cert Filing in Fischer Due Dec. 1 TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR: Bid for Leave to File SAC Partly OK'd TNT CRANE: Wisby Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation TOWER HEALTH: Faces Brennan Securities Suit Over Fiduciary Duties TRELLIS RESEARCH: Eom Files Suit in C.D. California TURQUOISE HILL: Bid for More Time to File Class Cert Response OK'd UNICOURT INC: Trama Files Suit in C.D. California UNITED STATES: Class Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus OK'd UNITED STATES: Faces Suit Over Use of Force at Demonstrations UNITED STATES: Masseur Seeks FLSA Conditional Class Certification UNITED STATES: Must File Class Cert Response by July 31 in Hagans VERA BRADLEY: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Gorlamari Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class WELLS FARGO BANK: Cochrane Suit Removed to N.D. California WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Must Oppose Costa Class Cert Bid by July 10 ZUFFA LLC: Court Certifies Reza Class Action Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Estimates $15.3MM Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Awards $16MM Verdict Against Asbestos Corp. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Henderson Awarded $2.5MM Judgement Against J&J ********* 3M COMPANY: Dutmer Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ronald Dutmer, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-04553-RMG (D.S.C., May 27, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants manufactured AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF that contaminated and continues to contaminate the environment, yet no Defendant included user warnings to protect the environment or innocent bystanders. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Plaintiffs had no way to know that they were being exposed to toxic chemicals until the contamination was recently discovered. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or the Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use and was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF product. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Phone: 540-672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com 3M COMPANY: Felix Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jorge Felix, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba, Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successorin interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; and WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-04579-RMG (D.S.C., May 28, 2025), is brought for damages stemming from personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during their firefighting career and diagnosed with Thyroid Disease as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Y. Shenkar, Esq. MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS, LLP 101 West Elm St., Suite 520 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: (803) 315-3357 Fax: (610) 941-9880 Email: jshenkar@bernllp.com 3M COMPANY: Miles Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dean Miles, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba, Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successorin interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; and WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-04578-RMG (D.S.C., May 28, 2025), is brought for damages stemming from personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during their firefighting career and diagnosed with Thyroid Disease and High Cholesterol as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Y. Shenkar, Esq. MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS, LLP 101 West Elm St., Suite 520 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: (803) 315-3357 Fax: (610) 941-9880 Email: jshenkar@bernllp.com 3M COMPANY: Nowaczyk Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ---------------------------------------------------------- Scott Nowaczyk, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-04559-RMG (D.S.C., May 27, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants manufactured AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF that contaminated and continues to contaminate the environment, yet no Defendant included user warnings to protect the environment or innocent bystanders. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Plaintiffs had no way to know that they were being exposed to toxic chemicals until the contamination was recently discovered. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or the Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use and was diagnosed with testicular cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF product. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Phone: 540-672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com 3M COMPANY: Schroat Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams ------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Schroat, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-04563-RMG (D.S.C., May 27, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants manufactured AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF that contaminated and continues to contaminate the environment, yet no Defendant included user warnings to protect the environment or innocent bystanders. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Plaintiffs had no way to know that they were being exposed to toxic chemicals until the contamination was recently discovered. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or the Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use and was diagnosed with thyroid cancer and thyroid disease as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF product. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Phone: 540-672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com 3M COMPANY: Scielso Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ------------------------------------------------------------------ Nicholas Scielso, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-04565-RMG (D.S.C., May 27, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants manufactured AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF that contaminated and continues to contaminate the environment, yet no Defendant included user warnings to protect the environment or innocent bystanders. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Plaintiffs had no way to know that they were being exposed to toxic chemicals until the contamination was recently discovered. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or the Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use and was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF product. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Phone: 540-672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com 3M COMPANY: Shelnutt Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams -------------------------------------------------------------- Mark E. Shelnutt, individually and as personal representative for Decedent, David Edwin Tipton, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P. as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-04595-RMG (D.S.C., May 28, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with thyroid disease as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen "Buck" Daniel, Esq. RUEB STOLLER DANIEL, LLP 225 Ottley Drive NE, Suite 110 Atlanta, GA 30624 Phone: 404-381-2888 Email: buck@lawrsd.com 3M COMPANY: Trimble Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams ------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Trimble, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-04568-RMG (D.S.C., May 27, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants manufactured AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF that contaminated and continues to contaminate the environment, yet no Defendant included user warnings to protect the environment or innocent bystanders. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Plaintiffs had no way to know that they were being exposed to toxic chemicals until the contamination was recently discovered. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or the Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use and was diagnosed with testicular cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF product. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Phone: 540-672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com 3M COMPANY: Troxel Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- William Troxel, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-04616-RMG (D.S.C., May 28, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants manufactured AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF that contaminated and continues to contaminate the environment, yet no Defendant included user warnings to protect the environment or innocent bystanders. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Plaintiffs had no way to know that they were being exposed to toxic chemicals until the contamination was recently discovered. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or the Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use and was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF product. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Phone: 540-672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com A&L DELIVERIES: Ramos Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against A&L Deliveries LLC. The case is styled as Walter Ramos, Jose Rene Flores Reynado, Jesus Miguel Peral, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. A&L Deliveries LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0008130 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., June 11, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." A&L Deliveries is a family owned & operated Trucking Company in Scooba, Massachusetts specializing in reliable freight transportation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kyle D. Smith, Esq. 1801 Century Park E, Ste 850 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2346 Phone: 310-824-3828 Email: ks@melmedlaw.com AIRCRAFT COMPONENT: Albanes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aircraft Component Repair, Inc. The case is styled as Jose E. Albanes, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Aircraft Component Repair, Inc., Case No. 25STCV16934 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 11, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Aircraft Component Repair, Inc. -- https://www.acr.aero/ -- is a machine shop and engineering company owned and operated by engineers specializing in performing Standard CMM / OHM repairs and ACR-Developed repairs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP PC 8484 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 500 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 438-5555 Fax: (310) 300-1705 Email: jeff@tomorrowlaw.com - and - Joseph Lavi, Esq. Christina Marie Le, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com cle@lelawfirm.com - and - Austin J Reid, Esq. 1740 S Quince St. Escondido, CA 92025-6431 Phone: 760-855-6237 AIRSLATE INC: Jackson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. AIRSLATE, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-04935 (S.D.N.Y., June 12, 2025), is brought against the Defendants for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully and equally accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its services offered thereby, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because the Defendant's website, https://www.signnow.com/, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's website"), 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 corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. AIRSLATE, INC., operates the SignNow online retail service, as well as the SignNow interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: dana@gottlieb.legal michael@gottlieb.legal jeffrey@gottlieb.legal ALN MEDICAL: Myers's Bid to Consolidate Cases Granted ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Myers v. ALN Medical Management, LLC et al, (re ALN Medical Management LLC Data Incident Litigation), Case No. 8:25-CV-224 (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Michael D. Nelson entered an order as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate Cases (Filing No. 18 in Case No. 4:25CV3067) is granted. 2. The above-captioned cases are consolidated for all purposes. The Court designates Case No. 4:25CV3067 as the "Lead Case" and Case Nos. 4:25CV3069, 8:25CV224, 4:25CV3070, 4:25CV3071, 4:25CV3072, 4:25CV3073, 4:25CV3074, 4:25CV3075, 4:25CV3077, 4:25CV3080, 4:25CV3082 and 4:25CV3096 as "Member Cases." The Lead Case will proceed under the new title "In re ALN Medical Management LLC Data Incident Litigation." 3. The plaintiffs shall seek leave to file a consolidated amended complaint in the Lead Case on or before July 21, 2025. The Court FURTHER entered an order: 1. The Plaintiffs’ Motion to Appoint Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel (Filing No. 18 in Case No. 4:25CV3067) is granted to the extent it requests appointment of Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel. 2. Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A.; Andrew Shamis of Shamis & Gentile P.A.; and John Nelson of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC are appointed as Interim Co- Lead Class Counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedures 23(g)(3). 3. The plaintiffs’ Interim Co-Lead Counsel will be responsible for and have plenary authority to prosecute any and all claims of plaintiffs’ and the putative class and to provide general supervision of the activities of plaintiffs’ counsel in the Consolidated Action. 4. The plaintiffs' request for establishment and appointment of a Plaintiffs' Executive Committee is denied, without prejudice. ALN is an administrative services company for healthcare organizations. A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YUEzBQ at no extra charge.[CC] ALN MEDICAL: Peck's Bid to Consolidate Cases Granted ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Peck v. ALN Medical Management LLC et al. (re ALN Medical Management LLC Data Incident Litigation), Case No. 4:25-CV-3073 (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Michael D. Nelson entered an order as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate Cases (Filing No. 18 in Case No. 4:25CV3067) is granted. 2. The above-captioned cases are consolidated for all purposes. The Court designates Case No. 4:25CV3067 as the "Lead Case" and Case Nos. 4:25CV3069, 8:25CV224, 4:25CV3070, 4:25CV3071, 4:25CV3072, 4:25CV3073, 4:25CV3074, 4:25CV3075, 4:25CV3077, 4:25CV3080, 4:25CV3082 and 4:25CV3096 as "Member Cases." The Lead Case will proceed under the new title "In re ALN Medical Management LLC Data Incident Litigation." 3. The plaintiffs shall seek leave to file a consolidated amended complaint in the Lead Case on or before July 21, 2025. The Court FURTHER entered an order: 1. The Plaintiffs’ Motion to Appoint Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel (Filing No. 18 in Case No. 4:25CV3067) is granted to the extent it requests appointment of Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel. 2. Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A.; Andrew Shamis of Shamis & Gentile P.A.; and John Nelson of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC are appointed as Interim Co- Lead Class Counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedures 23(g)(3). 3. The plaintiffs’ Interim Co-Lead Counsel will be responsible for and have plenary authority to prosecute any and all claims of plaintiffs’ and the putative class and to provide general supervision of the activities of plaintiffs’ counsel in the Consolidated Action. 4. The plaintiffs' request for establishment and appointment of a Plaintiffs' Executive Committee is denied, without prejudice. ALN is an administrative services company for healthcare organizations. A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DbFzQM at no extra charge.[CC] ALN MEDICAL: Reed's Bid to Consolidate Cases Granted ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Reed v. ALN Medical Management LLC et al. (re ALN Medical Management LLC Data Incident Litigation), Case No. 4:25-CV-3067 (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Michael D. Nelson entered an order as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate Cases (Filing No. 18 in Case No. 4:25CV3067) is granted. 2. The above-captioned cases are consolidated for all purposes. The Court designates Case No. 4:25CV3067 as the "Lead Case" and Case Nos. 4:25CV3069, 8:25CV224, 4:25CV3070, 4:25CV3071, 4:25CV3072, 4:25CV3073, 4:25CV3074, 4:25CV3075, 4:25CV3077, 4:25CV3080, 4:25CV3082 and 4:25CV3096 as "Member Cases." The Lead Case will proceed under the new title "In re ALN Medical Management LLC Data Incident Litigation." 3. The plaintiffs shall seek leave to file a consolidated amended complaint in the Lead Case on or before July 21, 2025. The Court FURTHER entered an order: 1. The Plaintiffs’ Motion to Appoint Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel (Filing No. 18 in Case No. 4:25CV3067) is granted to the extent it requests appointment of Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel. 2. Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A.; Andrew Shamis of Shamis & Gentile P.A.; and John Nelson of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC are appointed as Interim Co- Lead Class Counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedures 23(g)(3). 3. The plaintiffs’ Interim Co-Lead Counsel will be responsible for and have plenary authority to prosecute any and all claims of plaintiffs’ and the putative class and to provide general supervision of the activities of plaintiffs’ counsel in the Consolidated Action. 4. The plaintiffs' request for establishment and appointment of a Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee is denied, without prejudice. ALN is an administrative services company for healthcare organizations. A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TcaZ6y at no extra charge.[CC] ALN MEDICAL: Rosenberg's Bid to Consolidate Cases Granted --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rosenberg v. ALN Medical Management, LLC et al, (re ALN Medical Management LLC Data Incident Litigation), Case No. 4:25-CV-3069 (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Michael D. Nelson entered an order as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate Cases (Filing No. 18 in Case No. 4:25CV3067) is granted. 2. The above-captioned cases are consolidated for all purposes. The Court designates Case No. 4:25CV3067 as the "Lead Case" and Case Nos. 4:25CV3069, 8:25CV224, 4:25CV3070, 4:25CV3071, 4:25CV3072, 4:25CV3073, 4:25CV3074, 4:25CV3075, 4:25CV3077, 4:25CV3080, 4:25CV3082 and 4:25CV3096 as "Member Cases." The Lead Case will proceed under the new title "In re ALN Medical Management LLC Data Incident Litigation." 3. The plaintiffs shall seek leave to file a consolidated amended complaint in the Lead Case on or before July 21, 2025. The Court FURTHER entered an order: 1. The Plaintiffs’ Motion to Appoint Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel (Filing No. 18 in Case No. 4:25CV3067) is granted to the extent it requests appointment of Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel. 2. Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A.; Andrew Shamis of Shamis & Gentile P.A.; and John Nelson of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC are appointed as Interim Co- Lead Class Counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedures 23(g)(3). 3. The plaintiffs’ Interim Co-Lead Counsel will be responsible for and have plenary authority to prosecute any and all claims of plaintiffs’ and the putative class and to provide general supervision of the activities of plaintiffs’ counsel in the Consolidated Action. 4. The plaintiffs' request for establishment and appointment of a Plaintiffs' Executive Committee is denied, without prejudice. ALN is an administrative services company for healthcare organizations. A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6fcSI2 at no extra charge.[CC] ALN MEDICAL: Safai's Bid to Consolidate Cases Granted ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Safai v. ALN Medical Management, LLC (re ALN Medical Management LLC Data Incident Litigation), Case No. 4:25-CV-3072 (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Michael D. Nelson entered an order as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate Cases (Filing No. 18 in Case No. 4:25CV3067) is granted. 2. The above-captioned cases are consolidated for all purposes. The Court designates Case No. 4:25CV3067 as the "Lead Case" and Case Nos. 4:25CV3069, 8:25CV224, 4:25CV3070, 4:25CV3071, 4:25CV3072, 4:25CV3073, 4:25CV3074, 4:25CV3075, 4:25CV3077, 4:25CV3080, 4:25CV3082 and 4:25CV3096 as "Member Cases." The Lead Case will proceed under the new title "In re ALN Medical Management LLC Data Incident Litigation." 3. The plaintiffs shall seek leave to file a consolidated amended complaint in the Lead Case on or before July 21, 2025. The Court FURTHER entered an order: 1. The Plaintiffs’ Motion to Appoint Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel (Filing No. 18 in Case No. 4:25CV3067) is granted to the extent it requests appointment of Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel. 2. Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A.; Andrew Shamis of Shamis & Gentile P.A.; and John Nelson of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC are appointed as Interim Co- Lead Class Counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedures 23(g)(3). 3. The plaintiffs’ Interim Co-Lead Counsel will be responsible for and have plenary authority to prosecute any and all claims of plaintiffs’ and the putative class and to provide general supervision of the activities of plaintiffs’ counsel in the Consolidated Action. 4. The plaintiffs' request for establishment and appointment of a Plaintiffs' Executive Committee is denied, without prejudice. ALN is an administrative services company for healthcare organizations. A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ygX91j at no extra charge.[CC] AMALGAMATED SUGAR: Fails to Secure Employees' Info, Bernal Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ ESTAPHEN BERNAL on behalf of himself individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMALGAMATED SUGAR COMPANY, Case No. 1:25-cv-00311-DKG (D. Idaho, June 16, 2025) alleges that cybercriminals were able to breach the Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity, failed to adequately monitor its agents, contractors, vendors, and suppliers in handling and securing personally identifiable information of Plaintiff, and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class'PII -- rendering it an easy target for cybercriminals. On Feb. 5, 2025, ASC discovered it had lost control over its computer network and the highly sensitive personal information stored on its computer network in a data breach perpetrated by cybercriminals (Data Breach). According to the complaint, the Data Breach has impacted several thousands of current and former employees, as well as the dependents listed on these employees' insurance.  Following an internal investigation, Defendant learned cybercriminals had gained unauthorized access to employees' PII, including but not limited to their names and Social Security numbers. On May 28, 2025, over three months later, ASC finally began notifying Class Members about the Data Breach. The Defendant's Breach Notice obfuscated the nature of the breach and the threat it posted -- refusing to tell its employees how many people were impacted, how the breach happened, when it was discovered, or why Defendant delayed notifying victims that cybercriminals had gained access to their highly private information. The Plaintiff and the Class are victims of Defendant's negligence and inadequate cyber security measures. Specifically, Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class trusted Defendant with their PII. ASC is a refiner and processor of sugar from sugar beets in the U.S. with offices throughout Idaho, Oregan, and Washington.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jaren Wieland, Esq, MOONEY WIELAND WARREN 512 W. Idaho St., Suite 103 Boise, ID 83702 Telephone: (208) 401-9219 Facsimile: (208) 401-9218 E-mail: jaren.wieland.service@mooneywieland.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610  Chicago, IL 60611  Telephone: (872) 263-1100  Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com AMBI ENTERPRISES: Lewis Sues Over Unlawful Calls ------------------------------------------------ Adam Lewis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMBI ENTERPRISES, LLC, Case No. CACE-25-008655 (Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., June 12, 2025), is brought for injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for violations Of the Caller ID Rules of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA"). In direct contravention of the Caller ID Rules, however, many callers, such as Defendant, make Telephonic Sales Calls a central part of their marketing strategy, and in doing so, intentionally transmit telephone numbers to recipient's Caller ID services that are not capable of receiving telephone calls. As such, Plaintiff, brings this action alleging that Defendant violated the FTSA's Caller ID Rules by transmitting a phone number that was not capable of receiving phone calls when it made Telephonic Sales Calls by text message ("Text Message Sales Calls"). Specifically, Defendant made Text Message Sales Calls that promoted AMBI Skincare ("AMBI Skincare Text Message Sales Calls") and violated the Caller ID Rules when it transmitted to the recipients' caller identification services a telephone number that was not capable of receiving telephone calls, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is the regular user of a cellular telephone number that receives Defendant's telephonic sales calls. AMBI Enterprises, LLC, is registered as a Foreign Limited Liability Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. Shawn A. Heller, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Phone: (202) 709-5744 Fax: (866) 893-0416 Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com AMERICAN HEALTH: Arinatwe Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAN ARINATWE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN HEALTH ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 0:24-cv-61678-AHS (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the June 16, 2025, Class Certification motion deadline to July 16, 2025, and for any such further relief this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances. The Defendant does not oppose this Motion nor the relief it seeks. This is based upon the Parties' agreement and understanding that this Motion expressly does not act to prejudice, waive, or in any way diminish, any defenses the Defendant has, or may, assert. On May 12, 2025, the Court granted the Plaintiff's unopposed motion to extend deadline for class certifications. American is a provider of clinical laboratory services to long term care in the United States. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1LDHVC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zev Antell, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 648-4848 E-mail: zev@butlercurwood.com - and - Timothy Coffield, Esq. COFFIELD PLC 106-F Melbourne Park Circle Charlottesville, VA 22901 Telephone: (434) 218-3133 Facsimile: (434) 321-1636 E-mail: tc@coffieldlaw.com - and - Michael V. Miller, Esq. Jordan Richards, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS – JORDAN RICHARDS PLLC 1800 SE 10th Ave. Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllsc.com michael@usaemploymentlawyers.com The Defendant is represented by: Jillian C. Postal, Esq. SAUL EWING LLP 200 E. Las Olas Blvd. Suite 1000 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (305) 428-4500 Facsimile: (305) 374-4744 E-mail: jillian.postal@saul.com Susan.lewis@saul.com APPLE INC: Shin Sues Over Authorizing Malicious Applications ------------------------------------------------------------ Danyell Shin, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. APPLE, INC., Case NO. 5:25-cv-05000 (N.D. Cal., June 12, 2025), is brought for violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), and California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), as a result of the Defendant's authorizing and maintaining malicious applications in its "App Store" that allowed the theft of personal financial assets while representing that apps in its App Store had been vetted and reviewed by Apple and were safe and secure. Apple has actively and extensively represented to consumers that apps on the App Store are thoroughly vetted, trustworthy, and secure. Apple has actively represented that its App Store apps which are used for cryptocurrency trading come from approved financial institutions and comply with all applicable laws. These representations foster consumer trust, which, in turn, incentivizes consumers to purchase Apple devices over competing brands. Apple's campaign to promote the safety and trustworthiness of its App Store directly contributes to increased sales of iPhones and other Apple products, as consumers reasonably believe that Apple's devices provide a safer and more secure user experience. Without this assurance of security, fewer consumers would be inclined to purchase Apple devices, as they might perceive other smartphones or tablets as equally secure or better suited to meet their needs. The Plaintiff and Class members relied on Apple's express representations and ongoing and long-standing campaign of representing that its App Store is "a safe and trusted place" when they downloaded applications purporting to be digital asset trading applications. Unknown to Plaintiff and Class members, these applications, including the Swiftcrypt app Plaintiff downloaded, were "spoofing" programs created for the sole purpose of stealing fiat and cryptocurrency by obtaining consumers' account information and thereafter routing Class members' assets to the perpetrators' personal accounts. Not knowing this, and relying on Apple's express and longstanding representations that apps from its App Store had been vetted and were safe and legally compliant, Plaintiff and Class members downloaded the app from the Apple App Store. Apple's affirmative representations and the general impression that it has cultivated that apps from its App Store could be trusted and were safe and secure because of Apple's rigorous vetting and review process were false and misleading. As a result of Apple's misrepresentations, and its failure to take appropriate corrective or remedial action, Apple has caused Plaintiff and Class members to download an app created solely for "pig butchering" schemes and hence to suffer significant economic losses, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has used Apple products for at least 15 years. Apple is one of the largest mobile and tablet application providers in the world, through its universally known "App Store."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy G. Blood, Esq. Leslie E. Hurst, Esq. Thomas J. O'Reardon II, Esq. Adam M. Bucci, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP 501 West Broadway, Suite 1490 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619/338-1100 Fax: 619/338-1101 Email: tblood@bholaw.com lhurst@bholaw.com toreardon@bholaw.com abucci@bholaw.com - and - Ben Barnow, Esq. Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq. BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. 205 W. Randolph Street, #1630 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312/621/2000 Fax: 312/641-5504 Email: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com aparkhill@barnowlaw.com APPLIED THERAPEUTICS: Fact Discovery Due Feb. 27, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit RE APPLIED THERAPEUTICS SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:24-cv-09715-DLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Denise Cote entered a scheduling order as follows: No additional parties may be joined or pleadings amended after June 20, 2055. All fact discovery must be completed by Feb. 27, 2026. Expert reports and disclosure of expert testimony conforming to the requirements of Rule 26(a)(2)(B) must be served by March `17, 2026. Expert discovery must be completed by May 2, 2026. Applied Therapeutics is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dLbb17 at no extra charge.[CC] ARDAGH GLASS: Castaneda Labor Suit Seeks to Certify 8 Classes ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alex Castaneda, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Ardagh Glass, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-03547-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Sept, 18, 2025, will moves the Court for an order: 1. Granting Certification of the following proposed classes: a. The Minimum Wage Class: "All current and former non-exempt employees of the Defendant who performed work for the Defendant in the State of California from Dec. 12, 2018 to the date of trial. b. The Meal Break Class: "All current and former non-exempt employees of the Defendant who performed work for the Defendant in the State of California from Dec. 12, 2018 to the date of trial." c. The Rest Break Class: "All current and former non-exempt employees of the Defendant who performed work for the Defendant in the State of California from Dec. 12, 2018 to the date of trial." d. The Waiting Time Penalty Class: "All former non-exempt employees of Defendant who performed work for Defendant in the State of California from Dec. 12, 2019, to the date of trial. e. The Wage Statement Class: "All current and former non-exempt employees of Defendant who performed work for Defendant in the State of California from Dec. 12, 2018, to the date of trial. f. The Expense Reimbursement Class: "All current and former nonexempt employees of Defendant who performed work for Defendant in the State of California from December 12, 2018 to the date of trial. g. The Section 17200 Class: "All current and former non-exempt employees of Defendant who performed work for Defendant in the State of California from December 12, 2018 to the date of trial. 2. Ordering that the Classes may proceed as alleged in the Plaintiff's First Amended Collective and Class Action Complaint; 3. Appointing the Plaintiff Alex Castaneda as class representative for the classes; 4. Appointing Jonathan M. Lebe, Melissa M. Kurata, and Brielle D. Edborg of Lebe Law, APLC as Class Counsel for the Classes; and 5. Granting such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. The Plaintiff contends that the motion for class certification should be granted because the Defendant has failed to provide its non-exempt employees with the wage and hour protections mandated by California law. Due to Defendant's unlawful, uniform policies and practices, the proposed class members have commonly been deprived of all minimum wages, legally compliant meal and rest breaks, accurate itemized wage statements, and timely paid wages due upon separation of employment. Defendant has also failed to reimburse class members for all business expenses incurred for work purposes. Ardagh manufactures custom glass containers for a variety of food applications. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QZv8Dg at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq. Melissa M. Kurata, Esq. Brielle D. Edborg, Esq. LEBE LAW, APLC 3900 W Alameda Avenue, Fifteenth Floor Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (213) 444-1973 E-mail: Jon@lebelaw.com Melissa@lebelaw.com Brielle@lebelaw.com ARDAGH GLASS: Castaneda Seeks Conditional Collective Cert. ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alex Castaneda, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Ardagh Glass, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-03547-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Sept. 18, 2025, will move the Court for an order conditionally certifying a collective action under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff seeks conditional certification of the following class pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) of the FLSA: "All non-exempt employees of Ardagh Glass, Inc. who elect to opt into this action who work or have worked for the Defendant nationwide at any time from three years before the filing of this motion through resolution of this action." The Plaintiff further moves the Court to enter an order: (1) approving that judicial notice be sent to all putative FLSA collective action members; (2) approving the form and content of the Plaintiff's proposed judicial notice, consent form, and reminder notice; (3) authorizing a ninety day notice period for the putative plaintiffs to join the case; (4) ordering Defendant to produce to the Plaintiff's counsel the contact information for each putative FLSA collective action member who opts in within ten days in Excel format; and (5) tolling the statute of limitations while this motion is pending. On June 9, 2023, the Plaintiff brought this action against Defendant in Alameda Superior Court containing causes of action for violations of the California Labor Code, including: (1) failure to pay minimum wages; (2) failure to pay overtime wages; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to provide rest breaks; (5) failure to provide accurate, itemized wage statements; (6) failure to reimburse business expenses; and (7) violations of Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq. Declaration of Jonathan M. Lebe. On July 17, 2023, the Defendant removed this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On Aug. 25, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand this action back to Alameda Superior Court. On April 25, 2024, the Parties jointly stipulated to file a First Amended Complaint. Ardagh manufactures custom glass containers for a variety of food applications. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=P6neIL at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq. Melissa M. Kurata, Esq. Brielle D. Edborg, Esq. LEBE LAW, APLC 3900 W Alameda Avenue, Fifteenth Floor Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (213) 444-1973 E-mail: Jon@lebelaw.com Melissa@lebelaw.com Brielle@lebelaw.com AVIS BUDGET: Faces O'Connor Suit Over $6.12/Share Stock Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------------------ BARRY O'CONNOR, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AVIS BUDGET GROUP, INC., JOSEPH A. FERRARO, and IZILDA P. MARTINS, Case No. 2:25-cv-11943 (D.N.J., June 18, 2025) is a class action on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Avis Budget securities between Feb. 13, 2024, and Feb. 10, 2025, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the Company, its global rental fleet totaled approximately 695,000 vehicles in 2024. With hundreds of thousands of vehicles in its rental fleet, effective fleet management is critical to Avis Budget's profitability. To execute this process effectively, a company must rotate its vehicles at an appropriate pace. If rotation is too gradual, older models may begin depreciating in value even as their maintenance costs steadily increase. Conversely, if rotation is too accelerated, a company risks prematurely removing vehicles before they have reached the end of their "useful lives" -- the period during which the vehicles have recoverable value. In the years following the Covid-19 pandemic, due to a shortage of fleet supply, automobile rental companies were required to purchase fleet vehicles at higher prices than historic norms. To address this challenge, Avis Budget decelerated its fleet rotation by maintaining vehicles within its rental fleet for a longer period of time. As the Company stated in an earnings call held with investors and analysts to discuss its Q4 2024 results, this practice purportedly 'allowed [the Company] to depreciate vehicles across a flatter portion of the residual value curve and manage [its] fleet purchase to an appropriate return on invested capital. However, in the fourth quarter of 2024, prices for vehicles model year 2025 began returning to normalized levels. In response, unbeknownst to investors, Avis Budget implemented a "change in strategy to significantly accelerate fleet rotations," purportedly designed to "create more certainty in [Avis Budget's] fleet costs and better position [the Company] for sustainable growth for 2025 and beyond." On Feb. 11, 2025, Avis Budget issued a press release reporting its financial results for the fourth quarter and full year 2024. Among other items, Avis Budget reported a loss of $1.96 billion, or $55.66 per share, for the quarter, compared to a profit of $259 million, or $7.10 per share, for the same period in the prior year. Avis Budget attributed these results to "a change in strategy to significantly accelerate fleet rotations, which resulted in shortening the useful life of the majority of our vehicles in the Americas segment," causing "a one-time non-cash impairment of $2.3 billion and other non-cash related charges of $180 million." The press release also announced that the Company's Chief Executive Officer, Defendant Joseph A. Ferraro, "will transition from CEO to Board Advisor, effective June 30, 2025" and that "Brian Choi, the Company's Chief Transformation Officer, will take over as CEO, effective July 1, 2025." On this news, Avis Budget's stock price fell $6.12 per share, or 6.82%, to close at $83.59 per share on Feb. 11, 2025. Ferraro served as Avis Budget's CEO and President at all relevant times. The Defendant Martins served as the Company's Chief Financial Officer at all relevant times, the suit says. The Plaintiff purchased Avis Budget securities during the Class Period and was economically damaged thereby. Avis Budget, together with its subsidiaries, provides car and truck rentals, car sharing, and ancillary products and services to businesses and consumers in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East and Africa, Asia, and Australasia. Among other services, the Company operates the Avis brand, which offers vehicle rental and other mobility solutions to commercial and leisure segments of the travel industry; the Zipcar brand, a car sharing network; and the Budget brand, a supplier of vehicle rental and other mobility solutions focused primarily on more value-conscious customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. One Gateway Center, Suite 2600 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 313-1887 Facsimile: (973) 833-0399 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com BACKBLAZE INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Backblaze, Inc. (NASDAQ:BLZE) resulting from allegations that Backblaze may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Backblaze securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=38633 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On April 24, 2024, during market hours, Investing.com issued an article entitled, "Backblaze stock plunges amid Morpheus Research report." This article stated that Backblaze "saw its shares plummet" as a result of a "scathing short report from Morpheus Research. The report detailed a series of alleged financial missteps and questionable practices since the company's initial public offering (IPO) in November 2021." The article further noted that Morpheus's report "highlights questionable accounting practices, including financial manipulations and inflated forecasts to pass audit thresholds." On this news, Backblaze's stock fell 2.1% on April 24, 2025. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. At the time Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] BEIERSDORF INC: Slowinski Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Christine Slowinski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BEIERSDORF, INC., Case No. 2025CH04963 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on June 12, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-06523. In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Beiersdorf falsely and deceptively labeled three products--Eucerin Intensive Repair Lotion, Eucerin Advanced Repair Lotion, and Eucerin Advanced Repair Cream (the "Products")--as "Natural Moisturizing Factors Enriched" when the products contain allegedly synthetically-produced ingredients such as lactic acid, sodium PCA, arginine HCL, glycine, and ozokerite.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Elizabeth M. Chiarello, Esq. Kara L. McCall, Esq. Caitlin A. Maly, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3900 Chicago, IL 60606-5085 Phone: 312-702-8700 Email: elizabeth.chiarello@alston.com kara.mccall@alston.com caitlin.maly@alston.com BLUE SHIELD: Linares Sues over Failure to Maintain Security ----------------------------------------------------------- Diana Linares, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS' SERVICE DBA BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25CV126408 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., June 11, 2025), is brought under the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act as a result of the Defendants have failure to maintain reasonable security controls and systems appropriate for the nature of the PII it maintains as required by the CCPA and other common and statutory laws. The Plaintiff and the Class provided their information, including health data and Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") in connection with obtaining prescriptions and medical appointments, to Defendant with the expectation that this information would remain confidential and private. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, Google's technology was intentionally incorporated on the Defendant's Platform, through which Google intercepted users' health data and other highly sensitive information. Google intercepted, at least, users' "Insurance plan name, type and group number; city; zip code; gender; family size; Blue Shield assigned identifiers for your online account; medical claim service date and service provider, patient name, and patient financial responsibility; and "Find a Doctor" search criteria and results (location, plan name and type, provider name and type)." The Defendant created, maintained, preserved, and stored Plaintiff and the Class members' personal medical information onto Defendant's computer network, including websites and web applications prior to April 2021. Due to Defendant's intentional release of information without authorization, there was an unauthorized release of Plaintiff's and the Class members' confidential medical information that occurred continuously from the time this information was provided by the Class to Defendant, in violation of Civil Code of the Act. The Defendant created, maintained, preserved, and stored Plaintiffs' and the Class members' confidential medical information which were released to unauthorized persons, without Plaintiff's and the Class members' prior written authorization. This act of providing unauthorized access to Plaintiff's and the Class Members' confidential medical information continuously constitutes an unauthorized release of confidential medical information in violation of Civil Code of the Act, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was a patient of Defendant who utilized Defendant's website and web application to receive medical treatment medical treatment from Defendant. California Physicians' Service DBA Blue Shield of California is a California corporation, with its principal places of business located in Oakland, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark D. Potter, Esq. James M. Treglio, Esq. Isabel Rose Masanque, Esq. Jason Kyle Masanque, Esq. POTTER HANDY LLP 100 Pine St., Ste 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 534-1911 Fax: (888) 422-5191 Email: mark@potterhandy.com jimt@potterhandy.com isabelm@potterhandy.com jasonm@potterhandy.com BLUESKY HEALTHCARE: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to July 7 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Garcia v. Bluesky Healthcare, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01617 (N.D. Ohio, Filed Aug. 20, 2023), the Hon. Judge Charles Esque Fleming entered an order granting the stipulated motion to extend deadline for motion for Rule 23 Class Certification until July 7, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). BlueSky is a Clinical Informatics and Healthcare IT consulting firm.[CC] BLUESKY HEALTHCARE: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert. -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MADISON GARCIA On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. BLUESKY HEALTHCARE, INC. et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01617-CEF (N.D. Ohio), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting a 21-day extension of time for the Plaintiff to file her motion for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. Bluesky is a provider of mobility equipment solutions. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tP8RW0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott D. Perlmuter, Esq. TITTLE & PERLMUTER 4106 Bridge Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 222-2222 Facsimile: 888-604-9299 E-mail: scott@tittlelawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Mark S. Fusco, Esq. WALTER | HAVERFIELD LLP 1500 W. Third Street, Suite 300 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 781-1212 Facsimile: (216) 575-0911 E-mail: mfusco@walterhav.com BREUER PREMIUM PET: Jackson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. BREUER PREMIUM PET FOOD COMPANY, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-04936 (S.D.N.Y., June 12, 2025), is brought against the Defendants for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully and equally accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its services offered thereby, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because the Defendant's website, https://spotandtango.com/ including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's website"), 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 corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. BREUER PREMIUM PET FOOD COMPANY, INC., operates the Spot and Tango online retail store, as well as the Spot and Tango interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: dana@gottlieb.legal michael@gottlieb.legal jeffrey@gottlieb.legal BRINKER DATA: Bid to Redact Class Hearing Transcript OK'd in Part ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re: Brinker Data Incident Litigation, Case No. 3:18-cv-00686 (M.D. Fla., Filed May 24, 2018), the Hon. Judge Timothy J. Corrigan entered an endorsed order: The Court finding defendant has demonstrated good cause, defendant's motion to redact class certification hearing transcript is granted in part to the extent that the Court Reporter is directed to redact lines 18-20 on page 23 before making the transcript available to any member of the public. The complete unredacted transcript shall remain under seal until further order of the Court. The nature of suit states Diversity-Contract Dispute.[CC] BROOKDALE SENIOR: Class Settlement in Stiner Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STACIA STINER, et al., v. BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING, INC., et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-03962-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement for injunctive relief. The parties are directed to meet and confer and stipulate to a schedule of dates for each event listed below, which shall be submitted to the Court within seven days of the date of this Order: Event Date Filing deadline for attorneys' fees and costs motion and requests for service awards, at least 35 days prior to the close of the objection period: Deadline for subclass members to object to settlement, at least 30 days prior to the final fairness hearing and at least 60 days after notice is issued: Deadline for subclass members to object to any motions for attorneys' fees: Filing deadline for final approval motion: Final fairness hearing and hearing on motions: The parties are further directed to implement the proposed class notice plan consistent with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the parties' supplemental briefing. The case is a putative class action lawsuit in which the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants operate their facilities in California in a manner that violates federal and state disability laws. The Plaintiffs, who are current and former Brookdale residents (or their successors in interest), allege that six Brookdale facilities in California are not accessible to people with disabilities in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA") and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act The key terms of the injunctive relief Settlement Agreement are as follows: FSP Subclass Definition: The FSP settlement class is defined as "All persons with disabilities who use wheelchairs, scooters, or other powered mobility aids and who reside or have resided at a Brookdale RCFE during the three years prior to the filing of the Complaint herein through the conclusion of this action, including their successors-in-interest if deceased, excluding any persons who are subject to arbitration." Access Barrier Subclass Definition: The access barrier settlement class is defined as: "All persons with disabilities who use wheelchairs, scooters, or other mobility aids or who have vision disabilities and who reside or have resided at [Brookdale Brookhurst, Brookdale San Ramon, and/or Brookdale Scotts Valley] during the three years prior to the filing of the Complaint herein through the conclusion of this action, including their successors-in-interest if deceased, excluding any persons who are subject to arbitration." Brookdale offers a wide range of senior living and retirement communities and senior care options." A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eBx2Mm at no extra charge.[CC] BRUCE PACKING: Class Certification Bid Filing Due Jan. 27, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRITTON BRYANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BRUCE PACKING COMPANY, INC., Case No. 6:25-cv-00040-JFH-SPS (E.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Steven P. Shreder entered a scheduling order to govern the Parties' actions in te case until a ruling on plaintiff's motion for class certification: 1. Motions for leave to amend or add additional parties: July 12, 2025 2. Documents previously produced by parties shall be deemed authenticated except as to those objected to: Dec. 18, 2025. 3. Class Certification Motion filed with all supporting evidence, including expert disclosures: Jan. 27, 2026 4. Class Certification Response filed with all supporting evidence, including expert disclosures: Feb. 26, 2026 5. Class Certification Reply filed with any rebuttal evidence, including rebuttal expert disclosures, if any: March 26, 2026 6. Class Certification Discovery Cutoff: March 26, 2026 Bruce produces and supplies cooked meat products to food companies. A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jqhYWb at no extra charge.[CC] CALIFORNIA COMMERCE: Kim Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against California Commerce Club, Inc. The case is styled as Ryan Jaemin Kim, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. California Commerce Club, Inc., Case No. 25STCV17133 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 12, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." California Commerce Club, Inc. owns and operates poker casino.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com CARDINAL HEALTH: Hernandez Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rosa Hernandez, individually, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. CARDINAL HEALTH 200, LLC; CARDINAL HEALTH, INC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2515333 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Bernardino Cty., June 3, 2025), is brought pursuant to the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 as a result of the Defendants failure to pay proper wages. With regard to the Defendants' California based non-exempt, hourly paid current and former employees, the Defendants' have established a time keeping policy which does not compensate said employees for the time they actually worked. As a result, the Defendants' have failed to pay for all wages due including overtime wages for all hours worked and failed to pay the required minimum wage for all hours worked. Further, the Defendants' have failed to provide timely uninterrupted 30-minute meal periods or to pay a premium payment in lieu thereof; failed to provide paid rest periods or to pay a premium payment in lieu thereof; failed to timely furnish accurate itemized wage statements; failed to reimburse for business expenses; violated Labor Code; failed to timely pay earned wages; failed to pay reporting time pay; failed to pay split shift wages; failed to provide notice of paid sick time and accrual; conducted unfair business practices; and individually caused labor code violations, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from September 1, 2018 through February 25, 2025. CARDINAL HEALTH 200, LLC is a Limited Liability Company, licensed to do business and actually doing business in the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq. Cathy Gonzalez, Esq. David Van Pelt, Esq. HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC 801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: 1-818-696-2306 Facsimile: 1-818-696-2307 Email: haig@hbklawyers.com cathy@hbklawyers.com david@hbklawyers.com CAREERIST INC: Wright Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Careerist, Inc. The case is styled as Lawrence Wright, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Careerist, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-01059-JFS (M.D. Pa., June 11, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Careerist -- https://www.careerist.com/ -- is an ed-fintech platform that trains job seekers for tech careers (in QA, Sales, Support & more), finances them and automates their job hunting.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Max Morgan, Esq. THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC 1515 Market Street, Suite #1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: (267) 587-6240 Fax: (215) 689-0875 Email: max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com CHECK CITY PARTNERSHIP: Chipman Files Suit in D. Utah ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Check City Partnership. The case is styled as Franki Chipman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Check City Partnership, Case No. 2:25-cv-00468 (D. Utah, June 12, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Check City -- https://www.checkcity.com/ -- is a registered financial company that offers a wide array of financial services and products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jared D. Scott, Esq. ANDERSON & KARRENBERG 50 W Broadway, Ste. 600 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Phone: (801) 534-1700 Fax: (801) 364-7697 Email: jscott@aklawfirm.com CHILDRESS OUTPOST: Herman Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Oklahoma ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Childress Outpost Pharmacy Inc. The case is styled as Daniel Herman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Childress Outpost Pharmacy Inc. doing business as: Clutch Health Pharmacy, Case No. 5:25-cv-00642-G (W.D. Okla., June 11, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Childress Outpost Pharmacy Inc. doing business as Clutch Health -- https://clutchpharmacy.com/ -- is a provider of pharmacy benefits and workforce health management solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles L. Richardson, Esq. Colton L. Richardson, Esq. RICHARDSON RICHARDSON BOUDREAUX PLLC 7447 S Lewis Ave Tulsa, OK 74136 Phone: (918) 492-7674 Fax: (918) 493-1925 Email: clr@rrbok.com colton@rrbok.com - and - Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R MILTENBERGER, PLLC 1360 N White Chapel, Suite 200 Southlake, TX 76092 Phone: (817) 416-5060 Fax: (817) 416-5062 Email: chris@crmlawpractice.com CHRISTOPHER LAROSE: Seeks August 11 as Date to File Response ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as A.M. on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. CHRISTOPHER LAROSE; et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-01412-JO-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order: (1) vacating the Defendants' June 13, 2025 briefing schedule on the Plaintiff's TRO motion and class motion as originally set in the Court's June 9, 2025 minute order; (2) setting Aug. 11, 2025, as the time for the Defendants to file a response to the Plaintiffs' third amended complaint; (3) converting the June 18, 2025, temporary restraining order and class certification hearing to a status conference. The Plaintiff has not filed a TRO Motion nor a Class Motion. Accordingly, the Defendants intend to comply with the Court's June 9 order, and June 12 order, and provide a responsive notice in such compliance, to wit supplementing the factual record and providing additional requested information. Additionally, while the Plaintiffs' third amended complaint includes a "petition for writ of habeas" in its caption, the pleading and prayer for relief contain no allegations or requested relief that are available in habeas proceedings. in Plaintiffs' complaint. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ldLuxe at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Adam Gordon, Esq. Erin M. Dimbleby, Esq. Lisa M. Hemann, Esq. Samuel W. Bettwy, Esq. Mary Cile Glover-Rogers, Esq. OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY 880 Front Street, Room 6293 San Diego, CA 92101-8893 Telephone: (619) 546-6987 Facsimile: (619) 546-7751 E-mail: Erin.Dimbleby@usdoj.gov Lisa.Hemann@usdoj.gov Samuel.Bettwy@usdoj.gov Mary.Glover-Rogers@usdoj.gov CONSUMER LEGAL: Court Dismisses Senderovic Suit ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FATIMA SENDEROVIC AND JASMIN AHMETOVIC, INDIVIDUALLY AND FOR ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. CONSUMER LEGAL GROUP PC and ARYEH WEBER, Case No. 3:24-cv-01326-VAB (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Victor A. Bolden entered an order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss case: Because the Complaint has been dismissed, the Plaintiffs' request for the certification of a class of similarly situated Plaintiffs is denied as moot. To the extent that the deficiencies in the Plaintiff's Complaint can be remedied, the Plaintiff may seek leave to file an Amended Complaint by July 18, 2025. Because the Complaint does not allege any representations made by the Defendants related to credit repair, the Defendants do not qualify as CROs under the Credit Repair Organizations Act ("CROA") and thus, are not liable under the CROA. Because the Plaintiffs do not address or oppose the motion to dismiss this damage to credit claim in their opposition papers, the Court deems this claim to have been abandoned. The Plaintiffs have sued Consumer Legal Group PC and Aryeh Weber for claims of (1) making untrue statements regarding the Plaintiffs' credit and charging for debt validation services before performance in violation of the CROA); and (2) damaging the Plaintiffs' credit score and causing the Plaintiffs' creditors to file multiple debt collection lawsuits against the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs allegedly amassed a large amount of consumer debt over $54,800. Ms. Senderovic allegedly called a debt relief company to combine her debts and the company pitched a debt validation program that the Defendants offered and allegedly claimed that all of her debts would be removed from her credit reports. On June 16, and June 20, 2023, Ms. Senderovic and Mr. Ahmetovic, allegedly entered into an agreement with the Defendants. Consumer is a law firm. A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Mtt1g5 at no extra charge.[CC] COPINE 891: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Anderson Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- DERRICK ANDERSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Copine 891, Inc, Case No. 1:25-cv-03359 (E.D.N.Y., June 16, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, Copinettenyc.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The suit contends that the Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services Extra Butter provides to their non-disabled customers through its website. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Copine's policies, practices, and procedures so 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 suit. Copinettenyc.com provides to the public a wide array of services, price specials and other programs offered by Copine 891. Copine 891 offers American cuisine with French influence.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. HORWITZ LAW, PLLC 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Class Cert Filing in Conriquez Due August 15 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FERNANDO CONRIQUEZ, JACOB MICHAEL BRYANT, and ANTHONY PORTS, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of other persons similarly situated, v. CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD U.S., INC., a Missouri corporation; CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD OF CALIFORNIA, INC.; a California corporation; C&W FACILITY SERVICES, INC., a Californiaa corporation; INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:22-cv-02734-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Rita F. Lin entered an order as follows: 1. All dates relating to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification will be continued as follows: a. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be due on Aug. 15, 2025; b. The Defendant's opposition to the motion for class certification shall be due on Sept. 30, 2025; c. The Plaintiffs' reply in support of the motion for class certification shall be due on Nov. 10, 2025; and d. The hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be continued to Dec. 2, 2025 at 10 a.m. Cushman is an American global commercial real estate services firm. A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BLWXQC at no extra charge.[CC] CVS PHARMACY: Plaintiffs' Bid for Class Certification Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE ONE, et al., v. CVS PHARMACY, INC., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-01031-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward M. Chen entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Because the Plaintiffs fail to "affirmatively demonstrate" their compliance with the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2), class certification is improper. Thus, although it is theoretically possible that a class can be certified in an ACA case such as this, particularly under Rule 23(b)(2), the lack of a sufficient record herein precludes a finding of commonality required by Rule 23(a)(2). This is a disability discrimination case by Plaintiffs John Does One, Two (through his executor Richard Roe), Six, and Seven who are people living with HIV/AIDS, against the Defendants. The Plaintiffs challenge the Defendants' prescription-drug benefit program ("Program"), which requires that participants receive their HIV/AIDS medications only by mail or by drop shipment to CVS Specialty pharmacies and forecloses the opportunity to fill their prescriptions at any network pharmacy. The Plaintiffs argue that the structure of the Program discriminates against people living with HIV/AIDS and denies them meaningful access to their benefits because the Program exposes them to privacy concerns, inadequate pharmaceutical counseling, and delivery issues, among other issues, and the Defendants do not provide the option to opt-out of the Program. The Plaintiffs' proposed class definition is: "All persons currently or previously enrolled in or covered by a health plan since Jan. 1, 2015, in which the prescription drug benefit is or was administered by CVS and who: (i) obtain or obtained HIV/AIDS Medications; and (ii) have been required to participate in the Program with no right to seek reasonable accommodations or notice of their rights, but not including individual claims for personal injury or bodily harm." CVS distributes pharmaceutical products. A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aVsgrO at no extra charge.[CC] DAEDONG-USA: Bid to Consolidate Cases Granted in Khoune Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW K. KHOUNE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. DAEDONG-USA, INC. (KIOTI TRACTOR DIVISION), Case No. 5:25-cv-00216-D-KS (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge James Dever III entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to consolidate and appoint interim lead counsel. 1. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a), the Court consolidates (1) Khoune v. Daedong-USA, Inc. (Kioti Tractor Division), Case No. 5:25-cv-00216-D, (2) Pollard v. Daedong-USA, Inc. d/b/a Kioti Tractor Division, et al., 5:25-cv-00279-D; and (3) Viverette v. Daedong-USA, Inc., Case No. 5:25-cv-00277-D (collectively, the "Related Actions"), under the first filed action, Case No. 5:25-cv-00216-D, and with the new title "In re Daedong-USA Data Security Incident Litigation." 2. No further filings shall be made in cases 5:25-cv-00277-D and 5:25-cv-00279-D, which shall be administratively closed. 3. All papers previously filed and served to date in the Related Actions are deemed part of the record in the consolidated action. 4. The Plaintiffs shall file a Notice of Related Case whenever a case that should be consolidated into this action is filed in, or transferred to, this District. 5. The Court shall enter a scheduling order for further pretrial proceedings as soon as is reasonably practicable. 6. The Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action shall file an operative Consolidated Complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. Daedong-USA distributes industrial machinery and equipment. A copy of the Court's order dated June 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jx8ycz at no extra charge.[CC] DANIEL BEERS: Parties Seek More Time to Complete Discovery ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROCHELLE GLASGOW, et al., v. DANIEL J. BEERS, et al., Case No. 5:21-cv-02001-DAR (N.D. Ohio), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A) and Local Rules 7.1, and 16.1(b)(6), granting their joint motion for two-day extension of deadlines to complete discovery relevant to class certification and conduct deposition of William Rooker. Specifically, while the depositions of Donna Landry and Rochelle Glasgow have been set for June 23, and June 25, 2025, respectively, the deposition of William Rooker was unable to be set until July 2, 2025. Accordingly, the Parties jointly request that the deadlines to complete discovery relevant to class certification and to conduct the deposition of William Rooker be extended to July 2, 2025. On July 12, 2024, the Court entered an initial Case Management Order, in which the following deadlines relevant to this Motion were established: All discovery relevant to class certification due by April 30, 2025; Plaintiff(s)' depositions and Defendant(s)' Rule 30(b)(6) depositions due by December 31, 2024; and motion(s) for class certification due by May 30, 2025. Daniel J. Beers is an ophthalmic surgeon specializing in laser vision correction and cataract surgery. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BGRdLS at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William W. Stone, Esq. Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq. Oliver S. Tum Suden, Esq. JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP 40 Powder Springs Street Marietta, GA 30064 Telephone: (470) 632-6000 Facsimile: (770) 200-3101 E-mail: MichaelF@johnsonfistel.com WilliamS@johnsonfistel.com OliverT@johnsonfistel.com - and - George W. Cochran, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE W. COCHRAN 1981 Crossfield Circle Kent, OH 44240 Telephone: (330) 607-2187 Facsimile: (330) 230-6136 E-mail: lawchrist@gmail.com The Defendants are represented by: Laura L. Mills, Esq. Pierce C. Walker, Esq. Ted Czaplicki, Esq. MILLS, MILLS, FIELY & LUCAS, LLC 101 Central Plaza South, Suite 1200 Canton, OH 44702 Telephone: (330) 456-0506 Facsimile: (855) 764-3543 E-mail: LMills@MMFLlaw.com PWalker@MMFLlaw.com TCzaplicki@MMFLlaw.com - and - Richard W. Arnold, Esq. ARNOLD & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 3458 Massillon Road Uniontown, OH 44685 Telephone: (330) 563-4036 E-mail: rarnold@asalawfirm.com - and - Emily K. Anglewicz, Esq. Michelle F. Noureddine, Esq. Barry Y. Freeman, Esq. Brian A. Coulter, Esq. ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPA 222 South Main Street, Suite 400 Akron, OH 44308 Telephone: (330) 376-2700 Facsimile: (330) 376-4577 E-mail: eanglewicz@ralaw.com mnoureddine@ralaw.com bfreeman@ralaw.com bculter@ralaw.com - and - Michael J. Zbiegien Jr., Esq. David H. Thomas, Esq. Cary M. Snyder, Esq. TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP 200 Public Square, Suite 3500 Cleveland, OH 44114-2302 Telephone: (216) 241-2838 Facsimile: (216) 241-3707 E-mail: mzbiegien@taftlaw.com dthomas@taftlaw.com csnyder@taftlaw.com - and - John T. Pfleiderer, Esq. THE PFLEIDERER FIRM LLC 190 N. Union Street, Suite 201 Akron, OH 44304 Telephone: (330) 888-1239 Facsimile: (330) 538-8500 E-mail: jp@pfl-firm.com - and - Kerin Lyn Kaminski, Esq. Karen L. Giffen, Esq. Kathleen Nitschke, Esq. Paul J. Neel, Esq. PEREZ & MORRIS, LLC 1300 East Ninth Street, Suite 1600 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 621-5161 Facsimile: (216) 621-2399 E-mail: kkaminski@perez-morris.com kgiffen@perez-morris.com knitschke@perez-morris.com pneel@perez-morris.com DARVEYS USA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Battle Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRE BATTLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Darveys USA, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-06619 (E.D.N.Y., June 16, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, Darveys.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The suit contends that the Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services Extra Butter provides to their non-disabled customers through its website. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Copine's policies, practices, and procedures so 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 suit. Darveys.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Darveys USA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. HORWITZ LAW, PLLC 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com DEFENSE INTERNATIONAL: Gonzalez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Defense International Corporation. The case is styled as Emily D. Gonzalez, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Defense International Corporation, Case No. 25STCV17077 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 12, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Defense International Corp. -- https://defenseic.com/ -- is a multi-faceted organization that accommodates protective services to suit commercial, residential, celebrity.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com DIDI GLOBAL: Bid to Seal Exhibit 4 OK'd in Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE DIDI GLOBAL INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:21-cv-05807-LAK-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Valerie Figueredo entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to seal Exhibit 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to maintain the viewing restriction. The Defendants are directed to make a showing under Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2006) to permanently seal Exhibits D-G. DiDi is a mobility technology platform that provides a range of mobility services as well as other services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wC3MI3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Laurence Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 DINGHY SHOP: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Agnone Says ----------------------------------------------------------- PASQUALE AGNONE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Dinghy Shop, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-03361 (E.D.N.Y., June 16, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, Dinghyshop.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint asserts that the Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services Extra Butter provides to their non-disabled customers through its website. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Dinghy's policies, practices, and procedures so 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 suit. Dinghyshop.com provides to the public a wide array of services, price specials and other programs offered by Dinghy Shop.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. HORWITZ LAW, PLLC 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com DOUBLEVERIFY HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over Alleged Securities Fraud --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action securities lawsuit was filed against DoubleVerify Holdings, Inc. that seeks to recover losses of shareholders who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between November 10, 2023 and February 27, 2025. CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made false statements and/or concealed that: (a) DoubleVerify's customers were shifting their ad spending from open exchanges to closed platforms, where the Company's technological capabilities were limited and competed directly with native tools provided by platforms like Meta Platforms and Amazon; (b) DoubleVerify's ability to monetize on its Activation Services was limited because the development of its technology for closed platforms was significantly more expensive and time-consuming than disclosed to investors; (c) DoubleVerify's Activation Services in connection with certain closed platforms would take several years to monetize; (d) DoubleVerify's competitors were better positioned to incorporate AI into their offerings on closed platforms, which impaired DoubleVerify's ability to compete effectively and adversely impacted the Company's profits; (e) DoubleVerify systematically overbilled its customers for ad impressions served to declared bots operating out of known data center server farms; (f) DoubleVerify's risk disclosures were materially false and misleading because they characterized adverse facts that had already materialized as mere possibilities; and (g) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading or lacked a reasonable basis. WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in DoubleVerify Holdings, Inc. stock during the relevant time frame -- even if you still hold your shares - go to https://zlk.com/pslra-1/doubleverify-holdings-inc-lawsuit-submission-form-2?prid=153826&wire=1&utm_campaign=16 to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or obligation to participate. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 https://zlk.com/ [GN] DOYON LIMITED: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Launt Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- EDWARD LAUNT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DOYON, LIMITED, Case No. 3:25-cv-00126 (D. Alaska, June 17, 2025) arises out of Defendant's failure to implement reasonable and industry standard data security practices to properly secure, safeguard, and adequately destroy the Plaintiff and Class Members' sensitive personal information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. The Defendant's data security failures allowed a targeted cyberattack to compromise sensitive information entrusted to Defendant (the "Data Breach") that contained personally identifiable information (PII) of Plaintiff and other individuals, that was compromised in a cyber incident in April 2024. On April 2, 2024, the Defendant discovered that an unauthorized actor or actors accessed and acquired files from its IT systems on or about April 1, 2024. In response, the Defendant launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the Data Breach. On June 12, 2025, Defendant began sending out notice letters to individuals impacted by the Data Breach.5 7. The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant’s failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' Private Information which it was hired to protect. The Defendant allegedly breached its duties and obligations by failing to design, implement, monitor, and maintain reasonable safeguards against foreseeable threats. As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members are now at a current, imminent, and ongoing risk of fraud and identity theft, the lawsuit says. The Defendant is a regional Alaska Native corporation that operates a diverse range of businesses, including those in oil field services, government contracting, utilities, construction, information technology, natural resources development, tourism, and real estate.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Cooley, Esq. Katherine Elsner, Esq. EHRHARDT, ELSNER & COOLEY 215 Fidalgo Ave, Suite 201 Kenai AK 99611 Telephone: (907) 283-2876 Facsimile: (907) 283-2896 E-mail: josh@907legal.com katie@907legal.com - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 402 W Broadway, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.A. 1 West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com ECONOMY PREFERRED: Miller Suit Removed to W.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ashley Miller, individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated v. ECONOMY PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY and FOREMOST INSURANCE COMPANY GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN, Case No. 25-2-07995-09 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of Pierce, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on June 12, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-05518. On April 28, 2025, Miller filed this putative class action alleging that Defendants failed to pay insureds for diminished value under their Underinsured Motorist Property Damage ("UMPD") coverage in the State of Washington, and that Defendants' failure to pay for that type of loss breached its contract with policyholders and members of the putative class and violated state law. Miller also alleges that Economy denied her diminished value claim under her UMPD coverage, in violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act ("CPA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Timothy W. Snider, Esq. Jenna M. Poligo, Esq. Sara J. Wadsworth, Esq. Alissa N. Harris, Esq. STOEL RIVES LLP 600 University Street, Ste. 3600 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 624-0900 Facsimile: (206) 386-7500 Email: timothy.snider@stoel.com jenna.poligo@stoel.com sara.wadsworth@stoel.com ali.harris@stoel.com ENDEAVOR GROUP: Garcia Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Endeavor Group Holdings, Inc. The case is styled as Ricardo Garcia, Handelsbanken Fonder AB, and all others similarly situated v. Endeavor Group Holdings, Inc., Ariel Emanuel, Egon Durban, Endeavor Executive Holdco, LLC, Endeavor Executive HoldCo, LLC, Endeavor Executive II Holdco, LLC, Endeavor Executive PIU Holdco, LLC, Fawn Weaver, Jacqueline Reses, Jason Lublin, Mark Shapiro, Patrick Whitesell, Silver Lake Technology Management, L.L.C., Silver Lake West Holdco II, L.P., Silver Lake West Holdco, L.P., Silver Lake West Voteco, L.L.C., Stephen Evans, et al., Case No. 2025-0663-LWW (Del. Chancery Ct., June 12, 2025). The case type is stated as "Civil Action." Endeavor Group Holdings, Inc. -- https://endeavorco.com/ -- is an American holding company for talent and media agencies with its primary offices in Beverly Hills, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregory V. Varallo, Esq. RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER One Rodney Square P.O. Box 551 Wilmington, DE 19899 Phone: (302) 658-6541 EPISOURCE LLC: Fails to Protect Personal, Health Info, Liebau Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ ERIC LIEBAU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EPISOURCE, LLC, Case No. 8:25-cv-01296 (C.D. Cal., June 17, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted with sensitive Personally Identifiable and Protected Health Information that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed in June 2025. The Plaintiff's claims arise from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The Defendant had numerous statutory, regulatory, contractual, and common law duties and obligations, including those based on its affirmative representations to Plaintiff and Class Members, to keep their Private Information confidential, safe, secure, and protected from unauthorized disclosure or access. On Feb. 6, 2025, the Defendant became aware of a suspicious activity its IT Network. In response, the Defendant launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the incident. Accordingly, on April 23, 20254, the Defendant began informing customers about what specific data may have been compromised in the Data Breach. The Defendant is a provider of risk adjustment services, software, and solutions for health plans and provider groups.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 1925 Century Park E, No. 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com FIFTY WEST: Morse Suit Seeks to Certify Class --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN MORSE, v. FIFTY WEST BREWING COMPANY LLC, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00377-DRC (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (1) Certifying a class under Rule 23 for the Plaintiff's state law claims (Count 3: Failure to Pay Minimum Wage under Ohio Const. Art. II, Sec. 34(a); (Count 4: Untimely Payment of Wages under R.C. § 4113.15; Count 5: Damages under R.C. section 2307.60; Count 6: Unjust Enrichment; (2) Appointing the Plaintiff as class representative; (3) Appointing the undersigned counsel as class counsel; (4) Approving the proposed form of notice, attached as Exhibit B; (5) Authorizing Plaintiff to send the proposed notice to the class members via both U.S. mail and email; and (6) Permitting a 60-day period in which class members may opt- out or otherwise exclude themselves. The Plaintiff commenced a collective and class action on behalf of himself and all similarly situated employees against the Defendants on June 4, 2021. In his Complaint, the Plaintiff alleged the Defendants violated both the Federal Labor Standards Act as well as Ohio state law. The Plaintiff requests that this Court issue an order certifying the following class for determination of these state law claims: "All hourly employees who received a cash hourly rate below the state and federal minimum wage, and for whom the Defendants took a tip credit to make up the difference between the cash hourly rate and the state and federal minimum wage, who have been employed by the Defendants at any time between May 10, 2020 and June 5, 2021." Fifty offers house-made craft beer and soda, floats, shakes, and shareables. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MoySMU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Butler, Esq. MEZIBOV BUTLER 615 Elsinore Place, Suite 105 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 621-8800 Facsimile: (513) 621-8833 E-mail: bbutler@mezibov.com FINCANTIERI MARINE: Court Narrows Claims in Malvitz Suit -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRYSTAL MALVITZ AND CHRISTOPHER FREDRICKSON, v. FINCANTIERI MARINE GROUP, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00238-TSC (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Tanya S. Chutkan will deny the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' negligence and breach of contract claims but grant the Defendant's motion as to the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim. An Order shall accompany this Opinion. The court finds that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently established that a cyberattack was foreseeable based on Defendant's inadequate security practices, the value of Plaintiffs' PII, and the prominence of identity thefts and data breaches. The court finds that Plaintiffs' breach of implied contract claim survives, and it will deny Defendant’s motion to dismiss Count II. The Complaint “does not identify any profit reaped by [Defendant] that is attributable to use of Plaintiff’s data, nor does it allege that Plaintiffs gave [Defendant] any money that should have been used for data security.” See Keown, 2024 WL 4239936, at *14. Therefore, the court will dismiss Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim. The Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs assert claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. Malvitz filed the Complaint on Jan. 26, 2024, and amended as of right on May 2, 2024. The Plaintiffs proposed class definition is: "All individuals in the United States whose PII was impacted as a result of the Data Breach announced by Defendant in January 2024." Fincantieri builds and repairs maritime vessels. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated June 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Se6E58 at no extra charge.[CC] FORTREA HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Aug. 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Leading securities law firm Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP announces that a lawsuit has been filed against Fortrea Holdings Inc. (NASDAQ: FTRE) and certain of the Company's senior executives for potential violations of the federal securities laws. If you invested in Fortrea you are encouraged to obtain additional information by visiting https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/fortrea-holdings-inc-class-action-lawsuit. Investors have until August 1, 2025, to ask the Court to be appointed to lead the case. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of investors who purchased Fortrea securities. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and is captioned Deslande v. Fortrea Holdings Inc., et al., No. 1:25-cv-04630. Why was Fortrea Sued for Securities Fraud? Fortrea is a global contract research organization that provides biopharmaceutical product and medical device development solutions. In June 2023, Fortrea was spun off into a standalone, publicly traded company by Labcorp Holdings Inc. ("Labcorp"). In connection with the spin-off, Fortrea entered into several transition services agreements (the "TSAs"), pursuant to which it agreed to pay Labcorp for certain transitional services over a set period. As alleged, Fortrea discussed the significant cost savings and margin improvements that would result from exiting the TSAs. In truth, Fortrea overstated the cost savings and margin improvement it would achieve by exiting the TSAs, as well as the amount of revenue it would generate from pre-spin projects. The Stock Declines as the Truth is Revealed On September 25, 2024, investment bank Jefferies published a report stating that the cost savings Fortrea would achieve from exiting the TSAs were "[n]ot as [m]aterial as [o]ne [m]ight [t]hink." On this news, the price of Fortrea stock declined $2.73 per share, or over 12%, from a closing price of $22.21 per share on September 24, 2024, to $19.48 per share on September 25, 2024. Then, on March 3, 2025, Fortrea announced disappointing Q4 and full year 2024 financial results, revealing that the company's pre-spin projects "have less revenue and less profitability than expected for 2025" and that "post-spin work is not coming on fast enough to offset the pre-spin contract economics." On this news, the price of Fortrea stock declined $3.47 per share, or over 25%, from a closing price of $13.85 per share on February 28, 2025, to $10.38 per share on March 3, 2025, the next trading day. Click here if you suffered losses: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/fortrea-holdings-inc-class-action-lawsuit. What Can You Do? If you invested in Fortrea you may have legal options and are encouraged to submit your information to the firm. All representation is on a contingency fee basis, there is no cost to you. Shareholders are not responsible for any court costs or expenses of litigation. The firm will seek court approval for any potential fees and expenses. Submit your information by visiting: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/fortrea-holdings-inc-class-action-lawsuit Or contact: Ross Shikowitz ross@bfalaw.com (212) 789-3619 Why Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP? Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP is a leading international law firm representing plaintiffs in securities class actions and shareholder litigation. It was named among the Top 5 plaintiff law firms by ISS SCAS in 2023 and its attorneys have been named Titans of the Plaintiffs' Bar by Law360 and SuperLawyers by Thompson Reuters. Among its recent notable successes, BFA recovered over $900 million in value from Tesla, Inc.'s Board of Directors, as well as $420 million from Teva Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd. [GN] FRANK LAROSE: Bid to Extend Deadline to File TRO Nixed ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as A.M. v. Larose, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-01412 (S.D. Cal., Filed June 4, 2025), the Hon. Judge Jinsook Ohta entered an order denying the Petitioner's motion requesting to extend the Court's 12:00 P.M., June 13, 2025, deadline to file motions for temporary restraining order and class certification and directing the Petitioner to file: (1) a motion for temporary restraining order addressing why there is good cause for extension of the current temporary restraining order under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 65(b)(2) and (2) a motion for provisional class certification by 11:59 P.M., Friday, June 13, 2025 . The Court further clarifies that independent of any forthcoming TRO motion and class certification motion, Respondents are required to file a response addressing the issues identified in the Court's June 9, 2025, order by 9:00 A.M. Monday, June 16, 2025. These deadlines will remain unless the parties stipulate to extend the Court's order granting temporary relief, past the initial 14 day period provided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). The nature of suit states Immigration -- Habeas Corpus -- Alien Detainee.[CC] FRESHREALM INC: Mendez Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Maria Isabel Mendez, as an individual, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. FRESHREALM, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0004362 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Joaquin, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on June 4, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01566-DC-JDP. In the Complaint, Plaintiff brings claims for, inter alia, FreshRealm’s alleged failure to pay all minimum and overtime wages, provide meal and rest periods, provide timely wage payments upon separation, and provide accurate itemized wage statements. Plaintiff also alleges FreshRealm committed acts of unfair competition as defined by the California Unfair Business Practices Act. Based on the allegations in the Complaint and on behalf of herself and the putative class members, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and statutory damages, restitution, injunctive relief, statutory and civil penalties, and attorneys’ fees and costs.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Diyari Vazquez, Esq. Melissa N. Eubanks, Esq. VGC, LLP 9461 Charleville Blvd. #757 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: (424) 272-9855 Email: dvazquez@vgcllp.com meubanks@vgcllp.com FRITO-LAY INC: Baum Sues Over Mislabeled Snack Food Products ------------------------------------------------------------ EMILIE BAUM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRITO-LAY, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-01408 (C.D. Cal., June 5, 2025) is a class action seeking to challenge the Defendants' false and deceptive practices in the marketing and sale of certain of its SunChips branded snack foods (the "Products"). According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, each package of the Products prominently features "100% Whole Grain" in the center of the package in colorful font and "Whole Grain Snacks" on the bottom left of the package. The representation that SunChips are "100% Whole Grain" is uniform across the Products' marketing and labeling. As each of the Products contains maltodextrin made from corn starch, the Products do not contain 100% whole grain, but in fact contain a highly processed refined grain. The representation of "100% Whole Grain" on the Products is a material misrepresentation, false, and misleading as a prominent grain ingredient in the Products is maltodextrin made from corn. The Plaintiff was injured in fact and lost money as a result o FRITO-LAY's improper conduct. Alternatively, Plaintiff would not have paid as much as she did for the Products, had she known that the Products were not "100% Whole Grain," says the suit. Frito-Lay Inc. manufactures and markets snack foods. The Company produces a range of snacks including potato chips, tortilla chips, cheese puffs, assorted nuts, and related products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David A. Baldwin, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DAVID BALDWIN 333 S. Grand Ave., Suite 3310 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (323) 595-3989 Facsimile: (323) 417-5176 Email: david@davidbaldwinlaw.com - and - Levi M. Plesset, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF LEVI PLESSET 770 Haiku Rd., P.O. Box 1248 Haiku, HI 96708 Telephone: (510) 499-7100 Email: plessetlaw@gmail.com GIANTS DELI: Basurto Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Gonzalo Cornelio Basurto, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. GIANTS DELI INC. (D/B/A GIANTS DELI), AKRUM HAUTER, and AHMED HASSAN, Case No. 1:25-cv-04903 (S.D.N.Y., June 11, 2025), is brought against the Defendants 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"), and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor (herein the "Spread of Hours Wage Order"), including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime compensation and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay The Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, Defendants failed to pay The Plaintiff the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day. The Defendants' conduct extended beyond Plaintiff to all other similarly situated employees. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff 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 was employed as a cook at the deli. The Defendants own, operate, or control a deli, located in Bronx, New York "Giants Deli."[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 GLOBAL ENTERTAINMENT: Harper Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Global Entertainment Security, Inc. The case is styled as Justice Harper, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Global Entertainment Security, Inc., Case No. 25STCV16943 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 11, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Global Entertainment Security, Inc. (GES) -- https://gesecurityinc.com/ -- provides security services to multi-billion dollar corporations, high net worth properties, resorts and hotels, iconic landmarks, financial institutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com GLOBAL TEL-LINK: Court Narrows Claims in Albert Suit ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHLEY ALBERT, et al., v. GLOBAL TEL-LINK CORP., et al., Case No. 8:20-cv-01936-LKG (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby entered an order as follows (1) granting the Abry Defendants' motion to dismiss; (2) granting-in-part the Platinum Defendants' motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to strike the class allegations; (3) denying Securus' motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to strike the class allegations (ECF No. 300); and (4) dismissing Counts I, IV and IX of the amended complaint as to the Abry and Platinum Defendants. Securus shall answer, or otherwise respond to, the claims asserted against it in the amended complaint on or before July 2, 2025. the Plaintiffs' claims against the Abry and Platinum Defendants are time-barred by the relevant statutes of limitations for Sherman Act and RICO claims. But, the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged facts to show that the fraudulent concealment doctrine tolls the statute of limitations period for their RICO claims against Securus. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants committed a per se violation of the Sherman Act, by conspiring to: (1) eliminate competition between themselves; (2) fix and charge inflated prices for their single-call products; and (3) pay low site commission fees for their single-call products The Plaintiff Ashley Albert is a resident of the State of New Hampshire who paid $14.99 to accept a PayNow single call that was sold by Securus. GTL provides inmate calling services ("ICS") to approximately 2,300 correctional facilities. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated June 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9DgJJA at no extra charge.[CC] GLOBAL TEL-LINK: Securus' Bid to Stay Discovery Partly OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ashley Albert, et al., v. Global Tel-Link Corp., et al., Case No. 8:20-cv-01936-LKG (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Ajmel A. Quereshi entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant Securus's motion to stay discovery. The Court shall schedule a discovery conference to determine the precise scope of relevant, non-burdensome discovery, under the Complaint, as currently pled. Accordingly, at least some of Plaintiffs' claims, as previously pled, lack individuals advancing them. Recognizing the parties’ extensive work on discovery, the Court’s denial of Securus's Motion to Dismiss, and the Court’s Order granting Securus's Motion to Compel Arbitration, in part, the Court will allow discovery to proceed but shall be guided by the scope of the Complaint, as currently pled. In the event that the Court grants the Motion to Amend, the undersigned will adjust the scope of discovery accordingly. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed below, Defendant Securus's Motion to Stay shall be granted, in part, and denied, in part. The Plaintiffs initially brought this action against the Defendants on behalf of themselves, a nationwide class and three nationwide subclasses on June 29, 2020. The putative class action matter involves an alleged price-fixing and kickback scheme to inflate the prices of single call collect calls placed by [incarcerated individuals] from correctional facilities located within the United States among defendants in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO Act). On Sept. 30, 2021, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting-inpart and denying-in-part Defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissing Plaintiffs' RICO Act claims. ]On May 25, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated the dismissal of Plaintiffs' RICO Act claims, finding that that they had sufficiently pled the proximate cause element of these claims. Global provides integrated technology solutions. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion and order dated June 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YYM6Ok at no extra charge.[CC] GOODRX INC: Faces Mannino Suit Over Pharmacy Reimbursement Rates ---------------------------------------------------------------- MANNINO'S FAMILY PRACTICE PHARMACY, on its own behalf and all others similarly situated v. GOODRX, INC.; and GOODRX HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00285 (D.R.I., June 17, 2025) contends that the Defendants entered into a contract, combination or conspiracy with the PBMs to fix, maintain, stabilize and/or suppress pharmacy reimbursement rates for generic prescription drugs dispensed by the Plaintiff and Class members at artificially low and discriminatory levels in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Under the GoodRx ISP Agreement, the PBMs agreed to exchange commercially sensitive and proprietary pricing information, in real time, using Defendant GoodRx as a reimbursement rate clearinghouse. The Plaintiff alleges that the GoodRx ISP Agreement is anticompetitive because it is well recognized that sharing commercially sensitive and proprietary information between horizontal competitors regarding price, cost, output, customers or strategic planning is per se unlawful under the U.S. antitrust laws. GoodRx is a prescription discount card aggregator. CVS, Express Scripts, MedImpact and Navitus are Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs). PBMs manage prescription drug benefits on behalf of health insurers, large employers and other payors in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony R. Leone, II, Esq. LEONE LAW, LLC 1345 Jefferson Boulevard Warwick, RI 02886 Telephone: (401) 921-6684 Facsimile: (401) 921-6686 E-mail: aleone@leonelawllc.com - and - Ronen Sarraf, Esq. Joseph Gentile, Esq. SARRAF GENTILE LLP 10 Bond Street, Suite 212 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 699-8890 E-mail: ronen@sarrafgentile.com joseph@sarrafgentile.com - and - Stephen E. Connolly, Esq. Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: steve@lcllp.com jerry@lcllp.com GREAT INTERNATIONAL: Combel Illicit Drug Suit Removed to E.D. La. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as Jenna Combel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GREAT INTERNATIONAL SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT CO, LTD., et al., Case No. 2024-08559 (Filed Sept. 18, 2024) 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 June 18, 2025. The Eastern District of Louisiana Court Clerk assigned Case No. e 2:25-cv-01252 to the proceeding. In her Original Petition, Combel alleged that twenty-one alleged tobacco stores, head shops, and distributors orchestrated an illicit nitrous oxide distribution ring to sell nitrous oxide for customers to use as an illicit drug. Plaintiff Combel alleged that she first experimented with nitrous oxide in 2019, and her use of nitrous oxide increased over the next four years to the point where it was almost continuous. She purchased GreatWhip and Galaxy Gas branded nitrous oxide cannisters from several of the Defendant stores. On Nov. 6, 2023, she was rushed to the hospital because she could not speak coherently and was unable to move her arms and legs. She alleged that she was diagnosed with a B12 deficiency due to use of nitrous oxide, which was causing her paralysis, and she remains unable to walk properly, has nerve damage, and has changes to her brain from the use of nitrous oxide, the Plaintiff contends. Combel brought claims for products liability and negligence and sought substantial damages for, inter alia, her past and future pain and suffering, past and future loss of enjoyment of life, past and future mental anguish, past and future loss of earning capacity, past and future medical costs, permanent disability, past and future emotional distress, general damages, special damages, costs, and attorney's fees. The Defendants include GALAXY GAS, LLC; RA SHOP No. 6, LLC; RA SHOP 8, LLC; RA SHOP 14, LLC; RA SHOP, LLC D/B/A RA SHOP TOULOUSE; ORLEANS CENTER MARKET, LLC; MR BINKY’S INC. D/B/A MR. BINKY’S SUPERSTORE; MKM GROUP, LLC D/B/A SMOKE-N-STYLE; MAWAAL, LLC D/B/A VIP VAPES & PHONES; 420 VAPE & SMOKE SHOP, LLC; AL-AKABER CO. MOLASSES DISTRIBUTION 7 TRADING, LLC D/B/A 420 VAPE 7 SMOKE SHOP; THE MUSHROOM, INC.; DAHAB ENTERPRISES, LLC D/B/A UP IN SMOKE; CLOUD 9 NOLA, LLC; THE HERB IMPORT CO.; WEST METAIRIE DISCOUNT ZONE, LLC; G&A MART, LLC D/B/A 420 SMOKE & SPIRIT SHOP; TRIPLE A QUICK STOP, INC. D/B/A TRIPLE A FOOD MART; MUNCHIES SMOKE SHOP, LLC; PLUTO BRANDS, LLC; UNITED BRANDS PRODUCTS DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND MARKETING D/B/A UNITED BRANDS CORPORATION; SWEET AND SOUR HOLDINGS, LLC; STM MANAGEMENT SP. Z. O.O.; IK DISTRIBUTIONS, LLC; ATLANTIC, INC. D/B/A COLLAPSAR USA INC.; and DIMO HEMP, LLC.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Loretta G. Mince, Esq. Maggie M. Daly, Esq. Fishman Haygood LLP 201 St. Charles Ave. # 4600, New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 586-5252 Facsimile: (504) 586-5250 E-mail: lmince@fishmanhaygood.com mdaly@fishmanhaygood.com GROUND GAME: Court Sets Scheduling Conference in ATVL Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as A TRADITION OF VIOLENCE, LLC et. al., v. GROUND GAME LA, et. al., Case No. 2:25-cv-03795-MRA-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Monica Ramirez Almadani entered an order setting scheduling conference: If plaintiff has not already served the operative complaint on all defendants, plaintiff shall do so promptly and shall file proofs of service of the summons and complaint within three (3) days thereafter. The scheduling conference will be held pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 16(b). A request to continue the scheduling conference will be granted only for good cause. The parties should plan to file the Joint Rule 26(f) Report on the original due date even if a continuance is granted. The Court will not continue the scheduling conference to allow the parties to explore settlement. The Court may vacate the scheduling conference and issue a case management order based on the Joint Rule 26(f) Report. For a putative class action, the Court will set a deadline for hearing the class certification motion. A discussion of the present state of discovery, including a summary of pending and completed discovery, and any current or anticipated disputes. Hearings shall be on Mondays at 1:30 p.m. The Final Pretrial Conference shall be at 3:00 p.m. A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7GVsea at no extra charge.[CC] HATCHITT TAX CLUB: Parker Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Michigan ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hatchitt Tax Club, Inc. The case is styled as Tyraann Parker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hatchitt Tax Club, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-00647 (W.D. Mich., June 11, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Hatchitt Tax Club -- https://hatchitt.com/ -- provides expert tax planning, credit counseling, and comprehensive financial services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com HUMANA INC: Maxwell-Dillard Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- MONICA MAXWELL-DILLARD, individually and on behalf of all others, similarly situated v. HUMANA, INC. And HUMANA GOVERNMENT BUSINESS, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00163-WMR (N.D. Ga., June 17, 2025) seeks to obtain full and complete relief for Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and all others similarly situated for overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant Humana employed the Plaintiff and all those similarly situated during the three years prior to the filing of this Complaint as Registered Nurse Case Managers. The primary duty of Registered Nurse Case Managers is to coordinate and deliver personalized care plans for patients in their homes. The Defendant classifies Plaintiff and other similarly situated Registered Nurse Case Managers as non-exempt employees paid at an hourly rate of pay. Although the Plaintiff and other similarly situated Registered Nurse Case Managers are paid on an hourly basis, Humana does not allow them to record more than forty hours of work per week. In order to fully perform their job duties, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated Registered Nurse Case Managers regularly work in excess of 40 hours per workweek, but Humana does not compensate them at the overtime rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the suit says. HUMANA, INC. is a for-profit health insurance company based in Louisville, Kentucky.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tracey T. Barbaree, Esq. Beth A. Moeller, Esq. MOELLER BARBAREE LLP 1175 Peachtree Street N.E., Suite 1850 Atlanta, GA 3036 Telephone: (404) 748-9122 E-mail: tbarbaree@moellerbarbaree.com bmoeller@moellerbarbaree.com INNOVATIVE TAX: Faces Hewett Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages ---------------------------------------------------------------- JASON HEWETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INNOVATIVE TAX RELIEF LLC, Case No. 7:25-cv-01185-FL (D.N.C., June 17, 2025) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, after asking for the Defendant's website, the Plaintiff immediately received a call from (980) 387-1627. Immediately after, the Plaintiff received a follow-up text from (561) 247-0232 with a link to the Defendant's website, https://www.innovativetaxreliefllc.com. The Plaintiff alleges that he responded "stop." That same day, the Plaintiff received several calls from (561) 247-0232 despite telling Defendant to stop. The Defendant's communications were to market and sell tax and debt relief services to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is an individual residing in Columbus County, North Carolina. The Defendant is a Palm Beach County, Florida based company that sells services to assist with taxes and debt relief.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Duffy, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RYAN P. DUFFY, PLLC 1213 W. Morehead Street, Suit 500, Unit No. 450 Charlotte, NC 28208 Telephone: (704) 741-9399 E-mail: ryan@ryanpduffy.com - and - Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. Paronich Law, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (508) 221-1510 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com IRWIN NATURALS: Jones Sues Over Mislabeled Weight Loss Supplements ------------------------------------------------------------------ AVI JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IRWIN NATURALS, INC.; IRWIN NATURALS; and KLEE IRWIN, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-05114 (C.D. Cal., June 5, 2025) alleges that the Defendants market and sell mislabeled weight loss supplement products. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants manufacture, market, distribute, and sell the purported weight loss supplement Irwin Naturals Stored Fat Belly Burner ("Belly Burner"), an illegal unapproved new drug which purportedly "has been clinically researched for its ability to metabolize stored fat in the body, including stubborn areas, such as the belly, waist and hips." The Defendants further claim that Belly Burner is a "Super Citrus Lipo Burner" that "helps breakdown stored fat" and which "works by stimulating Lipolysis, a catabolic process leading to the breakdown of triglycerides stored in the fat cells (adipocytes), releasing free fatty acids." In so doing, they have violated California's consumer fraud laws, as well as its health and safety code covering food and drugs, the suit alleges. Irwin Naturals Inc. manufactures and retails health supplements. The Company offers nutritional supplements, healthy, multivitamins, beauty, and other related products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory S. Weston, Esq. THE WESTON FIRM 1405 Morena Blvd., Suite 201 San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (619) 798-2006 Email: greg@westonfirm.com JM SMUCKER: Plaintiffs Bid for Class Certification Due July 10 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANDRA JERUCHIM and MELISSA VARGAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE J.M. SMUCKER COMPANY and POST CONSUMER BRANDS, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-06913-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick entered an order extending the litigation schedule as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification will be due by July 10, 2025. 2. The Defendants' opposition will be due by Sept. 17, 2025. 3. The Plaintiffs' reply will be due by Oct. 29, 2025. 4. The hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification will be reset to Nov. 19, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. 5. The fact discovery cutoff will be Dec. 29, 2025. 6. The expert disclosure will be due Jan. 12, 2026. 7. The expert rebuttal will be due March 12, 2026. 8. The expert discovery cutoff will be April 7, 2026. 9. The Dispositive motions will be heard by May 27, 2026. (No change) 10. Pretrial Conference will be set for Sept. 14, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. (No change) 11. Trial will be set for Oct. 13, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. by Jury. (No change) J.M. is an American manufacturer of food and beverage products. A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IpQaIv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Julia K. Venditti, Esq. Emily A. Horne, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com jvenditti@bursor.com ehorne@bursor.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael J. Ruttinger, Esq. Ethan W. Weber, Esq. Bart L. Kessel, Esq. Anna-Sophie Tirre, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 592-5000 Facsimile: (216) 592-5009 E-mail: michael.ruttinger@tuckerellis.com ethan.weber@tuckerellis.com bart.kessel@tuckerellis.com anna-sophie.tirre@tuckerellis.com JRC INCORPORATED: Averkamp Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kyle Averkamp, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated employees v. JRC INCORPORATED, Case No. 3:25-cv-00655 (M.D. Tenn., June 12, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") to recover unpaid overtime compensation. The Defendant violated the FLSA by misclassifying Plaintiff and other employees as exempt from receiving overtime compensation when Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were nonexempt employees entitled to overtime compensation for hours worked over 40 in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for JRC as a Production Supervisor from March 2022 until April 2025. JRC provides services for commercial facilities, including commercial roofing, exterior renovations, and facility services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melody Fowler-Green, Esq. N. Chase Teeples, Esq. YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC 2901 Dobbs Avenue Nashville, TN 37211 Phone: (615) 250-2000 Fax: (615) 250-2020 Email: mel@yezbaklaw.com teeples@yezbaklaw.com KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY: Thayer Files TCPA Suit in W.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Keller Williams Realty Incorporated. The case is styled as Sydney Thayer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Keller Williams Realty Incorporated, Case No. 6:25-cv-06306 (W.D.N.Y., June 12, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Keller Williams Realty -- https://www.kw.com/ -- is an American technology and international real estate franchise with headquarters in Austin, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com KRISTI NOEM: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Yamil Luna Gutierrez, et al., v. Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01766-CJN (D.D.C.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order extending the time in which to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification to July 28, 2025. The Defendants request that the Court extend the deadline for Defendants to file their opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification to July 25, 2025, and Plaintiffs to file their reply in support of their motion to August 8, 2025. The Plaintiffs consent to this motion. The Defendants' response is currently due June 20, 2025. This request is not made for undue delay, and good cause supports it. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aVsgrO at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Yaakov Roth, Esq. Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sarah S. Wilson, Esq. Assistant Director Devin Barrett, Esq. Senior Litigation Counsel Jason K. Zubata, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CIVIL DIVISION OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Telephone: (202) 532-4143 E-mail: jason.k.zubata@usdoj.gov LEXISNEXIS RISK: Baker Sues Over Failure to Secure Information -------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce H. Baker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-03131-SDG (N.D. Ga., June 4, 2025), is brought arising out of the recent data breach (“Data Breach”) involving Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices, including Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ names, contact information (such as phone number, postal or email address) Social Security numbers, driver’s license numbers, and dates of birth (collectively defined herein as “Private Information”). As part of the Data Breach, cybercriminals targeted and exfiltrated data from Defendant’s third-party service provider that hosts a portion of the data it collects. Though Defendant has not identified the third-party service provider, the entity has been independently identified as GitHub. Moreover, Defendant should have known that GitHub was a particularly vulnerable company to entrust the Class’s Private Information to. Indeed, GitHub suffered another data breach just last year. Customers of Defendant are required to entrust Defendant with sensitive, non-public Private Information, without which Defendant could not perform its regular business activities. Defendant retains this information for at least many years and even after the customer-service provider relationship has ended. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ Private Information––and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted Private Information was compromised due to Defendant’s negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ Private Information because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and continuing risk of identity theft and fraud to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes. In breaching its duties to properly safeguard Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ Private Information and give them timely, adequate notice of the Data Breach’s occurrence, Defendant’s conduct amounts to negligence and/or recklessness and violates federal and state statutes, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current/former customers of Defendant. The Defendant is a global data and analytics company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com LEXISNEXIS RISK: Rouse Sues Over Failure to Secure Information -------------------------------------------------------------- Xezakia Rouse, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-03133-SDG (N.D. Ga., ), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information (“PII” or “Private Information”) including, but not limited to names, contact information (such as phone numbers, postal or email addresses), Social Security numbers, driver’s license numbers or dates of birth. To provide these services, and in the ordinary course of Defendant LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc.’s business, Defendant acquires, possesses, analyzes, and otherwise utilizes Plaintiff’s and putative Class Members’ PII. The Defendant generates billions of dollars in revenue by monetizing consumers' Private Information through the sale of consumer reports, background checks, risk assessment products, identity verification services, and fraud prevention tools to its corporate and government clients. With this action, Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it caused and will continue to cause Plaintiff and at least 364,3332 other similarly situated persons in the massive and preventable cyberattack purportedly discovered by Defendant on or around December 25, 2024, in which cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant’s inadequately protected network servers and accessed and exfiltrated highly sensitive PII belonging to Plaintiff and Class Members which was being kept unprotected (the “Data Breach”). The Plaintiff further seeks to hold Defendant responsible for not ensuring that Defendant maintained the PII in a manner consistent with industry standards. The Defendant breached these duties by failing to implement adequate data security measures and protocols to properly safeguard and protect Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ PII from a foreseeable cyberattack on its systems that resulted in the unauthorized access and theft of Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ PII, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members relied on Defendant to keep their PII confidential and securely maintained. LexisNexis is one of the world's largest consumer reporting agencies and data brokers, collecting, processing, storing, and selling vast quantities of consumer data to businesses, insurance companies, financial institutions, government agencies, law enforcement, and other organizations across the globe.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Fax: (771) 772-3086 Email: cturner@milberg.com - and - Terence R. Coates, Esq. Justin C. Walker, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 East Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: (513) 651-3700 Fax: (513) 665-0219 Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com jwalker@msdlegal.com LEXYL TRAVEL: Canteenwalla Must File Class Cert Reply by July 8 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Canteenwalla, et al., v. Lexyl Travel Technologies, LLC, Case No. 9:25-cv-80007 (S.D. Fla. Filed Jan. 2, 2025), the Hon. Judge Rodney Smith entered an order granting motion for extension of time. Lexyl shall have up to and including June 20, 2025, to file its Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiffs shall have up to and including July 8, 2025, to file their Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. Lexyl operates as a traveling agent. The Company's line of business includes providing services and resources for traveling.[CC] LEXYL TRAVEL: Parties Seeks More Time for Class Cert Briefing ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PERCY CANTEENWALLA and GIUSEPPE RUSSO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LEXYL TRAVEL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Case No. 9:25-cv-80007-RS (S.D. Fla.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint motion up to and including June 20, 2025 to file a response to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and gives Plaintiffs until July 8, 2025 to file a reply in support of motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Complaint on January 2, 2025, asserting claims for violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (Counts I, II, III), New York General Business Law Section 349 (Count IV), and for unjust enrichment (Count V). On May 15, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification. On May 22, 2025, the Court granted in part and denied in part Lexyl's Motion to Dismiss the Class Action Complaint. ( Currently, Lexyl's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is due on June 16, 2025, and Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification is due on June 30, 2025. Lexyl provides services and resources for traveling. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EsxOot at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam Werner, Esq. Michael Hoffman, Esq. WERNER HOFFMAN GREIG & GARCIA 3299 NW 2nd Ave Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (800) 320-4357 E-mail: awerner@wernerhoffman.com mhoffman@wernerhoffman.com - and - Adam Florek, Esq. FLOREK LAW, PLLC 552 Seventh Ave, Suite 601 New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (929) 229-2268 E-mail: aflorek@florekllc.com The Defendant is represented by: Brian M. Ercole, Esq. Matthew M. Papkin, Esq. Scott T. Schutte, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1600 Miami, FL 33131-3075 Telephone: (305) 415-3000 Facsimile: (305) 415-3001 E-mail: brian.ercole@morganlewis.com matthew.papkin@morganlewis.com scott.schutte@morganlewis.com - and - George S. LeMieux, Esq. Gregor J. Schwinghammer, Jr., Esq. GUNSTER, YOAKLEY & STEWART, P.A. 777 S. Flagler Dr., East Tower, Suite 500 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 655-1980 Facsimile: (561) 655-5677 E-mail: glemieux@gunster.com gschwinghammer@gunster.com LIQUIDITY SERVICES: Auctionz Sues Over False Advertising -------------------------------------------------------- Auctionz, LLC D/B/A Wholesalez, a Florida limited liability company, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LIQUIDITY SERVICES INC., a Delaware corporation, and HOTELEMENTS INC., a California corporation, Case No. 8:25-cv-01265 (C.D. Cal., June 11, 2025), is brought against the Defendant's false advertising in violation of the Lanham Act. The Lanham Act prohibits false or misleading representations in connection with commercial goods or services that deceive or are likely to deceive others about the nature, characteristics, or qualities of goods or services. Liquidity and/or its agents inflate the value of the goods it sells to third parties on its manifests and invoices to artificially increase the cost of shipments to its purchasers, like Wholesalez and others similarly situated. Liquidity, by and through its agents, made the following misrepresentations to Wholesalez and others similarly situated: Inflated, modified, and/or falsified manifests for shipments of goods; False or misleading descriptions of such goods, including without limitation, their nature, characteristics, condition, qualities, values, and quantities; Inflated, inaccurate, and/or overstated retail value of such goods; False, misleading, and/or inaccurate Invoice price totals, not reflecting the final price of such goods; and, False or misleading express representations of Liquidity's ethical dealings and commitment to integrity in the context of its transactions with third parties. The misrepresentations materially influenced Wholesalez's decision to transact and caused direct competitive injury, including economic harm, diversion of business resources, and reputational damage. As a direct result of the false and misleading representations in violation of the Lanham Act, Wholesalez suffered concrete and measurable injuries, including financial losses, loss of business goodwill, reputational harm, and lost future business opportunities, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Auctionz, LLC d/b/a Wholesalez is a Florida limited liability company with its principal place of business in Florida. Liquidity Services Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Maryland.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew R. Richard, Esq. Michael S. Wilcox, Esq. GAVRILOV & BROOKS 2315 Capitol Avenue Sacramento, CA 95816 Phone: (916) 504-0529 Facsimile: (916) 727-6877 Email: Mrichard@gavrilovlaw.com mwilcox@gavrilovlaw.com LITTLE CAESAR: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Cuevas Due June 30 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE CUEVAS, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, v. LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-03166-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Rita F. Lin entered an order granting fifth joint stipulation modifying class certification schedule and temporarily staying plaintiff's ex parte application. The Motion for Class Certification hearing, previously scheduled for October 7, 2025, will be conducted via Zoom at 1:30 p.m. on Oct. 21, 2025 and the briefing schedule shall be as follows: 1. Motion for Class Certification is due by June 30, 2025. 2. Responses are due by July 28, 2025. 3. Replies are due by August 18, 2025. All counsel shall participate in the hearing remotely to accommodate geographical locations of all involved parties. The Court expects all participants to adhere to courtroom decorum during the remote hearing. The Parties have until June 17, 2025 to submit a Joint Stipulation. If the Parties do not file by June 17, 2025, the stay on the Plaintiff's pending Ex Parte Application is vacated and the Defendant has until June 18, 2025 to file an opposition. Little is an American multinational chain of pizza restaurants. A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=F1m0oD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Yablonovich, Esq. Monica Balderrama, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MARK YABLONOVICH 9465 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 300 Beverly Hills, CA 90212-2511 Telephone: (310) 286-0246 Facsimile: (310) 407-5391 E-mail: Mark@Yablonovichlaw.com Monica@Yablonovichlaw.com - and - Bevin Allen Pike, Esq. Daniel Jonathan, Esq. Trisha K. Monesi, Esq. Shealene P. Mancuso, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com Daniel.Jonathan@capstonelawyers.com Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com Shealene.Mancuso@capstonelawyers.com LITTLE: Filing for Class Certification in Pagan Due Oct. 31 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAGAN, et al v. LITTLE, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01516 (W.D. Pa., Filed Oct. 27, 2022), the Hon. Judge Marilyn J. Horan entered an order granting joint motion for extension of time to complete discovery. The Amended Case Management Order is further amended as follows: -- The deadline for producing Plaintiffs' expert reports is extended to June 30, 2025. -- The deadline for producing Defendants' experts reports is extended to Sept. 2, 2025. -- Depositions of all experts related to class certification shall be completed by Oct. 1. 2025 -- The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is due by Oct. 31. 2025. The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus -- Prison Condition.[CC] LRW TRAFFIC: Parties Seek Approval of Settlement Agreement ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EBONY HAYS, et al., individually and on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. LRW TRAFFIC SYSTEMS LLC, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-03306-JKB (D. Md.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order: 1. Granting the Parties' joint motion in its entirety; and 2. Approving the settlement agreement in its entirety including, for purposes of this settlement only, certifying this case as a Collective Action under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b); and authorizing notice and an opportunity to participate in the settlement. LRW specializes in traffic control and management services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2P7WkR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark Hanna, Esq. Arlus J. Stephens, Esq. Jennifer Vail, Esq. Samantha Sloane, Esq. MURPHY ANDERSON PLLC 1401 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 223-2620 E-mail: mhanna@murphypllc.com astephens@murphypllc.com jvail@murphypllc.com ssloane@murphypllc.com - and - Sam Williamson, Esq. PUBLIC JUSTICE CENTER 201 North Charles Street, Suite 1200 Baltimore, MD 21201 Telephone: (410) 625-9409 E-mail: williamsons@publicjustice.org The Defendants are represented by: Steven E. Kaplan, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 815 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 842-3400 E-mail: skaplan@littler.com - and - Jeremy S. Friedberg, Esq. William Fuller Moss, Esq. FRIEDBERG PC 10045 Red Run Boulevard, Suite 160 Baltimore, MD 21117 Telephone: (410) 581-7400 E-mail: jeremy@friedberg.legal william.moss@friedberg.legal - and - Zachary Busey, Esq. Jennifer L. Curry, Esq. Zachary Erwin, Esq. BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, P.C. 165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000 Memphis, TN 38103 Telephone: (901) 526-2000 E-mail: zbusey@bakerdonelson.com jcurry@bakerdonelson.com zerwin@bakerdonelson.com LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Seeks to Modify Scheduling Order in Gabourel ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as PASSION GABOUREL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA INC. d/b/a LENSCRAFTERS, an Ohio corporation; LUXOTTICA RETAIL NORTH AMERICA, INC., a business entity of unknown form; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-00471-FWS-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting ex parte application to modify scheduling order to accommodate the June 17, 2025 deposition of laura r. Steiner. Luxottica contends that iys Ex Parte Application should be granted, and the Court should issue an order continuing the deadline for Luxottica’s opposition from June 24, 2025, to July 8, 2025. Therefore, Luxottica requests that the Court continue Luxottica's opposition deadline from June 24 to July 8, 2025 in order to accommodate Dr. Steiner's availability for a deposition. Luxottica will be prejudiced if this application is not granted because it will be unable to fully respond to the Plaintiff's motion for certification, whereas Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by a two-week continuance to its deadline. Luxottica seeks the following amendment to the briefing schedule to resolve these issues: The deadline for Luxottica's opposition is continued from June 24, 2025, to July 8, 2025. The deadline for Plaintiff's reply will remain Aug. 7, 2025. The hearing date for the motion will remain Aug. 22, 2025. Luxottica designs, manufactures, and distributes a wide range of eyewear. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yo8tEL at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kayvon Sabourian, Esq. MATTERN LAW GROUP, PC 2101 E. El Segundo Blvd., Suite 403 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 431-1900 E-mail: KSabourian@maternlawgroup.com The Defendants are represented by: Khatereh Sage Fahimi, Esq. Noah J. Woods, Esq. Heidi E. Hegewald, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 501 W. Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101.3577 Telephone: (619) 232-0441 Facsimile: (619) 232-4302 E-mail: sfahimi@littler.com nwoods@littler.com hhegewald@littler.com M.I.C SERVICES: Bunay Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against M.I.C Services LLC, et al. The case is styled as Carmen Nelly Bunay, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. M.I.C Services LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-04953 (E.D. La., June 12, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act for Denial of Overtime Compensation. MIC Services LLC -- https://micservices.us/ -- is a construction company based in Minneapolis, Minnesota and specializes in Project Management and Coordination, Rough Carpentry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Fax: (212) 317-1620 Email: michael@faillacelaw.com MAKO CATERING: Cook Suit Seeks to Certify Collective Action ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAMOM COOK, JONATHAN KENO, And All Others Similarly Situated, V. MAKO CATERING LLC and MAKO UNLIMITED LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02517-GGG-MBN (E.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying as a collective action all Mako Unlimited and Mako Catering employees who were paid a day rate, from, between Oct. 21, 2021 and the date of the Court's order. The Plaintiffs further move this Court as follows: A. To approve the proposed notice attached; B. To order that Mako provide names, email addresses, physical addresses, and cell phone numbers for its employees falling within A above within ten days of the Court's order; C. To order that the plaintiffs may send the proposed notice by mail, email, and text message once within ten days of receipt of the information; and again 30 days thereafter; and, D. To afford the potential collective action members 60 days from Mako's provision of the information required by the Court for collective action members to join. The Plaintiffs so move for the reasons in the accompanying memorandum. Mako has provided catering personnel for major boat companies and offshore oil rigs. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ubiFzE at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Harry E. Morse, Esq. Martin S. Bohman, Esq. BOHMAN | MORSE, LLC 400 Poydras Street, Suite 2050 New Orleans, LA 70119 Telephone: (504) 930-4009 Facsimile: (888) 217-2744 E-mail: harry@bohmanmorse.com martin@bohmanmorse.com - and - Cayce Peterson, Esq. Jeff Green, Esq. JJC LAW LLC 3914 Canal St. New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 513-8820 E-mail: cayce@jjclaw.com jeff@jjclaw.com MARION COUNTY, OR: Marion Must File Class Cert Bid by Oct. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sawyer, et al., v. Marion County, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01971 (D. Or., Dec. 28, 2023), the Hon. Judge Karin J. Immergut entered an order adopting the case scheduling outlined by the parties in the Joint Statement Regarding Case Schedule as follows: The deadline file motions to compel fact discovery is September 8, 2025. The deadline to amend pleadings or join parties is September 29, 2025. Fact discovery is to be completed by September 29, 2025. Initial expert disclosures are due by October 30, 2025; rebuttal expert disclosures are due by December 1, 2025. The deadline to file a class certification motion is October 30, 2025; the deadline to respond is December 1, 2025, and any reply in support of the class certification motion is due December 30, 2025. The last date to file any motion to compel expert discovery is December 8, 2025, and responses to such motions are due no later than 14 calendar days after the initiating motion is filed; no replies are permitted for discovery motions. Expert discovery is to be completed by December 22, 2025. Joint Statement of Agreed and Disputed Facts is due on January 5, 2026. Joint ADR Report and any dispositive motions are due no later than February 16, 2026. The Parties are ordered to provide a jointly proposed pretrial schedule within 14 days of this Court's ruling on any dispositive motions, if appropriate. Pretrial Order and Verdict Form, if appropriate, are due within 14 days of the Court's order on any dispositive motions. The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.[CC] MARRIOTT INT'L: Class Cert Bids Referred to Magistrate Judge ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lopez v. Marriott International, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03308 (D. Colo., Filed Dec. 15, 2023), the Hon. Judge Regina M. Rodriguez entered an order referring the following motions to Mag. Judge Kathryn A. Starnella: -- Unopposed motion for Leave to File Excess Pages filed by Daniel Esteban Camas Lopez. -- Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to motion to certify class filed by Daniel Esteban Camas Lopez. The nature of suit states Labor Litigation. Marriott is an American multinational company that operates, franchises, and licenses lodging brands that include hotel, residential, and timeshare properties.[CC] MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Camas Seeks More Time to File Class Reply ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL ESTEBAN CAMAS LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03308-RMR-KAS (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time to file his upcoming reply in support of his motion for class certification. The Plaintiff's Reply in support of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is currently due June 27, 2025. The Plaintiff requires a fourteen-day extension of time to file his Reply due to his counsel's concurrent professional obligations, family obligations, and office closure the week of June 30 through July 4. The fourteen-day extension would shift Plaintiff's deadline to file his reply to July 11, 2025. No party will be prejudiced by the requested extension. Defendant sought an extension of time for its Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. That request was granted. Marriott is an American multinational company that operates, franchises, and licenses lodging brands that include hotel, residential, and timeshare properties. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hzeF0L at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander Hood, Esq. Brianne Power, Esq. TOWARDS JUSTICE Denver, CO 80237 Telephone: (720) 239-2606 E-mail: alex@towardsjustice.com brianne@towardsjustice.com MATHWORKS INC: Arutyunyan Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI --------------------------------------------------------------- Arutyun Arutyunyan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The MathWorks, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-11703-NMG (D. Mass., June 11, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") (collectively, "Private Information"). On May 26, 2025, Defendant disclosed that it suffered a ransomware attack that affected its IT systems, including online applications used by customers and certain internal systems used by staff (the "Data Breach"). The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information--which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against disclosure--was compromised due to the Data Breach. The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach was exfiltrated by cyber criminals and remains in the hands of those cyber-criminals who target Private Information 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 its customers' and employees' Private Information from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. The Defendant maintained, used, and shared the Private Information in a reckless manner. In particular, the Private Information was used and transmitted by Defendant in condition vulnerable to cyberattacks. Upon information and belief, the mechanism of the cyberattack and potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was a known risk to Defendant, and thus, Defendant was on notice that failing to take steps necessary to secure the Private Information from those risks left that property in a dangerous condition, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant. The Defendant "is the leading developer of mathematical computing software for engineers and scientists.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: cturner@milberg.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. Tanner R. Hilton, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 4131 North Central Expressway, Suite 900 Dallas, TX 75204 Phone: (405) 235-1560 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com trh@federmanlaw.com MBE CPAS: Zak Sues Over Failure to Protect Sensitive Data --------------------------------------------------------- Nyree Zak, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. MBE CPAS, LLP, Case: 3:25-cv-00492 (W.D. Wis., June 11, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. As such, Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") about its current and former clients. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach (the "Data Breach"). It is unknown for precisely how long the cybercriminals had access to Defendant's network before the breach was discovered. In other words, Defendant had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems—thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to its current and former clients' PII. 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 PII. In short, Defendant's failures placed the Class's PII in a vulnerable position rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals. The exposure of one's PII to cybercriminals is a bell that cannot be unrung. Before this data breach, its current and former clients' 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, having received a breach notice. The Defendant is a financial services firm with locations in Arizona, Colorado, Nebraska, and Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, 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: sam@straussborrelli.com MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: Simpkins Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medical Management of Chicago, LLC. The case is styled as Christopher Simpkins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Medical Management of Chicago, LLC doing business as: USA Clinics Group, Case No. 1:25-cv-06549 (N.D. Ill., June 12, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Medical Management of Chicago, LLC doing business as USA Clinics Group is an integrated ambulatory healthcare system that provides patient-centered health services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com MERCEDES-BENZ: Jamil Seeks Leave to File Class Certification Reply ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LENA JAMIL, SAMAAL ROBERSON, AND SHIDEH KHABAZIAN, On Behalf of Themselves And All Others Similarly Situated, v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-08130-FLA-AJR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting application for leave to file her class certification reply brief partly under seal. Mercedes-Benz is responsible for the distribution, marketing and customer service for all Mercedes-Benz products. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9AUmzj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roy A. Katriel, Esq. THE KATRIEL LAW FIRM, P.C. 2262 Carmel Valley Rd., Suite 201 Del Mar, CA 92014 Telephone: (619) 363-3333 Facsimile: (866) 832-5852 E-mail: rak@katriellaw.com MEYER LOGISTICS: Samano Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jairo R. Mercado Samano, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MEYER LOGISTICS, INC., an Indiana corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2508949 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 5, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-01448-SSS-SHK. The Plaintiff’s State Court Action asserts causes of action for: Unpaid Overtime; Unpaid Meal Period Premiums; Unpaid Rest Period Premiums; Unpaid Minimum Wages; Final Wages Not Timely Paid; Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment; Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements; Failure to Reimburse Necessary Business Expenses; all in violation of Cal. Labor Code and violation of Cal. Business and Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Julie A. Marquis, Esq. Nicole M. Clowdsley, Esq. FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY, LLP 1010 B Street, Suite 400 San Rafael, CA 94901 Phone: 415.394.9500 Facsimile: 833.317.0293 Email: jmarquis@fmglaw.com nclowdsley@fmglaw.com MHF MGMT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Alexander Alleges ------------------------------------------------------ DESTENY ALEXANDER; and DAMARIS MAYORGA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MHF MGMT II LLC; MHF MGMT LLC; MHF SURF LLC; MHF RALPH LLC; MHF 86 LLC; MHF 79 LLC; MHF 5TH AVE LLC; MHF PITKIN LLC; MHF MONTICELLO LLC; MHF CHESTER LLC; MHF NEW WINDSOR LLC; MHF CATSKILL LLC; MHF ELLENVILLE LLC; ASHISH PARIKH; AMISH PARIKH; SACHIN SHAH; and SHASHIN PARIKH, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-03161 (June 5, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs Alexander and Mayorga were employed by the Defendants as fastfood workers. MHF MGMT II LLC operates Taco Bell restaurants located in the Bronx, Queens, and New Rochelle, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian S. Schaffer, Esq. Dana M. Cimera, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 - and - Mark Gaylord, Esq. James Bouklas, Esq. BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP 357 Veterans Memorial Highway Commack, NY 11725 Telephone: (516) 742-4949 MINDLANCE INC: Roszhart Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Joseph Roszhart, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. MINDLANCE INC., a New Jersey corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV09708 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 12, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-05325. The Complaint asserts the following causes of action: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Unpaid Meal Period Premiums; Unpaid Rest Period Premiums; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Final Wages Not Timely Paid; Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment; Non-Compliant Wage Statements; Failure to Keep Requisite Payroll Records; Unreimbursed Business Expenses; and Unlawful and/or Unfair Business Pdractices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Amber M. Spataro, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. One Newark Center, 8th Floor Newark, NJ 07102 Phone: 973.848.4700 Facsimile: 973.643.5626 Email: aspataro@littler.com - and - Jonathan A. Heller, Esq. Angela E. Meakin, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 50 W. San Fernando, 7th Floor San Jose, CA 95113.2431 Phone: 408.998.4150 Facsimile: 408.288.5686 Email: jheller@littler.com ameakin@littler.com NESPRESSO USA: Court Dismiss Kolar Suit --------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ivo Kolar v. Nespresso USA, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-11235-GW-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge George H. Wu entered an order granting tentative ruling on Nespresso's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's class action complaint. Kolar has made no allegation of representations, advertisements, or promises that the warranty would commence at the time of delivery. Moreover, the Complaint is notably devoid of any details concerning when and where the terms of the warranty were made available to Kolar, and Kolar did not respond to Nespresso’s suggestion that the Machine "was advertised as having a warranty that commenced on the date of purchase." Accordingly, the only facts before the Court indicate that the Machine "disclosed" the start date of the warranty at the time of Kolar's purchase, and therefore Kolar could not form reasonable expectations otherwise. Kolar purchased a Nespresso VertuoPlus Coffee and Espresso Machine online from Amazon.com on Nov. 24, 2023. He did not receive the Machine "until at least November 25, 2023." Kolar filed this suit on Dec. 31, 2024, asserting two causes of action: (1) violation of California's Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act; and (2) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. Kolar brings this action on behalf of himself and a class of "All persons within California who purchased one or more of [Nespresso's Machines] between July 1, 2023 through the date of class certification, whose [Machine](s) were delivered to them after the date of purchase." Kolar also purports to represent an Express Warranty Subclass of: "All persons within California who purchased one or more of [Nespresso's] [Machines] between July 1, 2023 through the date of class certification, which were accompanied by an express warranty that commenced on the date of purchase and not the date of delivery." Nespresso provides coffee machines and accessories. A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=j4ly4i at no extra charge.[CC] NEW JERSEY: Faces Hubbard Class Suit Over Racketeering Enterprise ----------------------------------------------------------------- DARRELL HUBBARD, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. NEW JERSEY DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE, GOVERNOR PHILIP D. MURPHY, ATTORNEY GENERAL MATTHEW J. PLATKIN, SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE STACEY E. BORETZ, and other unnamed co-conspirators, Case No. 3:25-cv-11885-RK-RLS (D.N.J., June 17, 2025) is a Structural Civil Rights and RICO Class Action seeking declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief against the New Jersey Democratic State Committee and its operatives for maintaining a racketeering enterprise that systemically suppressed civil rights enforcement and obstructed legal redress for wrongful convictions. The enterprise -- rooted in the political machinery of the National Crime Syndicate and perpetuated through the County Line Ballot system and the Senatorial Courtesy veto -- intentionally excluded African Americans, civil rights-aligned candidates, and politically unaffiliated individuals from prosecutorial and judicial appointments. These exclusionary mechanisms ensured loyalty to a protectionist cartel that prioritized political obedience over justice. The complaint focuses on injuries stemming from Coerced pleas to fabricated or baseless charges, says the suit. Accordingly, the acts constitute predicate offenses under RICO and reflect a structural conspiracy to deny African Americans full and fair participation in the legal system. The Plaintiffs seek to expose and dismantle this entrenched scheme of political and racial suppression under color of law.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. NEW YORK, NY: Bid for Class Certification Reply Due July 1 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAYMOND LEWIS and AARON ORTEGA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-09460-DLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Denise Cote entered an order granting the following schedule to govern pretrial proceedings in this case: 1. The Plaintiffs' depositions of the Defendants' experts shall be completed by June 26, 2025. 2. The following motions will be served by the dates indicated Below: Motion for class certification Reply served by July 1, 2025. 3. By July 14, 2025, the parties shall submit a letter indicating whether the parties intend to proceed with summary judgment, and a proposed revised scheduling order as to all remaining pretrial deadlines. New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Court's order dated June 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4bugjy at no extra charge.[CC] PHILLIP MORRIS: Court Stays Norris Suit --------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ETHAN NORRIS, v. PHILLIP MORRIS INTERNATIONAL INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-01267-VAB (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Victor A. Bolden entered an order granting the motion to stay under the first-filed rule. The case will be stayed until a decision regarding class certification is issued in Kelly v. Philip Morris International Inc., et al., No. 24-cv-60437-WPD (S.D. Fla.). As a result of this Ruling and Order, the pending motion to stay discovery, ECF No. 48 and the motion to dismiss and for a more definite statement, ECF No. 53, are denied without prejudice to renewal. Accordingly, Mr. Norris fails to show that special circumstances exist that justify an exception to the first-filed rule. Because the Court has determined that no exception to the first-filed rule applies, and because granting a stay here until class certification in the Kelly action occurs will "prevent the inefficiency and wastefulness of allowing duplicative litigation to proceed in two different fora," Citigroup Inc., 97 F. Supp. 2d at 555, the Court grants the motion to stay. Mr. Norris has brought a class action suit on behalf of himself and others similarly situated against Philip Morris for violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (Count One), false and misleading advertising under Florida law (Count Two), and unjust enrichment (Count Three) arising out of Philip Morris's production and marketing of allegedly addictive oral nicotine pouches sold under the name ZYN. On May 6, 2024, Philip Morris moved to dismiss Mr. Kelly’s Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. On March 19, 2025, the Southern District of Florida denied Philip Morris's motion to dismiss and found that Mr. Kelly sufficiently alleged personal jurisdiction over Philip Morris in Florida. Philip is a multinational tobacco company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JYS75g at no extra charge.[CC] PLATINUM NINE: Miller Seeks Conditional Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL MILLER, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v. PLATINUM NINE HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a NORTHWEST AMBULANCE, a Washington limited liability company, Case No. 2:25-cv-00923-TL (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting conditional certification and authorizing notice to be sent (via mail, email, and text message), to: "All hourly employees who worked for NWA at any time in the past 3 years through final resolution of this action (the FLSA Collective Members)." Mr. Miller alleges Platinum Nine Holdings, LLC d/b/a Northwest Ambulance (NWA) violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to pay overtime at the proper premium rate. NWA has already admitted there's an identifiable and ascertained class. NWA provides critical care transport, advanced life support, basic life support, and event standby service. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=A6Hy6c at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael C. Subit, Esq. FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS, LLP 705 Second Ave., Suite 1200 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 682-6711 E-mail: msubit@frankfreed.com - and - Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 E-mail: adunlap@mybackwages.com mjosephson@mybackwages.com rschreiber@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com POST MILLENNIAL: Vetter-Conley Sues Over Failure to Secure SPI -------------------------------------------------------------- Tina Vetter-Conley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE POST MILLENNIAL CORPORATION, Case No. 6:25-cv-01125 (D. Kan., June 11, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the sensitive personally identifiable information ("SPI") of roughly 57 million individuals, including, but not limited to: names, usernames, dates of birth, email addresses, plaintext passwords, account information, gender, payment information, IP addresses, data regarding political affiliation and political views, employment, and net worth. On May 2, 2024, the Defendant learned of suspicious activity within its IT environment and determined that 3 databases containing Plaintiff's personal information--which was entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against unauthorized disclosure--was accessed and exfiltrated by an unauthorized party (hereafter referred to as the "Data Breach"). Despite the massive amount of data disclosed in the Data Breach, Defendant did not send out breach notice letters. To date, the details of the root cause of the Data Breach, the reason for the year plus delay in reporting the breach, the vulnerabilities exploited, and the remedial measures undertaken to ensure such a breach does not occur again. To date, these omitted details have not been explained or clarified to Plaintiff, who retains a vested interest in ensuring that their SPI remains protected. The Plaintiff was not notified that her data was involved in this Data Breach until recently, when a dark web monitoring service informed her that her data was leaked on the dark web. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff has suffered an actual injury, similar to an intangible harm remedied at common law. Defendant's failure to properly secure Plaintiff's SPI resulted in the unauthorized disclosure of Plaintiff's private information to cybercriminals. The unauthorized disclosure of Plaintiff's SPI constitutes an invasion of a legally protected privacy interest, that is traceable to the Defendant's failure to adequately secure the SPI in its custody, and has resulted in actual, particularized, and concrete harm to the Plaintiff. The injuries Plaintiff suffered, as described herein, can be redressed by a favorable decision in this matter, says the complaint. The Plaintiff's data was leaked in this Data Breach. The Defendant is a news organization that focuses on current events, culture, and news analysis.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Rosemergy, Esq. CAREY DANIS & LOWE 8235 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1100 St. Louis, Missouri 63105 Phone: 314-725-7700 Email: jrosemergy@careydanis.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (803) 222-2222 Fax: (843) 494-5536 Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com PRIORITY BACKGROUND: Smith Files FCRA Suit in W.D. North Carolina ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Priority Background Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Bruce Smith, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Priority Background Solutions, Inc., Case No. 5:25-cv-00086-KDB-SCR (W.D.N.C., June 12, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Priority Background Solutions, Inc. -- https://www.prioritybackgroundsolutions.com/ -- offers expertise in background screening and drug testing with precise methodology for compliance and technological functionality.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett E. Dressler, Esq. SELLERS, AYERS, DORTCH & LYONS, PA 301 S. McDowell Rd, Suite 410 Charlotte, NC 28204 Phone: (704) 377-5050 Fax: (704) 339-0172 Email: bdressler@sellersayers.com PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due April 28, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXANDRO (ALEX) KIRIGIN & LAUREN R. KIRIGIN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:24-cv-01545-BJR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Barbara J. Rothstein entered a scheduling order: Event Deadline Class Discovery Deadline: Jan. 16, 2026 The Plaintiffs' Class Expert Disclosure Feb. 10, 2026 Deadline: Progressive's Class Expert Disclosure March 10, 2026 Deadline: Motion for Class Certification Deadline: Apr. 28, 2026 Opposition to Motion for Class May 26, 2026 Certification Deadline: Reply in Support of Motion for Class June 26, 2026 Certification Deadline: Progressive underwrites auto, fire, marine, and casualty insurance. A copy of the Court's order dated June 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OoIWtv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Beth E. Terrell, Esq. Blythe H. Chandler, Esq. Jordan R. Berger, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 319-5450 E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com bchandler@terrellmarshall.com jberger@terrellmarshall.com The Defendant is represented by: Logan F. Peppin, Esq. Rodger L. Eckelberry, Esq. Christopher K. Riedel, Esq. BAKER HOSTETLER LLP 999 Third Avenue, Suite 3900 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 566-7148 E-mail: lpeppin@bakerlaw.com reckelberry@bakerlaw.com criedel@bakerlaw.com PSCU LLC: Bid to Strike Class Allegations Granted in Part --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUMMER BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PSCU, LLC, and LONE STAR CREDIT UNION, Case No. 8:24-cv-02983-KKM-AAS (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle entered an order as follows: 1. The Defendant PSCU, LLC's motion to dismiss and for more definite statement, or in the alternative, motion to strike class allegations or deny class certification is granted-in- part and denied-in-part. 2. The Defendant Lone Star Credit Union's motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, motion to strike class action allegations and motion for more definite statement is granted-in-part and denied-in-part. 3. The defendants' joint motion to bifurcate discovery is granted. 4. The Plaintiff Summer Brooks is ordered to replead her complaint to either set out each phone call as a separate TCPA count, or else specify which phone call her lone TCPA count is premised on. Brooks must amend her complaint no later than June 25, 2025. 5. The Plaintiff Summer Brooks's demand for injunctive relief, Compl. is striken. 6. No later than June 25, 2025, the parties must file a new case management report jointly proposing a bifurcated discovery timeline. The Plaintiff seeks certification of this class, subject to some exclusions not relevant here: Pre-recorded No Consent Class: "All persons throughout the United States (1) to whom PSCU placed, or caused to be placed, a call, (2) directed to a number assigned to a cellular telephone service, but not assigned to a Lone Star Credit Union customer or accountholder, (3) in connection with which PSCU used an artificial or prerecorded voice message identifying Lone Star Credit Union, (4) from four years prior to the filing of this case through the date of class certification." PSCU is a credit union service organization in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mu5ybB at no extra charge.[CC] QUALITY CARRIERS: Plaintiffs Bid for Reconsideration Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WINSTON SMITH, ET AL., v. QUALITY CARRIERS, INC., Case No. 8:24-cv-02815-VMC-AAS (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge entered an order denying the Plaintiffs Winston Smith, Duane Nelson, Jerome Jones, and Fred Dean's motion for reconsideration. The Plaintiffs fail to explain why the Court should apply a provision of the NJWPL to the NJWHL. Thus, even assuming that the NJWPL's provisions apply to the NJWHL, the NJWHL had contained a similar provision for decades prior to the Singh opinion. Even still, the Singh-court found that the NJWHL does not provide an unwaivable right to proceed as a class. Thus, the Court is unpersuaded by the Plaintiffs' argument. The Plaintiffs cite a line of cases which focus on class certification, rather than the enforceability of class waivers. In each case, the courts found that a class action was an "economically feasible remedy" due to the thousands of potential class members and small economic recoveries. But neither case's discussion of class certification related to the enforcement of a class waiver. Instead, each case was specifically focusing on the superiority-requirement to certify a class action. Thus, the Court finds that these cases do not detract from the Court's conclusion that Plaintiffs' class waivers are enforceable. Quality provides trucking transportation services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ec4lTC at no extra charge.[CC] RB GLOBAL: Faces Class Suit Over Equipment Rental Rate Conspiracy ----------------------------------------------------------------- DIPIETRO CONSTRUCTION CORP., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RB GLOBAL, INC.; ROUSE SERVICES LLC; UNITED RENTALS, INC.; SUNBELT RENTALS, INC.; HERC RENTALS INC.; HERC HOLDINGS INC.; H&E EQUIPMENT SERVICES, INC.; AND SUNSTATE EQUIPMENT CO., LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-06742 (N.D. Ill., June 18, 2025) is an antitrust action against RB Global and Rouse Services, which created a benchmarking platform that collects competitively sensitive information from its clients including rental rates, and the major construction equipment rental companies in the country, who are alleged to have conspired to artificially increase construction equipment rental prices nationwide in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The construction equipment at issue in the case includes equipment such as forklifts, bulldozers, excavators, hoes, skid steer loaders, compaction equipment, cranes, saws, generators, HVAC equipment, mobile storage equipment, modular office space, power tools, trucks, trailers, pumps, welding equipment and the like, used in residential and commercial construction. This equipment is commonly rented rather than purchased. Industry participants ordinarily use "construction equipment" to refer to large, heavy equipment and components of such equipment, rather than smaller tools. The Plaintiff seeks to recover treble damages, injunctive relief and such other relief as the Court may order against the "Rental Company Defendants." DiPietro provides comprehensive construction services and site development to commercial clients in the New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut tri-state area. DiPietro Construction occasionally rents construction equipment from large construction equipment rental companies, including one or more Defendants. Construction rental equipment Customers and their uses of construction equipment include construction companies, industrial companies such as manufacturers, chemical companies, paper mills, railroads, ship builders, utilities, municipalities, and homeowners, who use the equipment in commercial and residential construction, upgrades, expansion, repairs and major renovations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary A. Jacobs, Esq. James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 222 S. Riverside Plaza Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 E-mail: zjacobs@carellabyrne.com jcecchi@carellabyrne.com - and - Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. 1133 Avenue of the Americas, 31st FL New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (917) 438-9189 E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com - and - Michele S. Carino, Esq. GREENWICH LEGAL ASSOCIATES LLC 881 Lake Avenue Greenwich, CT 06831 Telephone: (203) 622-6001 E-mail: mcarino@grwlegal.com RILEY POPE: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Warren Due April 3, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON WARREN, on behalf of himself individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RILEY POPE & LANEY, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-01069-MGL (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Mary Geiger Lewis entered a consent amended scheduling order: 1. No later than Aug. 4, 2025, the required initial disclosures under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1) shall be made. 2. Motions to join other parties and amend the pleadings shall be filed no later than Dec. 1, 2025. 3. No later than April 3, 2026, the Plaintiff(s) shall file a motion for class certification. Any response in opposition shall be filed no later than May 15, 2026. Any reply to the response in opposition shall be filed no later than June 15, 2026. 4. No later than May 15, 2026, the Defendant(s) shall file any motions challenging the Plaintiff's class certification experts. Any response in opposition shall be filed no later than June 15, 2026. 5. No later than June 15, 2026, the Plaintiff(s) shall file any motions challenging the Defendant's class certification experts. Any response in opposition shall be filed no later than July 15, 2026. 8. Fact discovery shall be completed no later than Nov. 3, 2026. Riley is a full-service law firm representing business and financial interests throughout North Carolina and South Carolina. A copy of the Court's order dated June 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZRMWVJ at no extra charge.[CC] RITA KIRK: Elmoety Sues Over Wage and Hour Violations ----------------------------------------------------- Ahmed Elmoety, an individual, on behalf of himself and other aggrieved employees v. RITA KIRK, INC. DBA 2 BROS SMOKE SHOP & VAPE., a California Corporation; AGOB KIRKORIAN, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV16935 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 11, 2025), is brought to recover for damages arising out of his employment, including but not limited to his constructive discharge, harassment, defamation, retaliation, and wage and hour violations as a result of Defendants' unlawful labor and payroll policies and willful violation of California law and the Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA"). The Defendants systematically violated the employment rights of Plaintiff and violated, and continue to violate, the California Labor Code and Wage Order by: failing to pay for all hours worked; failing to pay minimum wages; failing to pay overtime wages; failing to provide proper rest periods, or pay premiums in lieu thereof; failing to provide proper meal periods, or pay premiums in lieu thereof; failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failing to reimburse business expenses; and failing to pay all wages owed upon separation or termination of the employment relationship. Defendant is therefore liable for civil penalties under the Cal. Labor Code, including the PAGA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant. RITA KIRK is a retail smoke shop engaged in sales of tobacco to customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patil T. Derderian, Esq. DERDERIAN LAW, PC 101 N. Brand Blvd. Suite 1450 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: 818.588.4050 Email: patil@derderianlaw.com RITTENHOUSE PLACE: Cheli Sues Over Inaccessible Property -------------------------------------------------------- Charlene Cheli, an individual, on her own behalf and on the behalf of all other similarly situated v. RITTENHOUSE PLACE INVESTORS LP, a Pennsylvania Limited Partnership, Case No. 1:25-cv-10373 (D.N.J., June 12, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("LAD"). The Plaintiff encounters architectural barriers at many of the places that she visits. Seemingly trivial architectural features such as parking spaces, curb ramps, and door handles are taken for granted by the non-disabled but, when improperly designed or implemented, can be arduous and even dangerous to those in wheelchairs. The Plaintiff has visited the Property – and the tenant spaces – on several occasions, her last visits as a patron of the occurred on April 14, 2024, and on March 15, 2025. The Plaintiff has visited the Property, specifically (but not limited to) Dunkin', Staples, and Pho Express, as a bone fide patron with the intent to avail herself of the goods and services offered to the public within but found that the Property a litany of ADA violations--both in architecture and policy. The ADA has been law for over 30 years and the Property remains non-compliant. Thus, the Plaintiff has actual notice and reasonable grounds to believe that she will continue to be subjected to discrimination by the Defendants, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a mobility impaired persons. RITTENHOUSE PLACE INVESTORS LP, owns and/or operates a place of public accommodation, in this instance a shopping center/plaza.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon G. Shadinger Jr., Esq. SHADINGER LAW, LLC 2220 N. East Avenue Vineland, NJ 08360 Phone: (609) 319-5399 Email: js@shadingerlaw.com ROB JEFFREYS: Heilner Files Suit in D. Nebraska ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rob Jeffreys, et al. The case is styled as Kevin G. Smith, on behalf of other similarly situated individuals v. Rob Jeffreys, Nebraska Dept. Corr. Service Director; Steve Fannon, The Work Ethic Camp Warden; Dawn Sheaffer, The Work Ethic Camp Staff Worker; Case No. 8:25-cv-00389-JFB-PRSE (D. Neb., June 11, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights. Rob Jeffreys was appointed as director of the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (NDCS) by Governor Jim Pillen in April 2023.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. RSCR CALIFORNIA: Class Cert Deadlines in Delgado Vacated -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DESIRAY DELGADO and MARSHA CHEVALIER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. RSCR CALIFORNIA, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-07988-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maria A. Audero entered an order vacating all dates and deadlines in the Scheduling Order. The Court sets a post mediation status conference on Sept. 3, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. via Zoom. The Parties will file a joint post-mediation status conference Report by Aug. 25, 2025, which shall address the outcome of mediation and a date by which a Motion for Preliminary Approval will be filed (if mediation is successful) or proposed dates for briefing class certification, including discovery and expert cut-off dates. A copy of the Court's order dated June 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Q9I7eT at no extra charge.[CC] SAIA MOTOR: Moore Bid to Continue Class Cert Hearing Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL MOORE, v. SAIA MOTOR FREIGHT LINE, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-03156-FLA-E (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha entered an order denying ex parte application to continue last date to hear motion for class certification. On June 6, 2025, the Plaintiff filed an ex parte application to continue the last date to hear the motion for class certification. The Defendant opposes the Application. After reviewing the Application, the court finds that the Plaintiff failed to establish good cause. Previously, the court had continued the last date to hear the motion for class certification from May 16, 2025, to July 18, 2025. In seeking an additional continuance, Plaintiff argues that he requires additional time to resolve the parties' pre-certification discovery dispute. The Plaintiff, however, fails to offer details on the specifics of this dispute and why the Defendant's responses have been inadequate. Without additional context, the court is unable to find sufficient good cause to grant Plaintiff’s Application. Saia offers purchase order verification, load building, pick-up and delivery, loading, consolidation, shipping, tracking, and carriage transportation. A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1m8qBM at no extra charge.[CC] SAMFIN RESOURCES: Farrell Files TCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Samfin Resources, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Huyen Farrell, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Samfin Resources, Norman J. Velez, Jr., LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00399-MOC-DCK (W.D.N.C., June 11, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Samfin Resources, LLC is a company that provides financial technology (FinTech) solutions for financial institutions and businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rashad Blossom, Esq. BLOSSOM LAW PLLC 301 S. McDowell St., Suite 1103 Charlotte, NC 28204 Phone: (704) 256-7766 Email: rblossom@blossomlaw.com SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment v. COH -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as COALITION ON HOMELESSNESS, et al., v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-05502-DMR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Donna M. Ryu entered an order denying the City's motion for summary judgment. The court finds that Plaintiffs have established a triable issue of fact as to whether the City has engaged in a custom or policy of Fourteenth Amendment violations. The court thus finds that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to the failure to train claim. The Plaintiffs commenced this action for declaratory and injunctive relief on Sept. 27, 2022, alleging that the City has a "custom and practice of violating the constitutional rights of unhoused people." In December 2022, the court partially granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, and the City appealed. The Plaintiffs are the Coalition on Homelessness ("Coalition"), Sarah Cronk, and Joshua Donohoe. They assert claims challenging the seizure and destruction of unhoused individuals' personal property against the Defendants. The Coalition on Homelessness is a 501(c)(3) non-profit founded in 1986 in San Francisco whose "mission is to find permanent solutions to homelessness while recognizing the dignity and human rights of unhoused people." A copy of the Court's order dated June 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=leiZCR at no extra charge.[CC] SCENTSY INC: Wenning Suit Removed to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Valerie Wenning and Cherity Bentley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SCENTSY, INC.; HEIDI THOMPSON; ORVILLE THOMPSON; DAN ORCHARD; CHUCK THOMPSON; DEB BOWDEN; JOSH ANDERSON; MARK STASTNY; PAUL KLASSEN; RICHARD STEEL; SAM JOHNSON; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. CV251066 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Del Norte, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on June 11, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-04936. The Complaint alleges the following eleven causes of action: failure to pay minimum wage and liquidated damages; failure to pay overtime wages and liquidated damages; failure to provide rest periods or rest break premium wages; failure to provide meal periods or meal premium wages; failure to timely pay wages during employment; failure to timely pay wages upon separation; failure to keep requisite payroll records; failure to provide timely and accurate wage statements; failure to reimburse business expenses; breach of contract; and unfair competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Lonnie D. Giamela, Esq. Melissa A. Huether, Esq. Lindsay R. Rosas, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 330-4500 Facsimile: (213) 330-4501 Email: lgiamela@fisherphillips.com mhuether@fisherphillips.com lrosas@fisherphillips.com SECURITY BENEFIT: Carrick Suit Seeks Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM CARRICK, a Florida resident, HOWARD ROSEN, a California resident, TERRI L. STAUFFER-SCHMIDT, an Arizona resident, DONALD P. COX, and MARTHA E. MILLER COX, Arizona residents, WAI HEE YUEN, an Arizona resident, MICHAEL A. WEBBER, an Illinois resident, individually and on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. SECURITY BENEFIT LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 5:20-cv-04038-HLT-RES (D. Kan.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for class certification: The Plaintiffs move the Court for an order certifying the case, which consists of class claims for violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL), the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, and common-law fraud under the laws of Arizona, California, Florida, and Illinois, as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) on behalf of the following Classes and Sub-classes: Nationwide Class "All owners of a TVA or SIA annuity issued by Security Benefit on or before Dec. 31, 2016, for which any portion of the Initial Purchase Payment was allocated to the ALTVI, TVBI, or MSDA Index Accounts." Arizona Subclass "All members of the Nationwide Class whose annuities were issued in Arizona." California Subclass "All members of the Nationwide Class whose annuities were issued in California." Florida Subclass "All members of the Nationwide Class whose annuities were issued in Florida." Illinois Subclass "All members of the Nationwide Class whose annuities were issued in Illinois." The Plaintiffs request that they be appointed by the Court as class representatives for the aforementioned Class and Sub-classes as follows: -- All Plaintiffs as class representatives for the Nationwide Class; -- Plaintiffs Donald Cox, Martha-Miller Cox, and Wai Hee Yuen as class representatives for the Arizona Sub-class; -- Plaintiff Howard Rosen as class representative for the California Sub-class; -- Plaintiff William Carrick as class representative for the Florida Sub-class; -- Plaintiffs Terri Stauffer-Schmidt and Michael Webber as class representatives for the Illinois Sub-class. In the alternative, if the Court does not certify the Nationwide Class, the Plaintiffs request that the Court certify the following alternative classes and appoint the proposed class representatives as follows: Alternative Backcasting Match Class "All owners of a policy listed in Ex. 3 to the Declaration of James Rouse. (Class Representatives: All Plaintiffs except Carrick)." Alternative Backcasting Receipt Class "All members of the Nationwide Class who, prior to submitting their annuity applications to Security Benefit, received a document depicting backcasted returns for whichever of the ALTVI, TVBI, or MSDA Index Accounts a portion of the Initial Purchase Payment had been allocated to. (Class Representatives: All Plaintiffs). The Plaintiffs also alternatively request certification of the applicable alternative State Sub-classes, which are each a sub-class of the proposed alternative classes above, with the same class representative for each applicable State Sub-Class proposed above. For example, the three proposed state-specific Alternative Backcasting Match Sub-Classes and proposed class representatives would be as follows: Alternative Arizona Backcasting Match Subclass "All members of the Alternative Backcasting Match Class whose annuities were issued in Arizona. (Class Representatives: Donald Cox, Martha-Miller Cox, and Yuen)." Alternative California Backcasting Match Subclass "All members of the Alternative Backcasting Match Class whose annuities were issued in California. (Class Representative: Rosen)." Alternative Illinois Backcasting Match Subclass "All members of the Alternative Backcasting Match Class whose annuities were issued in Illinois. (Class Representative: Stauffer-Schmidt and Webber)." In the event the Court determines that class-wide treatment is not appropriate as to some, but not all, of the Synthetic Indices; or determines that it is appropriate to sub-divide the proposed Nationwide Class by Synthetic Index, Plaintiffs request that the proposed Class, alternative Classes, and Sub-classes be defined by Synthetic Index, as appropriate. For example, the proposed Nationwide Class would be defined as divided into three Sub-classes and corresponding state sub-classes, with the nationwide classes defined as: Nationwide ALTVI Sub-class "All owners of a TVA annuity issued by Security Benefit on or before December 31, 2016, for which any portion of the Initial Purchase Payment was allocated to the ALTVI Index Account. (Class Representatives: All Plaintiffs except Rosen)." Nationwide TVBI Sub-class "All owners of a TVA annuity issued by Security Benefit on or before December 31, 2016, for which any portion of the Initial Purchase Payment was allocated to the TVBI Index Account. (Class Representative: Webber)." Nationwide MSDA Sub-class "All owners of an SIA annuity issued by Security Benefit on or before December 31, 2016, for which any portion of the Initial Purchase Payment was allocated to the MSDA Index Account. (Class Representative: Rosen)." Excluded from each of the foregoing Classes, Sub-classes, and Alternative Classes are Defendant Security Benefit Life Insurance Company, its officers and directors, members of their immediate families, and the heirs, successors or assigns of any of the foregoing; anyone employed with Plaintiffs’ counsel’s firms; and any Judge to whom this case is assigned, and her or his immediate family. Finally, Plaintiffs requests certification of any other subclass for which the Court determines certification is warranted in the alternative to the classes above. The Plaintiffs further request that Susman Godfrey L.L.P. be appointed as Class Counsel for each of the proposed Classes and Sub-Classes, or Alternative Classes and Alternative Sub-Classes. Security is a leader in the U.S. retirement market and wealth segments. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=B5gael at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eric D. Barton, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816)701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: ebarton@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com - and - Steven G. Sklaver, Esq. Glenn Bridgman, Esq. Michael Adamson, Esq. Seth Ard, Esq. Russell Rennie, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY LLP 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 Facsimile: (3100 789-3150 E-mail: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com gbridgman@susmangodfrey.com madamson@susmangodfrey.com sard@susmangodfrey.com rrennie@susmangodfrey.com - and - Andrew S. Friedman, Esq. Francis J. Balint, Jr., Esq. BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT, PC 7301 North 16th St., Suite 102 Phoenix, AZ 85020 Telephone: (602) 274-1100 E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com fbalint@bffb.com - and - Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq. Howard Mitchell Bushman, Esq. Joseph M. Kaye, Esq. THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC 3250 Mary Street Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 740-1423 Facsimile: (786) 298-5737 E-mail: adam@moskowitz-law.com howard@moskowitz-law.com joseph@moskowitz-law.com - and - Ingrid M. Evans, Esq. EVANS LAW FIRM, INC. 3053 Fillmore Street, Suite 236 San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 441-8669 E-mail: Ingrid@evanslaw.com SEGWAY INC: Torres Suit Removed to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jimmy W. Torres, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SEGWAY, INC., Case No. 25CV002381 was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Monterey, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on June 12, 2025, and assigned Case No. 7:25-cv-05005. The Complaint asserts five causes of action against Segway: Breach of the Implied Warranties; Violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act; Violation of the California Legal Remedies Act; Violation of the California Unfair Competition Law; and Violation of the California False Advertisement Law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jessica M. Leano, Esq. DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 2000 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7655 Phone: (714) 800-1400 Facsimile: (714) 800-1499 Email: leano.jessica@dorsey.com - and - Adam Buck, Esq. DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP 111 South Main Street, Suite 2100 Salt Lake City, UT 84111-2176 Phone: (801) 933-7360 Email: buck.adam@dorsey.com - and - Kirk W. Schuler, Esq. DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP 801 Grand Avenue, Suite 4100 Des Moines, IA 50309-2790 Phone: (515) 283-1000 Email: schuler.kirk@dorsey.com SELECT PORTFOLIO: Evans Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRET A. EVANS and LISA DESIMONE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-05985-PKC-RML (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (1) Certifying the following Classes: Upcharge Class: "All borrowers nationwide whom SPS charged inspection fees in an amount greater than the cost of the inspections charged by inspection vendors Safeguard and ServiceLink." FDCPA Class: "All borrowers nationwide to whom SPS stated in letters when SPS began servicing the loan that the loans were in default or past due AND: (1) had an inspection fee added to the loan when the inspection of the property did not conclude the home was Vacant or Abandoned; or (2) had an inspection fee added to the loan that was charged within 30 days of SPSs Account Notes reflecting contact with or from the borrower (including a promise to pay)." Breach of Contract Class: "All borrowers nationwide whose loans are not currently in a Loan Status of Default or Foreclosure or did not have a Loan Status of Default or Foreclosure when SPS ceased servicing their loans AND: (1) had an inspection fee added to the loan when the inspection of the property did not conclude the home was Vacant or Abandoned; or (2) had an inspection fee added to the loan that was charged within 30 days of SPS's Account Notes reflecting contact with or from the borrower (including a promise to pay)." The Classes exclude (i) SPS's officers, directors, employees, and agents as well as any outside counsel in this litigation; (ii) any judge to whom this case is assigned, along with his or her staff; and (iii) immediate family of any individual excluded by (i) or (ii). (2) Designating the Plaintiff Lisa DeSimone as Class Representative; and (3) Appointing Proposed Co-Lead Class Counsel as Co-Lead Class Counsel. Select is a mortgage servicer founded in 1989 and headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah with an additional office in Florida. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oyDuHR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rachel Geman, Esq. Margaret Mattes Becko, Esq. LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 355-9500 E-mail: rgeman@lchb.com mbecko@lchb.com - and - Joseph S. Tusa, Esq. TUSA P.C. 55000 Main Road, 2nd Fl. Southold, NY 11971 Telephone: (631) 407-5100 E-mail: joseph.tuspc@gmail.com - and - Catherine E. Anderson, Esq. Oren Giskan, Esq. GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP 90 Broad Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 847-8315 E-mail: canderson@gslawny.com ogiskan@gslawny.com - and - Ross E. Shanberg, Esq. SHANBERG STAFFORD LLP 4100 Newport Place, Suite 820 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 205-7515 E-mail: rshanberg@ssbfirm.com SEMLER SCIENTIFIC: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Semler Scientific, Inc. (NASDAQ: SMLR) resulting from allegations that Semler Scientific may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Semler Scientific securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=39889 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: After trading hours on February 28, 2025, Semler Scientific filed with the SEC its 2024 annual report on Form 10-K. The annual report disclosed that on February 11, 2025, Semler Scientific "began initial settlement discussions with DOJ [(the United States Department of Justice)], but ceased initial discussions on that date. Accordingly, there is a risk that DOJ will file a complaint or complaint in intervention in a civil False Claims Act lawsuit seeking damages. [Semler Scientific] does not believe the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated." On this news, Semler Scientific's stock fell over 9% on the next trading day. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. At the time Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] SHADE STORE: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Briefing ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEE FITZGERALD and KATHERINE ADLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE SHADE STORE, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-01435-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Ricardo Martinez entered an order granting stipulated motion for extension of time to file briefing on class certification: Case Event Amended Deadline The Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion July 24, 2025 for class certification and opposition to motions to exclude: The Defendant's reply in support of Aug. 28, 2025 motions to exclude: A hearing on Plaintiffs’ anticipated motion for class certification shall be set by the Court following the close of the Parties’ briefing should the Court determine to hold a hearing pursuant to LCR 7(b)(2)(4). A schedule addressing any remaining deadlines for the close of merits fact discovery, dispositive motions, pretrial conference, and any trial shall be set by the Court, if needed, following the Court's decision on class certification. Shade is a home decoration products provider. A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=V133Lj at no extra charge.[CC] SIAM 90 CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Basurto Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- SALVADOR ANGEL BASURTO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIAM 90 CORP. D/B/A THAI PEPPERCORN; NOPADOL NATNITHITHADHA; and PORNTIP NATNITHITHADHA, Defendants, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-04706 (S.D.N.Y., June 5, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Basurto was employed by the Defendants as a delivery worker. Siam 90 Corp. d/b/a Thai Peppercorn owns and operates a restaurant located at Madison Avenue, New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 SIKA CORPORATION: Cook Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PHILLIP J. COOK, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. SIKA CORPORATION, Case No. 2:24-cv-11304-ES-JBC (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for conditional certification pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Sika is a specialty chemicals company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6Cb6Bv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip Bohrer, Esq. Scott E. Brady, Esq. BOHRER BRADY, LLC 8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Telephone: (225) 925-5297 Facsimile: (225) 231-7000 E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com scott@bohrerbrady.com - and - Ravi Sattiraju, Esq. SATTIRAJU & THARNEY, LLP 50 Millstone Road Building 300, Suite 202 East Windsor, NJ 08520 Telephone: (609) 469-2110 Facsimile: (609) 228-5649 E-mail: rsattiraju@s-tlawfirm.com SONOS INC: Faces Blair Suit Over App's Poor Functionality --------------------------------------------------------- SCOTT BLAIR, RYAN BOLANOWSKI, and JOHN WELCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SONOS INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-05471 (June 16, 2025) seeks to remedy harms individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, whose Sonos device performance was impacted as a result of the Defendant's forced implementation of "App Redesign," pursuant to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, California Computer Access and Fraud Act, False and Misleading Advertising Law, California's Unfair Competition Law, Illinois' Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Illinois' Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. Sonos products are controlled through a mobile application (Sonos App) on the Sonos device owner's mobile device, tablet, or computer. The Sonos App originally allowed users to install new devices, enable playback, change volume and other sound settings, and integrate the Sonos products with third-party services such as Spotify, Apple Music, or Amazon Alexa. On May 7, 2024, Sonos released a redesigned version of the Sonos App (App Redesign) that materially changed the interface and functionality of the application, and, consequently, the devices. Sonos promoted the App Redesign as an improvement, claiming that it would offer a faster and more streamlined experience. In many cases, Sonos users were required to update to the App Redesign in order to continue using their Sonos products, either through direct prompts or as a result of automatic firmware updates pushed to the devices themselves. Users were not given the option to revert to the prior version once the update was installed. The App Redesign was released with significant bugs and performance issues. Users reported that the App Redesign frequently crashed, failed to connect with devices, and lacked stable connection to the Sonos products, says the suit. Many Sonos users experienced interruptions in audio playback and long delays between input and responses. In addition to the technical bugs, the App Redesign removed or disabled features that had been available in prior versions of the Sonos App. For example, the app's alarm scheduling function, which allowed users to schedule audio playback at specified times, was defunct. Sonos later acknowledged that it had disabled this feature due to a known data corruption issue, but did not disclose this information at the time of release. Other missing features included music library access, playlist editing, and the ability to search across multiple streaming devices simultaneously. Employee concerns, as later reported, made clear that Sonos was aware that the app was not ready when it was released. Despite this, Sonos continued to market the new version as an improvement and failed to warn users of the known issues, the suit added. As a result, Sonos users expected a fully functional app and devices, but instead received a degraded app that sometimes rendered their current Sonos products ineffective or useless. Many users lost the benefit of key features that had influenced their purchase decisions. Sonos is an audio technology company that designs, manufactures, and sells wireless audio products. Sonos offers a range of products from smart speakers, sound bars, subwoofers, amplifiers, and network audio streamers. These devices allow users to stream music and other audio content from various sources, such as online streaming services, local libraries, and internet radio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. Christopher E. Stiner, Esq. Sarper Unal, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 West Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com cstiner@ahdootwolfson.com sunal@ahdootwolfson.com ST. CHARLES: Wins Summary Judgment v. Reiger -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTINE REIGER, v. ST. CHARLES HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., and RAY KLEIN, INC., Case No. 6:24-cv-00334-MC (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Michael J. McShane entered an order granting and denying the Defendant St. Charles's Motionand Defendant Ray Klein's Motion, as follows: The Court grants St. Charles's Motion for summary judgment as to the Plaintiff's First Claim alleging violations of ORS 646A.677(4) and denies the Motion as to the Plaintiff's First Claim alleging violations of ORS 646A.677(7). The Court grants St. Charles's Motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's Fourth Claim. The Court grants Ray Klein's Motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's Second, Third, and Fifth Claims. The Court therefore concludes that "referring for collection" specifically concerns delinquent debts ripe for extraordinary collections measures. The Plaintiff Reiger brings this action against Defendants St. Charles Health System and Ray Klein, seeking clarification of Oregon's charity care laws and alleging violations of Oregon’s Unlawful Debt Collection Practices Act ("UDCPA"), Unlawful Trade Practices Act ("UTPA"), and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). on Feb. 22, 2024, the Plaintiff filed this action against St. Charles and Ray Klein, alleging that they violated Oregon's laws governing nonprofit hospitals and fair debt collection practices. St. Charles is an Oregon-based nonprofit hospital network and healthcare company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=I27yR7 at no extra charge.[CC] STARBUCKS CORP: Bollinger Suit Voluntarily Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA BOLLINGER, et al., v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION, Case No. 1:24-cv-00303-JLT-SAB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stanley Boone entered an order directing the Clerk of the Court to adjust the docket to reflect voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41(a). On June 12, 2025, the parties filed a stipulation dismissing this action with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. While Plaintiffs have brought the case as a putative class action, the Court agrees with the parties that Rule 41(a), not Rule 23(e), applies in the disposition of this matter because no class has been certified. As no class has been certified in this action, the putative class members are not bound by the settlement and dismissal of this action. Therefore, the Court construes the parties' stipulation to dismiss this action to be with prejudice as to Plaintiffs and without prejudice as to the putative class members. Starbucks is an American multinational chain of coffeehouses and roastery reserves. A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9nTFya at no extra charge.[CC] STIFEL & NICOLAUS: Faces Clifford Suit Over Cash Sweep Programs --------------------------------------------------------------- RITA ANN CLIFFORD, Individually and as Trustee of the YVONNE B WILLIAMS TRUST, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. STIFEL, NICOLAUS & CO., INC. and STIFEL FINANCIAL CORP., Case No. 4:25-cv-00896 (E.D. Mo., June 18, 2025) arises out of Stifel's drastic under-payment of interest to its clients in its cash sweep programs. While expressly acting as its clients' agent with respect to its cash sweep programs, Stifel violated its fiduciary, contractual, and implied duties by underpaying its clients to enrich itself and its affiliates at its clients' expense, the Plaintiff contends. Rather than pay clients a fair and reasonable rate of interest on their cash balances and put their clients' interests above its own as it was obligated to do, Stifel instead paid de minimis rates to its clients, unjustly obtaining for itself and its affiliates hundreds of millions of dollars from that cash during periods of rising interest rates, the Plaintiff adds. In a typical cash sweep program for a brokerage client, the brokerage firm, acting as its client's agent with respect to the cash sweep program, establishes and maintains interest-bearing sweep accounts at participating banks on its client's behalf and automatically transfers or "sweeps" uninvested cash (also known as a "free credit balance") from the client’s brokerage account into the sweep accounts that generate returns for the client. Ms. Clifford is a citizen of California. As Trustee of the Yvonne B Williams Trust, dated October 1, 1992, she maintained a self-managed brokerage account with Stifel. As beneficiary of decedent Yvonne B Williams' Individual Retirement Account (IRA), she maintained a retirement account with Stifel. As a Stifel client, cash balances held in Plaintiff's accounts were swept into Stifel's retirement and non-retirement account cash sweep programs, which paid unreasonably low interest on those balances. Stifel Financial provides banking, securities, and financial services through several wholly owned subsidiaries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew S. Williams, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLP One Court Street Alton, IL 62002 Telephone: (618) 693-3104 E-mail: awilliams@simmonsfirm.com - and - Michael J. Angelides, Esq. 231 S. Bemiston Avenue, Suite 525 Saint Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (618) 693-3104 E-mail: mangelides@simmonsfirm.com - and - Thomas I. Sheridan, III, Esq. Sona R. Shah, Esq. An V. Truong, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLP 112 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 784-6404 E-mail: tsheridan@simmonsfirm.com sshah@simmonsfirm.com atruong@simmonsfirm.com - and - Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq. Alex B. Heller, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 E-mail: mdellangelo@bm.net aheller@bm.net - and - Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq. John Rizio-Hamilton, Esq. Adam Wierzbowski, Esq. Michael Blatchley, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 E-mail: salvatore@blbglaw.com johnr@blbglaw.com adam@blbglaw.com michael@blbglaw.com - and - Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. Rosanne L. Mah, Esq. GIBBS MURA LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, California 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 E-mail: rmr@classlawgroup.com rlm@classlawgroup.com - and - Brian E. Johnson, Esq. GIBBS MURA LLP 211 N. Union St., Suite 100 Alexandria, VA 22314 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 E-mail: bej@classlawgroup.com STRATEGIC STAFFING: Class Settlement in Norton Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAULA NORTON, v. STRATEGIC STAFFING SOLUTIONS, L.C., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-06648-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for final approval of the parties' class action settlement. In addition, the Court grants in part the Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and costs; specifically, the Court awards the following: -- $1,164,600.43 in attorneys' fees; -- $28,098.29 in litigation costs; -- $8,500 in settlement administration costs; and -- $10,000 for a service award for Plaintiff Paula Norton. In accordance with the Northern District's Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements, "within 21 days after the distribution of the settlement funds and payment of attorneys' fees," Class Counsel shall file "a Post-Distribution Accounting." Class Counsel shall "summarize this information in an easy-to-read chart that allows for quick comparisons with other cases," and "post the Post-Distribution Accounting, including the easy-toread chart, on the settlement website." To the extent the parties agree to a different schedule including a staged process for a motion to approve distribution as discussed at the final approval hearing, they shall file a stipulation with these dates. The Settlement Class is composed of two classes: The Non-Exempt Class: "All non-exempt persons who worked at least one 3.5-hour shift for Defendants, whether as a direct-hire or agency employee, in the State of California during the Release Period." The Exempt Class: "All persons who worked at least one 3.5-hour shift for Defendants in the State of California and were classified as an exempt employee during the Release Period." In this wage and hour action, the Plaintiff alleges Strategic Staffing Solutions-S3, LLC and Cynthia Pasky, S3's Chief Executive Officer, systematically misclassified its recruiters as exempt employees. Strategic provides staff augmentation, direct hire recruiting, workforce programs, and outsourced solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated June 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oBGcDy at no extra charge.[CC] SUBARU OF AMERICA: Plaintiffs' Bid to Certify Class Reinstated -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WESTON, et al., v. SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-05876 (D.N.J., Filed May 13, 2020), the Hon. Judge Christine P. O'Hearn entered an order reinstating the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class, and Plaintiffs' motion to amend/correct motion to certify class. The Parties shall meet and confer and submit a joint proposed amended scheduling order within seven days of the Order. The suit alleges violation of the Contract Product Liability. Subaru of America, Inc., based in Camden, New Jersey, is the United States–based distributor of Subaru's brand vehicles.[CC] SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Class Cert Filing in Fischer Due Dec. 1 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS FISCHER, BRIAN BLAIR and MARGARET BLAZIC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-02232-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order granting briefing schedule for Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is as follows: The Plaintiffs to file Motion for Dec. 1, 2025 Class Certification: The Defendant to file Opposition: Jan. 23, 2026 The Plaintiffs to file Reply: Feb. 20, 2026 Hearing Date: March 5, 2026 Swift is an American truckload motor shipping carrier. A copy of the Court's order dated June 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=c014te at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nathan B. Piller, Esq. Frank J. White Jr., Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: npiller@schneiderwallace.com fwhite@schneiderwallace.com The Defendant is represented by: Paul S. Cowie, Esq. John D. Ellis, Esq. Nina Montazeri, Esq. Alexis Cherry, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4109 Telephone: (415) 434-9100 Facsimile: (415) 434-3947 E-mail: pcowie@sheppardmullin.com jellis@sheppardmullin.com nmontazeri@sheppardmullin.com acherry@sheppardmullin.com TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR: Bid for Leave to File SAC Partly OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH HOWINGTON, et al., v. TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING CO., LTD., et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-05684-VKD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file second amended complaint (SAC). The plaintiffs' motion for leave to file their proposed SAC is (1) granted as unopposed with respect to the existing thirteen named plaintiffs; (2) granted with respect to the fifteen proposed new plaintiffs to the extent they assert the same claims on behalf of themselves and a putative class; and (3) denied with respect to individual, non-class claims asserted on behalf of any of the proposed new plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs shall promptly file their SAC, as permitted and in accordance with the Court's rulings in this order, as a separate docket entry on ECF by June 30, 2025. To the extent TSMC argues that the proposed new plaintiffs’ claims are not, in fact, representative of the class, or that the proposed new plaintiffs do not have claims in common with the class, or that the proposed new plaintiffs present claims for which there are no commons questions of law or fact, the Court finds that these arguments are best addressed at class certification. In view of the diverse circumstances alleged as the bases for each of these individuals’ respective retaliation claims, and the highly-individualized proof required, plaintiffs have not shown that their proposed amendments satisfy Rule 20’s joinder requirements. The Plaintiffs allege employment discrimination by TSMC. According to the operative first amended complaint (FAC), TSMC engages in an "intentional pattern and practice of employment discrimination against individuals who are not of East Asian race, not of Taiwanese or Chinese national origin, and who are not citizens of Taiwan or China, including discrimination in hiring, staffing, promotion, and retention/termination decisions." Additionally, plaintiffs allege that "TSMC routinely subjects non-East Asians (including those who are not of Taiwanese or Chinese descent) to a hostile work environment where verbal abuse, gaslighting, isolation, and humiliation is common, and oftentimes leads to the constructive discharge of these employees." The FAC asserts claims on behalf of two putative classes, defined as follows: "All non-East Asian, non-Taiwanese, and non-Chinese individuals who: (1) applied for positions with or within TSMC North America, TSMC Technology, TSMC Arizona and/or TSMC Washington in the United States and were not hired, (2) were employed by one or more of these entities (including contractors), but were not promoted, and/or (3) were employed by one or more of these entities (including contractors) and were involuntarily terminated or constructively discharged." "All individuals who are not Taiwanese or Chinese citizens who: (1) applied for positions with or within TSMC North America, TSMC Technology, TSMC Arizona and/or TSMC Washington in the United States and were not hired, (2) were employed by one or more of these entities (including contractors), but were not promoted, and/or (3) were employed by one or more of these entities (including contractors) and were involuntarily terminated or constructively discharged." Taiwan is a multinational semiconductor contract manufacturing and design company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yjm5c0 at no extra charge.[CC] TNT CRANE: Wisby Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------- Richard Wisby, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TNT CRANE & RIGGING, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00148 (S.D. Tex., June 11, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid compensation, including overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"). Although Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members routinely worked (and continue to work) in excess of 40 hours per workweek, Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members were not paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. During the relevant time period, the Defendant knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members for overtime compensation on a routine and regular basis. The Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members did not and currently do not perform work that meets the definition of exempt work under the FLSA. The Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members seek to recover all unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, and other damages owed under the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as salaried Dispatchers, TNT Crane is an crane rental company operating primarily around the State of Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Phone: 361-452-1279 Facsimile: 361-452-1284 Email: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com TOWER HEALTH: Faces Brennan Securities Suit Over Fiduciary Duties ----------------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS BRENNAN, LAUREN BRADT, AND DEBRA WERNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TOWER HEALTH SYSTEM, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF TOWER HEALTH SYSTEM, THE FIDUCIARY COMMITTEE OF TOWER HEALTH SYSTEM, and JOHN DOES 1-20, Case No. 5:25-cv-03062 (E.D. Pa., June 16, 2025)is a class action brought pursuant to Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) against the Plan's fiduciaries. The fiduciaries include Tower Health, the Board of Trustees of Tower Health System and its members during the Class Period and the Fiduciary Committee of Tower Health System and its members during the Class Period. The Plan is a defined contribution plan, established pursuant to 29 U.S.C. sections 1002(2)(A) and 1002(34) of ERISA, that enables eligible participants to make tax-deferred contributions from their salaries to the Plan. Accordingly, to safeguard Plan participants and beneficiaries, ERISA imposes strict fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence upon employers and other plan fiduciaries. Fiduciaries must act "solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries," with the "care, skill, prudence, and diligence" that would be expected in managing a plan of similar scope. At all times during the Class Period, the Plan had significant assets under management. At the Plan’s fiscal year end in 2019, the Plan had $492,637,342 in assets under management that were/are entrusted to the care of the Plan’s fiduciaries. The Defendants also caused the Plan to enter into an arrangement with Lincoln Financial, a party in interest, under which Lincoln received millions of dollars in exchange for recordkeeping services rendered to the Plan. The Defendants' conduct was especially egregious given that Lincoln received additional income from certain of the Plan's investment securities, the suit alleges. Tower Health is the Plan sponsor and a named fiduciary with a principal place of business being Sixth Avenue and Spruce Street, West Reading, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. A. Maro, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Facsimile: (717) 232-3080 E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com jamesm@capozziadler.com TRELLIS RESEARCH: Eom Files Suit in C.D. California --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trellis Research, Inc. The case is styled as Victoria Eom, Kirsten Curley, Megan Trama, Jesika Brodiski, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. Trellis Research, Inc. d/b/a Trellis, a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-05331 (C.D. Cal., June 12, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Trellis Research -- https://trellis.law/ -- is a state trial court legal research and analytics platform with AI-based insights on judges.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alexander E. Wolf, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 280 South Beverly Drive, Penthouse Beveryly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: (872) 365-7060 Email: awolf@milberg.com - and - William Edelman, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 227 West Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: wedelman@milberg.com TURQUOISE HILL: Bid for More Time to File Class Cert Response OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit re Turquoise Hill Resources Ltd. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:20-cv-08585 (S.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 14, 2020), the Hon. Judge Lewis J. Liman entered an order granting joint letter motion for extension of time to file class certification response/reply. The nature of suit states Securities / Commodities / Exchange Stockholder Suit. Turquoise Hill Resources was a Canadian mineral exploration and development company headquartered in Montreal, Quebec, and since December 2022, a wholly owned subsidiary of Rio Tinto Group. UNICOURT INC: Trama Files Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against UniCourt Inc. The case is styled as Megan Trama, Victoria Eom, Lacey Timmons, Jesika Brodiski, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. UniCourt Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-05338-FMO-MAA (C.D. Cal., June 12, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. UniCourt -- https://unicourt.com/ -- is the original Legal Data as a Service (LDaaS) company, providing real-time court data and legal analytics you can trust.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William Edelman, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 227 West Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: wedelman@milberg.com - and - Alexander E. Wolf, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 280 South Beverly Drive, Penthouse Beveryly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: (872) 365-7060 Email: awolf@milberg.com UNITED STATES: Class Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Brownsville Division, addressed a habeas corpus petition filed under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 by Petitioners J.A.V., J.G.G., and W.G.H. The Petitioners challenged their potential removal from the United States under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), 50 U.S.C. Section 21, and a March 14, 2025, Proclamation by President Donald Trump targeting members of the Venezuelan criminal organisation Tren De Aragua (TdA). Simultaneously, Petitioners sought class certification for all noncitizens in custody in the Southern District of Texas subject to the Proclamation. Threshold Question: Class Certification in Habeas Proceedings The Court first examined whether class actions are permissible in habeas corpus cases. While neither the Supreme Court nor the Fifth Circuit has explicitly ruled on this issue, other circuits have allowed class-like procedures in habeas cases under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1651. The Ninth Circuit in Mead v. Parker (1972) and the Second Circuit in U.S. ex rel. Sero v. Preiser (1974) endorsed multi-party habeas proceedings to resolve common legal questions efficiently. The Court found these precedents( Sero v. Preiser (1974) persuasive and concluded that, in appropriate circumstances, district courts may adopt procedures analogous to Rule 23 class actions in habeas cases. Rule 23 Analysis The Court evaluated whether the proposed class met the Rule 23(a) prerequisites: Numerosity Petitioners argued the class could include hundreds of Venezuelan detainees, citing a government declaration identifying 86 detained individuals and 172 at liberty subject to the Proclamation. Respondents countered that only the Named Petitioners and one other individual (Zacarias Matos) currently fall within the proposed class. The Court acknowledged the fluid nature of immigration detention, noting Respondents' ability to transfer detainees into the Southern District of Texas. Given the potential for geographic dispersion and the impracticality of joinder for unknown future class members, the Court found numerosity satisfied. Commonality Petitioners raised common legal questions, including: -- Whether the Proclamation lawfully invoked the AEA. -- Whether the AEA's application violates due process or the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). -- Whether removal procedures comply with the Convention Against Torture. The Court agreed these issues were central to all class members' claims, even though individualized hearings might be needed to determine TdA membership. Citing In re Deepwater Horizon, the Court held that common legal questions predominated over factual differences. Typicality Respondents argued that Named Petitioners' claims were atypical because they had already received notice of their designation as alien enemies, while future class members might not. The Court rejected this, finding that all claims arose from the same conduct (designation under the Proclamation) and shared the same legal theories. Minor factual disparities did not defeat typicality. Adequacy of Representation Respondents did not challenge the competence of proposed class counsel, led by the ACLU's Lee Gelernt. The Court found counsel adequately qualified to represent the class. Application of the All Writs Act The Court declined to rule definitively on whether Rule 23 applies to habeas cases. Instead, it relied on the All Writs Act to fashion a class-like remedy, noting the "unusual circumstances" of the case justified a streamlined approach to avoid duplicative litigation. The common legal issues—particularly the validity of the Proclamation—warranted a collective resolution, while individualized TdA membership hearings could proceed separately if necessary. Conclusion and Order For the foregoing reasons, the Court granted the Petitioners' Motion for Class Certification. Specifically, a class is certified comprising Venezuelan aliens (aged 14+) designated or to be designated as alien enemies under the March 14, 2025, Proclamation, who are detained or reside in the Southern District of Texas. Respondents are permanently enjoined from detaining, transferring, or removing J.A.V., J.G.G., W.G.H., and the members of the certified class, under the Alien Enemies Act, 50 U.S.C. Section 21, and based on the Presidential Proclamation, "Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren de Aragua," 90 Fed. Reg. 13033. Lee Gelernt of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is appointed lead class counsel, with all ACLU attorneys on record as co-counsel. The Court emphasized that this procedural mechanism would promote judicial efficiency while safeguarding individual rights A copy of the court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ippybY UNITED STATES: Faces Suit Over Use of Force at Demonstrations ------------------------------------------------------------- MSN reports that Protesters, legal observers and journalists are suing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in Los Angeles federal court for allegedly attacking them with retaliatory violence in violation of their constitutional rights to protest and report on government actions, it was announced Friday, June 20. The suit -- brought by the Los Angeles Press Club, the NewsGuild-Communications Workers of America, three journalists, two protesters and a legal observer -- alleges that the DHS use of force at demonstrations against recent immigration raids punishes and suppresses the exercise of First Amendment-protected rights. According to the complaint filed June 18, DHS misuses weaponry, including chemical agents such as tear gas, rubber bullets, impact munitions, pepper balls, pepper spray, exploding grenades, batons and fists to retaliate against protesters, legal observers and reporters to create a violent spectacle the Trump administration is using as a pretext to turn the military against Californians. A DHS representative did not immediately respond to a request for comment. "Each time the community rises in protest against the federal government's attacks on our people, DHS retaliates with sweeping, excessive force," stated Peter Eliasberg, chief counsel at the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, which represents plaintiffs. "Federal law enforcement has brutalized demonstrators, causing disorder in a circular ploy to justify deploying military domestically against now and future protesters," he said. "But people have the right to keep protesting the violent separation of families and ICE's terrorizing of our people." Adam Rose, press rights chair of the L.A. Press Club, alleged that since June 6, at least seven members of the club have been subject to use of force or suffered a serious press rights violation by DHS officers. "These journalists were just doing their job, not breaking any law," Rose said. "Democracy depends on an informed public. An informed public depends on a press free to do its job without fearing violence by federal agents." Alongside the complaint is a request for a temporary restraining order, asking the court to issue an order restraining DHS before the weekend. The application, which is supported by dozens of declarations from protesters, legal observers and journalists describing alleged DHS attacks and resulting injuries, including concussion, blood clots, bruising and burns. Plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief. Earlier in the week, the Press Club and two news organizations sued Los Angeles County in federal court, alleging the Sheriff's Department has targeted media members with non-lethal but dangerous munitions and engaged in excessive force against its members who have covered recent protests. A previous suit, filed in federal court by the Press Club and reporting network Status Coup accuses the Los Angeles Police Department and its chief of violating reporters' rights while they were covering recent immigration raids and subsequent civil unrest. [GN] UNITED STATES: Masseur Seeks FLSA Conditional Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTY G. MASSEUR, TAYLOR ALLEN, and MELISSA M. GEORGE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Case No. 1:23-cv-02129-RCL-GMH (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying the proposed collective under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to enter an order: (2) directing USPS to produce an updated list of Potential Opt- Ins, specifically, a computer-readable data file containing the names, last known mailing addresses, last known telephone numbers, last known personal and work email addresses, Social Security numbers (for those notices returned undeliverable), and work locations and dates of work for all Potential Opt-Ins; and (3) directing USPS to mail and email the proposed Notice, Consent to Join form (4) authorizing the Plaintiffs' counsel to send email and text Reminder Notices to the Potential Opt-Ins, and (5) authorizing the Plaintiffs' counsel to make the Notice and Consent to Join forms available on a stand-alone website established for the purpose of notifying Potential Opt-Ins of this lawsuit and their right to opt in. U.S. Postal Service provides mail processing and delivery services to individuals and businesses. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=O9q4ry at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Leslie Pescia, Esq. Christopher Williams, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: lpescia@sirillp.com cwilliams@sirillp.com UNITED STATES: Must File Class Cert Response by July 31 in Hagans ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAGANS v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01671 (D.D.C., Filed May 26, 2025), the Hon. Judge Ana C. Reyes entered an order on motion for extension of time. The Defendants shall have until July 31, 2025, to respond to Plaintiff's motion to certify class. The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus – General. The United States Parole Commission is the parole board responsible for granting or denying parole to, and supervising the parole releases of, incarcerated individuals who fall under its jurisdiction.[CC] VERA BRADLEY: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Vera Bradley, Inc. (NASDAQ:VRA) resulting from allegations that Vera Bradley may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Vera Bradley securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=40454 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On June 11, 2025, Vera Bradley announced its financial results for the first quarter of the 2026 fiscal year. Commenting on the results, Vera Bradley's CEO stated that "our first quarter results were disappointing as top line and profitability trends from the previous several quarters continued." On this news, the price of Vera Bradley stock fell 19% on June 11, 2025. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. At the time Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Gorlamari Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRANTHI GORLAMARI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., TED WHITE, P. TERENCE KOHLER JR. and A. BRIAN DAVIS, Case No. 2:22-cv-02226-MSG (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. Certifying the following Class pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: "All persons and entities that purchased the publicly-traded common stock of Verrica between May 19, 2021 and May 24, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby." Excluded from the Class are: (a) persons and entities that suffered no compensable losses; and (b)(i) the Defendants; (ii) any person who served as an officer and/or director of Verrica during the Class Period, and members of their immediate families; (iii) any entity in which any excluded person or entity has or had a controlling interest; (iv) any trust of which a defendant is the settlor or which is for the benefit of a defendant and/or member(s) of their immediate families; and (v) the legal representatives, heirs, successors, predecessors, and assigns of any person or entity excluded under provisions (i) through (iv) hereof. 2. Appointing Kranthi Gorlamari as Class Representative for the Class; 3. Appointing Lead Counsel Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as Class Counsel; and 4. Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper. Verrica is a dermatology therapeutics company developing medications for skin diseases requiring medical interventions. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eeBHmL at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee Albert, Esq. Leanne H. Solish, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Ave., Suite 530 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 E-mail: lalbert@glancylaw.com lsolish@glancylaw.com - and - Frank R. Cruz, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 914-5007 WELLS FARGO BANK: Cochrane Suit Removed to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Janelle Cochrane, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Zenleads, Inc., Case No. CGC-25-624186 was removed from the Superior Court for the County of San Francisco, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on June 12, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-04970-SK to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Zenleads, Inc. doing business as Apollo.io -- https://www.apollo.io/ -- is a market sales platform that helps accelerate the growth of an organization.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Michael Constantine Bleicher, Esq. ZWILLGEN PLLC 1900 M St NW, Ste 250 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 296-3585 Email: michael.bleicher@zwillgen.com WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Must Oppose Costa Class Cert Bid by July 10 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as STACY COSTA, RYAN BUTLER, MARK GANDARA, NATHANIEL GUERRERO, DAVID HAYDEN, PATRICK KEMPF, WALLACE MCDUFFEY, TIMOTHY MIDDLEBROOKS, MISSY ROBINSON, MISTY ROMBACH, KRISTEN TATA, MELANIE FIORUCCI, LAMONT KINCAID, and LESLIE LAMANNA individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, Case No. 1:24-cv-00188-MN (D. Del.), the Hon. Judge Maryellen Noreika entered a scheduling order Event Deadline Substantial Completion of Class Sept. 19, 2025 Certification Document Discovery: Deadline for Fact Discovery Related to Jan. 10, 2026 Class Certification: Joinder of Other Parties and Amendment Jan. 10, 2026 of Pleadings: Plaintiffs' Class Certification Expert Feb. 7, 2026 Reports: Defendant's Class Certification Expert March 7, 2026 Rebuttal Reports: Expert Discovery Cut-Off: May 15, 2026 Motion for Class Certification: June 12, 2026 Opposition to Class Certification Motion: July 10, 2026 Reply in Support of Class Certification: Aug. 7, 2026 Motions for Summary Judgment: June 11, 2027 Pretrial Conference: Oct. 25, 2027 at 4:30 p.m. 10-day* Jury Trial: Nov. 1, 2027 Whirlpool is an American multinational manufacturer and marketer of home appliances. A copy of the Court's order dated June 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=coPucw at no extra charge.[CC] ZUFFA LLC: Court Certifies Reza Class Action -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Reza et al v. Zuffa, LLC et al., (re: Fight Pass Auto-Renewal Litigation), Case No. 2:23-cv-00802-CDS-EJY (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge Cristina D. Silva entered final approval order and judgment: 1. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, this court finally certifies this action, for purposes of settlement, a class action on behalf of: "All natural persons with a current or former paid Fight Pass subscription (i.e. Active or Inactive Subscribers) within the Class Period in the following states: California, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Virginia, and Vermont." ("Settlement Class"). Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) all attorneys and employees of the Settlement Class Counsel; (2) any judicial officer to whom the action is assigned; and (3) persons who validly opt out of the Class Action Settlement by following the procedures set forth in the Agreement. 2. Hart L. Robinovitch of Zimmerman Reed LLP, Timothy Fisher of Bursor & Fisher, P.A., and Chad Saunders of Crosner Legal, P.C. are appointed as Class Counsel. The Plaintiffs Moises Resa, Frank Garza, Tanner Pendergraft, Isaiah Sanchez, and Saul Garcia shall serve as Class Representatives. 3. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h), the court awards Class Counsel total attorneys’ fees, in the amount of $400,000.00, said amount to be deducted from the Gross Settlement Fund pursuant to Paragraph 4.1 of the Settlement Agreement and Release and paid as follows: $133,333.34 to Zimmerman Reed LLP; $133,333.33 to Bursor & Fisher, P.A.; and $133,333.33 to Crosner Legal, P.C. 4. In addition, the court separately awards Class Counsel total costs and expenses pursuant to Paragraph 4.1 of the Settlement Agreement and Release in the amount of $23,902.79. This amount shall be deducted from the Gross Settlement Fund pursuant to Paragraph 4.1 of the Settlement Agreement and Release and paid to each respective Class Counsel in amounts set forth in their declarations. 5. The court also orders payment of service award(s) in the amount(s) of $2,500.00 to plaintiff Moises Reza, $2,500.00 to the plaintiff Frank Garza, $2,500.00 to plaintiff Tanner Pendergraft, $2,500.00 to plaintiff Isaiah Sanchez, and $2,500.00 to plaintiff Saul Garcia. These amounts are to be paid in the time and manner described in the Settlement Agreement. Zuffa is an American sports promotion company specializing in mixed martial arts. A copy of the Court's order dated June 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=d1Z5XS at no extra charge.[CC] Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Estimates $15.3MM Liability -------------------------------------------------------------- From time to time, certain subsidiaries of Columbus McKinnon Corporation, along with a number of unrelated third parties, are named as defendants in personal injury claims and lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials, respectively, according to the Company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Columbus McKinnon states, "The Company estimated the asbestos liability to be $15.3 million and $15.5 million as of March 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024, respectively. This is expected to represent a reasonable estimate of the remaining remediation. "Certain of the Company's subsidiaries subject to asbestos-related personal injury claims have maintained product liability insurance policies. Certain of these policies provide a source of probable recovery of a portion of losses incurred and paid, as well as a portion of estimated probable future losses accrued as of March 31, 2025. An additional source of probable recovery of uninsured losses is an unrelated third party which manufactured component products for the Company's subsidiaries that are alleged to give rise to asbestos-related injuries. The Company estimated the probable number of losses to be recovered from insurance and/or unrelated third parties to be $14.9 million and $15.2 million as of March 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024, respectively." A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3zm45b ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Awards $16MM Verdict Against Asbestos Corp. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kerry Jones, writing for jdsupra.com, reports that a Washington state court awarded $16 million to the estate of decedent Steven Korzerke after a default judgment was entered against defendant Asbestos Corp. LTD, a Canada-based asbestos mining company. Decedent worked at a Washington state paper facility for two summers where he was purportedly exposed to asbestos-containing insulation on boilers, pipes, and pulp digesting machines. These machines were dismantled for repair and maintenance in his presence. Decedent's father also worked at the same facility for several decades, including during decedent's childhood, and purportedly wore his work clothing home. Decedent, whose father passed from mesothelioma, developed lung cancer and passed at the age of 67. The Decedent's widow ultimately sued Asbestos Corp. under strict liability and negligent failure-to-warn theories. Asbestos Corp. did not participate in discovery in this matter. The trial court entered a default judgment against Asbestos Corp. and awarded $16 million to decedent’s estate, including $7.5. million to decedent's widow for loss of consortium. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Henderson Awarded $2.5MM Judgement Against J&J --------------------------------------------------------------- Terri Oppenheimer, writing for mesothelioma.net, reports that in the last several years, men and women who've never worked with asbestos have traced their mesothelioma diagnoses back to a product once thought safe: Talc body powder. Juries have awarded millions of dollars in damages after hearing what victims have learned the hard way — that asbestos contamination is common in talc, and that years of talc powder use can lead to disabling and even fatal diseases. In one of the most recently resolved of these legal cases, Jeannine Henderson accused consumer giant Johnson & Johnson, Pecos River Talc, and others of negligently exposing her to asbestos in their talc products. The lawsuit resulted in over $3 million being awarded to her and her family. The jury awarded the mesothelioma victim $2.5 million to compensate her for her medical expenses, $90,000 for each of her two children, and $85,000 each for her loss of enjoyment of life, her mental anguish, and physical pain and suffering. ********* 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 ***