250702.mbx

250702.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, July 2, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 131 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Kerr Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Klik Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Lawless Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Lepouski Sues Over Contaminated Protective Clothing 3M COMPANY: Sammons Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ALL THINGS GO: Rocha Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California AMERICAN MULTISPECIALTY: Garside Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri AMERICAN MULTISPECIALTY: Walker Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri AMERICAN MULTISPECIALTY: Willis Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri AMERICAN MULTISPECIALTY: Wippold Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri APPLE INC: Salas Suit Removed to C.D. California AT&T INC: N.D. Tex. Dismisses Securities Class Action Suit AUDIBLE INC: Sherk Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington AUTOZONE INC: Shapllo Suit Removed to S.D. Florida BELK INC: Larson Files Suit in W.D. North Carolina BOARD AND BRUSH: Brockington Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Tennessee BOLLA OPERATING: Vasquez Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification BOOKING.COM: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Deceptive Practices BP AMERICA: Baines Sues Over Property Damages Due to Noxious Odor BRAXLEY LLC: Brockington Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Tennessee BRITISH COLUMBIA: Judge Rejects Suit Over Fairy Creek Protests BUFFALO WILD WINGS: Morton Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois CANADA: Court Approves Indian Hospitals Class Action Settlement CAPITAL ONE: Class Action Settlement in Wise Suit Gets Initial Nod CAPITAL ONE: Class Settlement in Bellantoni Suit Gets Initial Nod CARDINAL HEALTH: Schelb Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. CITRUS FITNESS: Gill Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Wisconsin COOLER WATERS: Simms Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CORLEONE'S PHILLY STEAK: Naiman Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona CREDITORS RELIEF: Cardenas Files TCPA Suit in D. New Jersey DAVANNIS INC: Fiorito Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website EMBRY-RIDDLE: Garceau Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply FEDERAL BUREAU: Standing Order Entered in Pantels Class Suit GASLAMP QUARTER: $7MM Deal in Ladies' Night Suit Gets Initial Nod GOOGLE LLC: Rabin Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class HCA HEALTHCARE: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to July 7 IGLOO PRODUCTS: Zannettino Suit Transferred to D. Delaware IMC LOGISTICS: Benjamin Suit Removed to C.D. California ITS TECHNOLOGIES: Appeals Court Upholds Cert. in Privacy Suit JB IP LLC: Metz Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California JERRY'S ENTERPRISES: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website JP MORGAN: Cyr Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts KANSAS CITY LIFE: Agrees to Settle Insurance Class Suit for $45MM KEURIG DR. PEPPER: Hod Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts KIRKLAND'S INC: Dismissal of Miles Suit Under Appeal KNOCKAROUND LLC: Broussard Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California KOLE JAX DESIGNS: Brockington Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Tennessee LEGION CORPORATION: Jones Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. LUSHA SYSTEMS INC: Hutchings Files Suit in D. Colorado MAISON MIRU: Bonkowski Suit Removed to C.D. California META PIXEL: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert. Briefing Deadlines MIKE ARNOLD: Szalanski Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot NATIONAL CABLE: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid NATURE'S PATH: Must File Class Cert Opposition by Oct. 3 NEW YORK, NY: Class Cert Bid Filing in Miller Due March 13, 2026 NEW YORK, NY: Class Cert Bid Filing in Z.Q. Extended to Sept. 16 NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY: Employees Sue Over Premium Health Plans OPENAI INC: Bid for Broad Cross-Use of Intercept Media Docs Tossed PARK MY FLEET: Class Cert Bid Filing Due April 20, 2026 PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Court Consolidated Actions with Sells Suit REDDIT INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due August 18 SAIA MOTOR: Moore Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses SECURITY BENEFIT: Carrick Seeks to Redact Class Exhibits SELECT PORTFOLIO: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Nov. 14 SKOGEN'S FOODLINER: Bid for Conditional Cert. in Dyer Due Oct. 31 SWIFT PORK: Court Extends Stay of Vail Suit SYNGENTA CROP: Class Cert Hearing in FTC Suit Set for July 16 TEACHERS HEALTH: Goodsell Suit Seeks Certification of Subclass TEACHERS HEALTH: Suit Seeks to Amend Certified Class Definition TRAJECTOR MEDICAL: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Dec. 12 UNITED AIRLINES: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to August 11 UNITED PARCEL: Malone Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification UNITED STATES: Air Alliance Sues Over Environmental Grant Cuts VINFAST AUTO: Faces Class Suit Over Overstated Charging Speeds VOLT MANAGEMENT: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 30, 2026 WALMART INC: Faces Suit Over Illegal Termination of Black Workers ********* 3M COMPANY: Kerr Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams -------------------------------------------------------------- William Kerr, 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-04613-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 liver 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: Klik Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams -------------------------------------------------------------- Frank Klik, 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; 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-04515-RMG (D.S.C., May 27, 2025), is brought 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. 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 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 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. 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 regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF 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: Constantine Venizelos, Esq. CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP 737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440 Cleveland, OH 44115 Phone: 216-815-9000 Facsimile: 216-274-9365 3M COMPANY: Lawless Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals --------------------------------------------------------- Tony Lawless, 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-04615-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 3M COMPANY: Lepouski Sues Over Contaminated Protective Clothing --------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH LEPOUSKI and LISA MARIE LEPOUSKI, and others imsilarly siatuted v. 3M COMPANY; E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & CO. a/k/a EIDP, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY L.L.C.; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCE COMPANY LLC; MSA SAFETY SALES, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; LION GROUP, INC.; W. L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC.; TEN CATE PROTECTIVE FABRICS USA D/B/A SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES INC.; BRADSDEN SOLUTIONS, INC.; FIRE-DEX, INC.;MSA SAFETY INCORPORATED; GLOBE HOLDING COMPANY, LLC; PGI, INC.; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LLC; INNOTEX CORP.; AND JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS, 1-50, Case No. 250601275 (Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas, Philadelphia Cty., June 11, 2025), is brought for personal injuries resulting from his exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS") that were manufactured, designed, sold, supplied, distributed and/or contained in protective clothing and/or gear specifically designed for firefighters ("turnouts") manufactured, designed, sold supplied and/or distributed by each of the Defendants, individually or through their predecessors or subsidiaries. PFAS are human-made chemicals consisting of a chain of carbon and fluorine atoms used in manufactured products to, inter alia, resist and repel oil, stains, heat and water. PFAs include "long-chain" PFAS made up of seven or more carbon atoms ("long-chain PFAS") as well as "short-chain" PFAS made up of six or fewer carbon atoms ("short-chain PFAS"). PFAS are known as "forever chemicals" because they are immune to degradation, bioaccumulate in individual organisms and humans, and increase in concentration up the food chain. PFAS exposure to humans can occur through inhalation, ingestion and dermal contact. Unbeknownst to the Plaintiff, the Defendants manufactured, marketed, distributed, sold, or used PFAS and PFAS-containing materials in protective turnouts designed for firefighters, which he wore, and caused him to be exposed to PFAS on a frequent and regular basis. For decades, Defendants were aware of the toxic nature of PFAS and the harmful impact these substances have on human health. Yet, Defendants manufactured, designed, marketed, sold, supplied, or distributed PFAS-containing turnouts to firefighting training facilities and fire departments nationally, including in Pennsylvania and in the City of Philadelphia. Defendants did so, moreover, without ever informing firefighters or the public that turnouts contained PFAS, and without warning firefighters or the public of the substantial and serious health injuries that can result from exposure to PFAS or PFAS-containing materials. As a firefighter, Plaintiff wore turnouts in the usual and normal course of performing his firefighting duties and training and was repeatedly exposed to PFAS in his turnouts. He did not know and, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have known that his turnouts contained PFAS or PFAS-containing materials. He also did not know that PFAS was in his body and blood due to his turnouts. The Defendants have represented that their turnouts are safe. Plaintiff used the turnouts as they were intended and in a foreseeable manner which exposed him to PFAS in the course of his firefighting activities. This repeated and extensive exposure to PFAS resulted in Plaintiff developing testicular cancer. The Defendants knowingly and willfully manufactured, designed, marketed, sold, and distributed chemicals and/or products containing PFAS for use within the State of Pennsylvania when they knew or reasonably should have known that Plaintiff would repeatedly inhale, ingest, and/or have dermal contact with these harmful compounds during the ordinary course of his profession, during firefighting training exercises and in firefighting emergencies, and that such exposure would threaten the health and welfare of firefighters exposed to these dangerous and hazardous chemicals, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Joseph Lepouski has served--and continues to serve--the City of Philadelphia as a firefighter for the Philadelphia Fire Department. 3M developed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, released, sold and/or used PFAS, PFAS materials, and products containing PFAS in turnouts, including in Pennsylvania and in the City of Philadelphia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph J. Mandia, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C. A New York Professional Corporation 220 Lake Drive East, Suite 210 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Phone: (856) 755-1115 3M COMPANY: Sammons Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals --------------------------------------------------------- Michael Sammons, 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-04560-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 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 ALL THINGS GO: Rocha Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against All Things Go LLC. The case is styled as Jordyn Rocha, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. All Things Go LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00741-JLT-SAB (E.D. Cal., June 18, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. All Things Go -- https://allthingsgofestival.com/ -- is a music festival in Columbia, Maryland at Merriweather Post Pavilion and New York City at Forest Hills Stadium,.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com AMERICAN MULTISPECIALTY: Garside Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Michael Garside, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN MULTISPECIALTY GROUP, INC. d/b/a ESSE HEALTH, Case No. 25SL-CC05454 was removed from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on June 18, 2025, and assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-00890. The Complaint alleges claims for negligence (Count I), negligence per se (Count II), breach of implied contract (Count III), invasion of privacy (Count IV), unjust enrichment (Count V), and breach of fiduciary duty (Count VI) against Esse Health based on allegations that Plaintiff's Private Information, and the Private Information of the putative class, was compromised as a result of a cybersecurity event.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John F. Garvey, Esq. Colleen Garvey, Esq. Ellen A. Thomas, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC Peabody Plaza, 701 Market St., Suite 1510 St. Louis, MO 63101 Email: jgarvey@stranchlaw.com cgarvey@stranchlaw.com ethomas@stranchlaw.com - and - Raina Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI, PLLC 980 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60611 Email: raina@straussborrelli.com The Defendants are represented by: David M. Mangian, Esq. Adrian S. Mehdirad, Esq. One US Bank Plaza St. Louis, MO 63101 Phone: (314) 552-6000 Facsimile: (314) 552 7000 Email: dmangian@thompsoncoburn.com amehdirad@thompsoncoburn.com AMERICAN MULTISPECIALTY: Walker Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Sarah Walker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN MULTISPECIALTY GROUP, INC., doing business as ESSE HEALTH, Case No. 25SL-CC05357 was removed from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on June 18, 2025, and assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-00893. The Complaint alleges claims for negligence and negligence per se (Count I), breach of implied contract (Count II), and unjust enrichment (Count III) against Esse Health based on allegations that Plaintiff's Private Information, and the Private Information of the putative class, was compromised as a result of a cybersecurity event. The Plaintiff seeks equitable, injunctive, and monetary relief from Esse Health. With regard to monetary relief, Plaintiff requests "an award of actual damages, compensatory damages, and nominal damages, in an amount to be determined, and for punitive damages, as allowed by law."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Ken Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com grunfeld@kolawyers.com The Defendants are represented by: David M. Mangian, Esq. Adrian S. Mehdirad, Esq. THOMPSON COBURN LLP One US Bank Plaza St. Louis, MO 63101 Phone: (314) 552-6000 Facsimile: (314) 552 7000 Email: dmangian@thompsoncoburn.com amehdirad@thompsoncoburn.com AMERICAN MULTISPECIALTY: Willis Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Robin Willis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN MULTISPECIALTY GROUP, INC., doing business as ESSE HEALTH, Case No. 25SL-CC05839 was removed from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on June 18, 2025, and assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-00892. The Complaint alleges claims for negligence (Count I), negligence per se (Count II), breach of implied contract (Count III), unjust enrichment (Count IV), breach of confidence (Count V), invasion of privacy (Count VI), and violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA") (Count VII) against Esse Health based on allegations that Plaintiff's Private Information, and the Private Information of the putative class, was compromised as a result of a cybersecurity event.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John F. Garvey, Esq. Colleen Garvey, Esq. Ellen A. Thomas, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC Peabody Plaza, 701 Market St., Suite 1510 St. Louis, MO 63101 Email: jgarvey@stranchlaw.com cgarvey@stranchlaw.com ethomas@stranchlaw.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: David M. Mangian, Esq. Adrian S. Mehdirad, Esq. THOMPSON COBURN LLP One US Bank Plaza St. Louis, MO 63101 Phone: (314) 552-6000 Facsimile: (314) 552 7000 Email: dmangian@thompsoncoburn.com amehdirad@thompsoncoburn.com AMERICAN MULTISPECIALTY: Wippold Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Mary Wippold, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN MULTISPECIALTY GROUP, INC., doing business as ESSE HEALTH, Case No. 2522-CC00957 was removed from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on June 18, 2025, and assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-00889. The Complaint alleges claims for negligence (Count I), negligence per se (Count II), breach of implied contract (Count III), unjust enrichment (Count IV), invasion of privacy--public disclosure of private facts (Count V), and violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA") (Count VI) against Esse Health based on allegations that Plaintiff's Private Information, and the Private Information of the putative class, was compromised as a result of a cybersecurity event.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John F. Garvey, Esq. Colleen Garvey, Esq. Ellen A. Thomas, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC Peabody Plaza, 701 Market St., Suite 1510 St. Louis, MO 63101 Email: jgarvey@stranchlaw.com cgarvey@stranchlaw.com ethomas@stranchlaw.com - and - Lynn A. Troops, Esq. Amina Thomas, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Email: ltoops@cohenmalad.com athomas@cohenmalad.com The Defendants are represented by: David M. Mangian, Esq. Adrian S. Mehdirad, Esq. THOMPSON COBURN LLP One US Bank Plaza St. Louis, MO 63101 Phone: (314) 552-6000 Facsimile: (314) 552 7000 Email: dmangian@thompsoncoburn.com amehdirad@thompsoncoburn.com APPLE INC: Salas Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Ricardo Salas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. APPLE INC., Case No. 25STCV15685 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 17, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-05509. The Plaintiff contends that Apple "launched a pervasive marketing campaign" "spotlighting what it branded as the groundbreaking 'Apple Intelligence' suite of features" "to promote its latest iPhone 16 model," but that "these products were not equipped with specific 'Apple Intelligence' features." the Plaintiff claims under the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), the California False Advertising Law ("FAL"), the California Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), and the common law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Emily Johnson Henn, Esq. Kathryn E. Cahoy, Esq. Megan L. Rodgers, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 3000 El Camino Real 5 Palo Alto Square, 10th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112 Phone: (650) 632-4700 Facsimile: (650) 632-4800 Email: ehenn@cov.com kcahoy@cov.com mrodgers@cov.com AT&T INC: N.D. Tex. Dismisses Securities Class Action Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- JD Supra reports that on June 16, 2025, Chief Judge David C. Godbey of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed a putative securities class action against a telecommunications company (the "Company") and several of its executives (the "Individual Defendants") asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5. In re AT&T Sec. Litig., No. 3:24-CV-01196-N (N.D. Tex. June 16, 2025). Although the Court held that the complaint pleaded actionable misrepresentations, it held that plaintiffs impermissibly relied on "group pleading" and thus the complaint failed to give rise to a strong inference of scienter. The telecommunications industry historically used lead-lined transmission cables, although they were no longer being used in new installations by the late 1970s. In July 2023, a major newspaper reported that the Company and other large telecommunications companies had left behind a network of lead-lined cables that had started to degrade and leach into the environment, potentially causing harm to individuals who live in the surrounding areas. The Company's stock price fell the day after the story broke, and declined further, purportedly after additional reporting over the Company's potential exposure for the lead cables. Plaintiffs alleged that the Company's various statements about its efforts to retire its old lines were misleading as to the risks it faced from widespread and deteriorating network of lead-lined cables. Plaintiffs challenged statements across four categories: (1) statements that retiring the wirelines would reduce costs; (2) statements about the Company's commitment to environmental stewardship; (3) statements about the Company's commitment to employee safety; and (4) statements about risks to the Company's business. According to the Court, plaintiffs engaged in improper group pleading by relying on statements found in unsigned "issue briefs" found on the Company website that did not identify any individual speaker and thus could not support a strong inference of scienter for any defendant. The Court also observed that other allegations in the complaint attributed knowledge of various facts to a group or to nondefendant individuals—including lower-level employees—and thus did not raise an inference of scienter. While each Individual Defendant was alleged to have understood that the Company was retiring its use of copper wirelines and that some of the wirelines contained harmful lead, plaintiffs "fail[ed] to allege any facts showing the Individual Defendants were aware of any widespread environmental contamination risk or employee health issues that could reasonably result in material risk to the [Company]." Despite holding that plaintiffs failed to plead scienter sufficiently, the Court held that certain challenged statements were actionable. In particular, the Court noted that statements concerning cost reduction expected from retiring the lines are actionable because they were not opinions and plaintiffs adequately pled "the complete chain of inferences necessary to connect the statements about cost savings to the alleged material liability from lead-lined cables." The Court also found that plaintiffs sufficiently alleged falsity as to certain statements about the Company's commitment to environmental stewardship with respect to how the Company disposed of hazardous waste and other regulated materials. However, the Court found that statements in the other categories of alleged misrepresentations either were not false or not material. Because plaintiffs failed to plead a primary violation, the Court also dismissed the derivative control person liability claims under Section 20(a). The Court's dismissal is without prejudice. [GN] AUDIBLE INC: Sherk Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Grace Sherk, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Audible Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-01797 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on June 17, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01137-BJR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Audible -- https://www.audible.com/ -- is the leading producer and provider of audio storytelling.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carlos F. Ramirez, Esq. REESE LLP 121 King Street, Suite 8 Chappaqua, NY 10514 Phone: (914) 860-4994 Email: cramirez@milberg.com The Defendant is represented by: David Feder, Esq. FENWICK & WEST LLP 902 Broadway, Suite 14 New York, NY 10010-6035 Phone: (212) 430-2600 Fax: (650) 938-5200 Email: dfeder@fenwick.com AUTOZONE INC: Shapllo Suit Removed to S.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as David Shapllo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AUTOZONE, INC., Case No. 50-2025-CA-004675 was removed from the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on June 18, 2025, and assigned Case No. 9:25-cv-80770-XXXX. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he and the putative class members (defined as all individuals residing in the State of Florida) purchased a certain Steering Wheel Cover (the "Product") sold by AutoZone "believing it to be made of genuine leather based on Defendant's advertising on the product packaging." The Plaintiff alleges that the Product was "made of faux leather and not made from genuine leather" and claims that AutoZone misrepresented the Product causing Plaintiff and the putative class members to pay "for what they believed to be genuine leather steering wheel covers." The Plaintiff further alleges that he and the putative class members "would not have purchased" the Product, "or would have paid significantly less" for it, "had they known the covers were made of faux leather rather than genuine leather." Thus, one remedy sought in the Complaint is a complete refund.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Samuel L. Felker, Esq. Desislava K. Docheva, Esq. BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC 200 East Broward Blvd., Suite 2000 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 768-1600 Email: samfelker@bakerdonelson.com ddocheva@bakerdonelson.com BELK INC: Larson Files Suit in W.D. North Carolina -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Belk, Inc. The case is styled as Andrea Larson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Belk, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-00424 (W.D.N.C., June 17, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. Belk, Inc. -- https://www.belk.com/ -- is an American department store chain founded in 1888 by William Henry Belk in Monroe, North Carolina, with nearly 300 locations in 16 states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott C. Harris, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 900 West Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Phone: (919) 600-5000 Fax: (919) 600-5035 Email: sharris@milberg.com BOARD AND BRUSH: Brockington Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Tennessee -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Board and Brush, LLC. The case is styled as Sheri Butler Brockington, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Board and Brush, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00195 (E.D. Tenn., June 16, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Board & Brush Creative Studio -- https://boardandbrush.com/ -- offers inspiring DIY workshops for people who love to sip, paint, create, and connect with friends.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (615) 485-0018 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com BOLLA OPERATING: Vasquez Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE A. VASQUEZ and BASHARAT ALI, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, v. BOLLA OPERATING L.I. CORP. d/b/a/ Bolla Market and BOLLA OPERATING CORP. d/b/a/ Bolla Market and HARVINDER SINGH, Case No. 2:22-cv-07014-NCM-ST (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (i) certifying a class of: "individuals who worked for the Defendants as cashiers at Bolla Market in New York State from Nov. 16, 2016 to present; (ii) appointing the Plaintiff Jose Vasquez as class representative; (iii) appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel; (iv) authorizing the Plaintiff Vasquez to disseminate notice to the class; and (v) for such relief that the Court deems just and proper. Bolla is a convenience store that offers freshly green brewed mountain coffee, sandwiches, pastries, beer, wine, and cold beverages. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Dqj0WM at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. David D. Barnhorn, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 BOOKING.COM: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Deceptive Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- John Ollila, writing for Loyalty Lobby, reports that the Dutch Consumers' Association (Consumentenbond) and the Consumer Competition Claims Foundation (CCC) have jointly launched a class action lawsuit against Booking.com, accusing the company of abusing its dominant market position, restricting competition, and misleading consumers. The legal action seeks financial compensation for consumers who overpaid for hotel stays due to Booking.com's alleged long-term manipulation of prices and search results. Price-Fixing, Fake Discounts & "Dark Patterns" According to CCC, Booking.com has been violating European competition laws and consumer protection rules since at least 2013: "Through illegal agreements and conduct, Booking has ensured that hotels are unable to offer lower prices or better conditions elsewhere." Booking.com has allegedly repeatedly used misleading tactics, such as fake discounts, incomplete prices, and fabricated scarcity indicators (e.g., "only 1 room left"), to pressure consumers into booking. These methods, dark patterns, are prohibited under Dutch and EU law. Conclusion Online travel agencies and hotel companies themselves have recently faced scrutiny in several markets about how they display prices and market hotels. As a consumer, we should realize when these "dark patterns" are in place, such as "110 other consumers are looking at this hotel", "only 1 room left at this price", "this is the lowest price in the past 10 days -- book now", or when making a cancellation or refund is borderline impossible and you have to click like 10 times or CALL. How many companies that we cover have "flash" sales month after month? Some readers have complained that there are instances where hotel or flight prices appear to have been inflated and then discounted, with no real change in the final price before, during, or after the sale. It is interesting to see what will emerge from this case and how long it will take to be resolved through the Dutch courts. [GN] BP AMERICA: Baines Sues Over Property Damages Due to Noxious Odor ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nakeya Baines, Brent Givens, and Briana Rice, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. BP AMERICA, INC., A Foreign For-Profit Corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-00269-PPS-AZ (N.D. Ind., June 17, 2025), is brought against the Defendant as a result of property damages suffered due to noxious odor emissions from Defendant's refinery asserting claims of private nuisance, public nuisance and negligence. BP Whiting Refinery releases noxious odors onto Plaintiff's property, constituting a public and private nuisance and causing property damage. The Defendant's emission control processes are inadequate, improperly maintained and operated, and fail to prevent noxious offsite odors from invading the private property of Plaintiffs and the Class. The Defendant has failed to properly construct, operate, and/or maintain its Facility to prevent offensive offsite odor emissions, despite knowledge that its Facility repeatedly and continually emits noxious odor emissions into the ambient air. The Defendant has failed to install, operate, maintain, and/or implement adequate odor mitigation and control strategies, processes, technologies, and/or equipment to control its odorous emissions from the Facility and prevent those odors and emissions from invading the homes and property of Plaintiffs and the putative Class. The Defendant negligently, knowingly, intentionally, and recklessly failed to properly design, operate, repair, and/or maintain the Facility and its associated operations, thereby causing the unreasonable invasion of Plaintiff's property by noxious odors on unusually severe, frequent, intermittent, and ongoing recurring occasions, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are citizens of the State of Indiana whose properties were affected. The Defendant owns and operates a 1,400-acre refinery located at 2815 Indianapolis Blvd, Whiting, Indiana 46394.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard A. Cook, Esq. RICH COOK LAW, LLC 9165 Otis Ave., Ste. 235 Indianapolis, IN 46216 Phone: 317-324-8828 Fax: 317-342-3071 Email: rcook@richcooklaw.com acook@richcooklaw.com - and - Steven D. Liddle, Esq. Laura L. Sheets, Esq. D. Reed Solt, Esq. LIDDLE SHEETS PC 975 E. Jefferson Ave. Detroit, MI 48207 Phone: (313) 392-0015 Email: sliddle@lsccounsel.com lsheets@lsccounsel.com rsolt@lsccounsel.com BRAXLEY LLC: Brockington Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Tennessee ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Braxley LLC. The case is styled as Sheri Butler Brockington, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Braxley LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00194 (E.D. Tenn., June 16, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Braxley LLC -- https://braxleybands.com/ -- offers a variety of Apple Watch Bands and straps.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (615) 485-0018 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com BRITISH COLUMBIA: Judge Rejects Suit Over Fairy Creek Protests -------------------------------------------------------------- Stefan Labbe, writing for BIV, reports that a B.C. has turned down a proposed class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of a group of people allegedly subjected to unlawful police conduct while protesting old-growth logging on Vancouver Island. The case stems from 2020, when the B.C. government granted Teal Cedar Products Ltd. permits to log timber in the Fairy Creek watershed, part of Tree Farm Licence 46. "Sophisticated and organized protests" sprung up in early August, and under the name Rainforest Flying Squad, protestors set up eight blockades in an attempt to restrict access to the timber supply area and an access road, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Christopher Giaschi wrote in a recent ruling. In response, the logging company filed and was granted an injunction on April 1, 2021, prompting the RCMP's Community Industry Response Group (C-IRGC) to step in and enforce the court order. The judge who approved the injunction ultimately found the logging company's activities were lawful and that the conduct of the protesters was illegal and undermined the rule of law. The injunction gave C-IRGC and any other RCMP officer the discretion on how and when it chose to enforce the court order, including how it detained or released people without arrest. Police would eventually arrest more than a thousand people in what would become the largest act of civil disobedience in Canadian history. RCMP engaged in 'systemic and unlawful conduct,' claim plaintiffs The plaintiffs in the proposed class action, Arvin Singh Dang and Kristy Morgan, sought to certify the lawsuit on behalf of everyone who was arrested, detained, had their movement impeded, or had their property searched or seized by RCMP officers in connection with the Fairy Creek injunction. They alleged that by enforcing the injunction through exclusion zones and a "catch and release" policy, the RCMP "engaged in systemic and unlawful conduct" in breach of Charter rights. In June 2021, several media organizations applied to the court to vary the injunction order so they would not have their access impeded. The judge in the case concluded that the manner of implementation of checkpoints and exclusion zones by the RCMP was unlawful and impeded the journalists' "special role in a free and democratic society." In September 2021, the same judge also found the RCMP's continued enforcement of exclusion zones was more expansive than originally permitted by the courts and continued to improperly constrain the media. He refused to extend the injunction. That decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal in 2022 but failed to "directly address whether any aspect of RCMP conduct was, in fact, illegal or unlawful," Justice Giaschi wrote in his latest ruling. Instead, the appeals court found any questions of misconduct by the RCMP should be raised through civil claims and complaints to the Independent Civilian Review and Complaints Commission and the Independent Investigations Office. RCMP and plaintiffs present duelling narratives RCMP Assistant Commissioner John Brewer, who commanded the C-IRGC unit at Fairy Creek for about a year and a half, told the court that police arrested 1,014 people and made 443 charge recommendations and led to 222 convictions. From May to October 2021, he said about 390 RCMP officers took part in the Fairy Creek operation. Brewer said some of the protesters engaged in "aggressive and dangerous" activities, including placing themselves in hammocks suspended as much as nine metres in the air, anchoring themselves in deep trenches, and using violence to force their way past police checkpoints. In a lawsuit amended June 5, 2023, the lead plaintiffs in the proposed class action alleged the RCMP's exclusion zone policy constrained the public from participating in peaceful protest, denied journalists the ability to document and report on the events, and prevented "free access" to public roads and areas to hike, camp and study wildlife in Fairy Creek. An owner of a media company, Morgan first arrived in Fairy Creek on April 3, 2021, according to submissions. She said she was repeatedly denied access to the injunction area. When she did gain access, Morgan said she observed protesters and members of the media being "physically assaulted and threatened with arrest." Morgan also said she witnessed RCMP use excessive force and violence, and on one occasion, police roughly pushed and threatened her with arrest. In pleadings, Dang told the court he first arrived at the protests in September 2020 as a professional freelance photographer and videographer for several news outlets, including CBC, BBC and Outside magazine. In May 2021, Dang said RCMP officers arrested him for contempt and placed him in a Lake Cowichan RCMP cell for the day without charges. "He was told that if he signed a document agreeing not to return to the injunction area, he would be free to go without charges," the pleadings say. "He refused telling the officer he was on assignment for PBS and had to return to Fairy Creek. He was released later that evening with no charges and no explanation." That summer, Dang plead that RCMP officers seized and damaged his drone, and when he complained, they seized him and said he was under arrest before releasing without charges. RCMP officers presented Justice Giaschi with different narrative, claiming Dang blurred the line between observer and protester. "Although he deposes he was essentially arrested without just cause, the records of the RCMP indicate he was arrested for breaching the injunction and for obstruction, more particularly, for engaging in a roadblock," the judged wrote in his ruling. Judge agrees proposed lawsuit 'overbroad' and doomed to collapse While not ruling on whose story was more credible, Giaschi said the circumstances of Dang's arrest illustrate how the proposed class action "will inevitably collapse into individual trials." In court, lawyers with the federal and B.C. government argued the proposed litigation should not proceed because the group of people it sought to cover was "overbroad" and includes individuals who didn't have their Charter rights infringed. Giaschi agreed with the government lawyers, ruling the proposed lawsuit includes people who were lawfully arrested, charged and convicted of breaching the injunction order. Such individuals, he wrote, can have no claim connected with their detention and arrest. "Some attended [Fairy] Creek to peacefully and lawfully protest. Some were members of the media who attended to simply view and report on the protests," wrote Giaschi in his ruling. "However, others clearly attended at [Fairy] Creek to deliberately breach the injunction order or to obstruct and interfere with the lawful enforcement operations of the RCMP." Giaschi dismissed the proposed class-action lawsuit and recommended any future complaints be submitted to the court independently or taken up with a police oversight body. [GN] BUFFALO WILD WINGS: Morton Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Duane Morton and Kory Larson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BUFFALO WILD WINGS, INC. and INSPIRE BRANDS, INC., Case No. 2025-CH-05008 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on June 16, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-06630. On May 5, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Complaint based on Inspire Brands' and Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc.'s (collectively, "Defendants") alleged violation of the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act (the "GIPA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq. Jennifer A. Riley, Esq. Tyler Zmick, Esq. Bernadette Coyle, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 190 South La Salle Street, Suite 3700 Chicago, IL 60603-3433 Phone: (312) 499-6700 Email: gmaatman@duanemorris.com jariley@duanemorris.com tzmick@duanemorris.com bcoyle@duanemorris.com CANADA: Court Approves Indian Hospitals Class Action Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Alessia Passafiume, writing for Coast Reporter, reports that the Federal Court has approved a multi-billion-dollar class-action settlement for people who suffered abuse at federally run 'Indian hospitals' following out-of-court negotiations between Ottawa and Indigenous survivors. The federal government ran 33 such hospitals between 1936 and 1981. The total compensation amount is expected to be between $3 billion and $5.3 billion. Former patients, some of whom spent years in the segregated facilities, filed a lawsuit against the government in 2018 alleging the hospitals were rife with abuse and unfair treatment, and settled out of court earlier this year. The class covers people who were admitted to one of the hospitals between January 1936 and December 1981 and suffered abuse during their time there. Claimants will be assessed under five "levels," with individual compensation amounts ranging from $10,000 to $200,000. Ottawa is also earmarking $150 million for a healing fund and $235.5 million for research and education on Indian hospitals. Representative plaintiff Ann Cecile Hardy said earlier this year the experience revived painful memories of the time she spent in one of the hospitals for tuberculosis treatment. "I was supposed to be there to heal, but instead I experienced fear, isolation and trauma that has stayed with me for decades . . . I was repeatedly sexually abused by staff members. I witnessed other patients being sexually abused," Hardy said in March. "I left the hospital physically, emotionally, psychologically battered. The abuse I suffered changed the entire course of my life." [GN} CAPITAL ONE: Class Action Settlement in Wise Suit Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wise v. Capital One Financial Corporation, et al. (CAPITAL ONE 360 SAVINGS ACCOUNT INTEREST RATE LITIGATION), Case No. 1:24-cv-01080 (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge David Novak entered an order 1. The Court provisionally certifies, for purposes of the settlement only, a Settlement Class consisting of: "all persons or entities who maintained a Capital One 360 Savings account at any time during the class period (i.e., from Sept. 18, 2019, through and including the date this Order is entered), including joint and co-holders of 360 Savings accounts, as reflected in the class list to be generated by Capital One." 2. Excluded from the Settlement Class are (i) Capital One, any entity in which Capital One has a controlling interest, and Capital One's officers, directors, legal representatives. successors, subsidiaries and assigns; (ii) any judge, justice or judicial officer presiding over the action and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff; and (iii) any individual who timely and validly opts out of the Settlement Class. 3. The Court conditionally appoints Chet B. Waldman and his law firm Wolf Popper LLP as class counsel and The Kaplan Law Firm as local counsel, and designates Plaintiffs in the action, i.e., Dr. Scott C. Savett, Jay Sim, Amber Terrell, Angela Uherbelau, Gwendolyn Wright, Elizabeth Zawacki, Sheryl Barnes, Alessandra Bellantoni, Ayal Brenner, Anthony Guest, Samuel Hans, Ronald Hopkins, Michael Krause, Steve Lenhoff, Jerry Magana, Seth Martindale, Jennie Meresak, Gregory Mishkin, Andrew Molloy, Jay Nagdimon, Neelima Panchang, Sailesh Panchang, Patrick Perger Jr., Shantell Pitts, Howard Port and Jane Rossetti, as Settlement Class Representatives for purposes of this settlement. 4. A Final Approval Hearing shall be held before this Court on Nov. 6, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. The Settlement provides for Capital One to pay $425 million to Settlement Class members in two parts: $300 million in cash and $125 million in additional interest to class members who continue to hold 360 Savings Accounts. Capital is a diversified bank that offers a broad array of financial products and services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=my2FJ2 at no extra charge.[CC] CAPITAL ONE: Class Settlement in Bellantoni Suit Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bellantoni v. Capital One Financial Corporation et al. (CAPITAL ONE 360 SAVINGS ACCOUNT INTEREST RATE LITIGATION), Case No. 1:24-cv-01076 (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge David Novak entered an order 1. The Court provisionally certifies, for purposes of the settlement only, a Settlement Class consisting of: "all persons or entities who maintained a Capital One 360 Savings account at any time during the class period (i.e., from Sept. 18, 2019, through and including the date this Order is entered), including joint and co-holders of 360 Savings accounts, as reflected in the class list to be generated by Capital One." 2. Excluded from the Settlement Class are (i) Capital One, any entity in which Capital One has a controlling interest, and Capital One's officers, directors, legal representatives. successors, subsidiaries and assigns; (ii) any judge, justice or judicial officer presiding over the action and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff; and (iii) any individual who timely and validly opts out of the Settlement Class. 3. The Court conditionally appoints Chet B. Waldman and his law firm Wolf Popper LLP as class counsel and The Kaplan Law Firm as local counsel, and designates Plaintiffs in the action, i.e., Dr. Scott C. Savett, Jay Sim, Amber Terrell, Angela Uherbelau, Gwendolyn Wright, Elizabeth Zawacki, Sheryl Barnes, Alessandra Bellantoni, Ayal Brenner, Anthony Guest, Samuel Hans, Ronald Hopkins, Michael Krause, Steve Lenhoff, Jerry Magana, Seth Martindale, Jennie Meresak, Gregory Mishkin, Andrew Molloy, Jay Nagdimon, Neelima Panchang, Sailesh Panchang, Patrick Perger Jr., Shantell Pitts, Howard Port and Jane Rossetti, as Settlement Class Representatives for purposes of this settlement. 4. A Final Approval Hearing shall be held before this Court on Nov. 6, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. The Settlement provides for Capital One to pay $425 million to Settlement Class members in two parts: $300 million in cash and $125 million in additional interest to class members who continue to hold 360 Savings Accounts. Capital is a diversified bank that offers a broad array of financial products and services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JTsdSf at no extra charge.[CC] CARDINAL HEALTH: Schelb Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jhon Richard Schelb, III on behalf of Himself and all others similarly situated v. Cardinal Health, Inc., KPR U.S., LLC, Case No. 2579CV00439 (Mass. Super. Ct., Hampden Cty., June 16, 2025). The case type is stated as "Contract / Business." Cardinal Health -- https://www.cardinalhealth.com/en.html -- improves the cost-effectiveness of healthcare.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raymond Dinsmore, Esq. Ryan B. Guers, Esq. Richard E. Hayber, Esq. HAYBER, MCKENNA AND DINSMORE, LLC One Monarch Place, Suite 1340 Springfield, MA 01144 CITRUS FITNESS: Gill Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Wisconsin ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Citrus Fitness, LLC. The case is styled as Anna Gill, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Citrus Fitness, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00871-LA (D.N.J., June 18, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Citrus Fitness, LLC is in the Other Amusement and Recreation Industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stefan Coleman, Esq. COLEMAN, PLLC 18117 Biscayne Blvd-Ste 4152 Miami, FL 33160 Phone: (877) 333-9427 Email: law@stefancoleman.com COOLER WATERS: Simms Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cooler Waters Productions, LLC. The case is styled as Arthur L. Simms, an individual, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cooler Waters Productions, LLC, Home Box Office, Inc., Doe 1 through and Including Doe 10, Case No. 25STCV17680 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., June 18, 2025). Coolwaters -- https://coolwatersprods.com/ -- is a fully licensed management company specializing in securing our clients for Pop Culture events, fan events, corporate events, private events.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan Harris, Esq. HARRIS & RUBLE 655 North Central Avenue 17th Floor Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: 323.962.3777 Fax: 323.962.3004 Email: harrisa@harrisandruble.com CORLEONE'S PHILLY STEAK: Naiman Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Corleone's Philly Steak LLC. The case is styled as Sidney Naiman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Corleone's Philly Steak LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-02108-ASB (D. Ariz., June 16, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Corleone's Philly Steak LLC -- https://corleones.net/ -- is a restaurant offering Philadelphia cheesesteak.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (615) 485-0018 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com CREDITORS RELIEF: Cardenas Files TCPA Suit in D. New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Creditors Relief, LLC. The case is styled as Erica Cardenas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Creditors Relief, LLC, Case No. 9:25-cv-80630-DMM (D.N.J., June 17, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Creditors Relief -- https://creditorsrelief.com/ -- aim to alleviate the burden of your business debt.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stefan Louis Coleman, Esq. COLEMAN, PLLC 1072 Madison Avenue, Suite 1 Lakewood, NJ 08701 Phone: (877) 333-9427 Email: law@stefancoleman.com DAVANNIS INC: Fiorito Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- Michael Fiorito and all others similarly situated v. Davannis, Inc., Dream Big Creative LLC, Texas Roadhouse, Jordan Tap Room, Bel Air Bay Club, Jack Links In., Wolleys Restaurant, Hilton Worldwide Hotels Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-22736-EGT (S.D. Fla., June 17, 2025), is brought arising because the Defendant's websites are not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or have low vision, in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate, Federal and State Law and the Effective Communication and Auxiliary Aids and Services requirements of Americans with Disabilities Act (The ADA) and its implementing regulations. The Plaintiff and the members of the putative class are blind and low vision individuals and are reliant upon screen reader technology to navigate the internet and other assistive visual aids. As a consequence of his experience visiting defendant's websites, including in 2024, and from investigation performed on his behalf, Plaintiff found defendant's websites have a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important website-content Defendant makes available to its sighted website users. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendants failure to provide its online website content and services in a manner that is compatible with scree reader technology, WCAG 2.0, the ADA, and Minnesota and Florida States Laws, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally visually impaired. The Defendants all own, operate, and/or control their websites.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. EMBRY-RIDDLE: Garceau Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAREN A. GARCEAU, onbehalf of the Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University DC Retirement Plan, individually and as a representative of a class of participants and beneficiaries, v. EMBRY-RIDDLE AERONAUTICAL UNIVERSITY, INC., Case No. 6:24-cv-00755-PGB-LHP (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending her deadline to file her reply brief in support of her motion for class certification until on or before July 7, 2025. The Plaintiff's Complaint involves claims against the Defendant for breach of fiduciary duties under ERISA, in connection with a 403(b) retirement plan in which the Plaintiff is a participant. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class that includes all Plan participants and beneficiaries from April 2018 to the present. The Plaintiff timely filed her Motion for Class Certification on May 19, 2025. The Plaintiff's reply in support of her Motion for Class Certification is due on Friday, June 27, 2025. Embry-Riddle is the world's largest fully accredited university specializing in aviation and aerospace. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9AJJ5D at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. Amanda E. Heystek, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 337-7992 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com lcabassa@wfclaw.com aheystek@wfclaw.com FEDERAL BUREAU: Standing Order Entered in Pantels Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS J. PANTELS, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Case No. 5:25-cv-01430-JGB-DTB (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jesus G. Bernal entered a standing order as follows: The Plaintiff(s) shall immediately serve this Order on all parties along with the Summons and Complaint. If this case came to the Court by noticed removal, the removing Defendant(s) shall serve this Order on all other parties. The Plaintiff shall serve the Complaint promptly in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and file the proofs of service pursuant to L.R. 5−3.1. Any answers filed in state court must be re−filed in this Court (separately) as a supplement to the petition. Any pending motions must be re−noticed in accordance with L.R. 6−1. Under 28 U.S.C. section 636, the parties may consent to have a Magistrate Judge preside over all proceedings. The Magistrate Judges who accept those designations are identified on the Central District's website, which also contains the consent form Federal is the lead agency for exposing, preventing, and investigating intelligence activities, including espionage, in the US. A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LVDRbG at no extra charge.[CC] GASLAMP QUARTER: $7MM Deal in Ladies' Night Suit Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- Teri Figueroa of San Diego Union-Tribune reports that a San Diego judge has signaled approval of a $7 million settlement in a class-action lawsuit alleging a Gaslamp Quarter nightclub's "ladies' night" events discriminated against men and non-binary people. Two men sued the owners of Omnia Nightclub in 2020 alleging that they -- and other men and nonbinary people -- had to pay full price at the door and were frisked by security before they could enter the club during several such events, while women were let in for free or at discounted rates and were not frisked. The two sides reached an agreement, according to court documents, and San Diego Superior Court Judge Matthew Braner indicated last month he was generally onboard with it. An Aug. 29 hearing is set for Braner to decide whether the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate. Central to the litigation is the Unruh Civil Rights Act, a California law that bars businesses from discriminating against people for several protected characteristics, including age, race and sex. The class-action suit covers men and nonbinary people who attended the events, paid full price and were frisked dating back to April 2015. The proposed settlement agreement reflects that there is no admission of liability or wrongdoing. The two named plaintiffs, Alex Maystrenko and Steve Frye, will get $25,000 each for their roles as the class representatives. Their attorney, Daniel Williams, did not respond to requests for comment. Omnia attorney Tyler Andrews declined comment, citing the ongoing litigation. Some potential class members will be proactively notified of the settlement and their ability to submit a claim. During the litigation, the defendants turned over the names and email addresses of 34,325 people who purchased tickets to Omnia Nightclub between May 18, 2017, and May 29, 2020, when the San Diego site closed down for good. Emails will be sent to everyone on the list, according to the document. Figuring that men make up about half the population, court documents indicate, there are at least 17,000 members of the class who will qualify for a cut of the settlement. The plaintiffs also said they believe the club might have emails from events dating back to 2015. There is a second lawsuit the court recently deemed related to this one, a case filed earlier this year by two men who decided to pursue their own legal action rather than become members of the class. "I and my clients hardily disapprove of businesses treating patrons or consumers differently based solely on their sex," said attorney Alfred Rava, a San Diego-based lawyer who has brought other "ladies' night" suits. Rava, who is representing the plaintiffs in the related suit, said he does not know how his suit may affect the proposed settlement. As to the class-action suit, legal fees, service fees and other fees could account for up to 40% of the settlement fund, court documents indicate. Depending on how many people submit an accepted claim, the payout per person could range from about $245 up to $4,000. Unclaimed money will be split between the Legal Aid Society of San Diego and Sunshine Ranch Therapeutic Riding in Lakeside, which works with children with special needs. [GN} GOOGLE LLC: Rabin Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE RABIN, et al., v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-04547-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge P. Casey Pitts entered an order certifying the following class under Rule 23(b)(3): "All persons or entities in the United States who: (a) signed up for the free version of Google Apps between Aug. 1, 2006 and Dec. 6, 2012; (b) were still Legacy Free customers as of Jan. 19, 2022; (c) had at least one active user on their account during the 180 days prior to Jan. 19, 2022; and (d) were not eligible to "opt-out"* prior to being charged for Workspace. Customers eligible to "opt-out" included customers who identified as non-commercial customers or were migrated to Workspace for Education Fundamentals or Workspace for Nonprofits. The Plaintiff Steve Rabin is appointed as class representative and Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP and Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC are appointed as class counsel. Certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is denied, as is the motion to appoint plaintiff Ian Graves as class representative. The parties shall jointly file within 30 days of this order a proposed plan to notify the certified class and provide an opportunity to opt out. The operative complaint, filed on July 17, 2023, asserts three claims against Google: (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and (3) a violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) for "unfair" or "unlawful" conduct. Google operates as a global technology company specializes in internet related services and products. A copy of the Court's order dated June 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JUZfJB at no extra charge.[CC] HCA HEALTHCARE: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to July 7 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as McRee v. HCA Healthcare, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00128 (W.D.N.C., Filed April 25, 2024), the Hon. Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr., entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for extension of time to file reply in support of its motion for notice and conditional certification pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 216(b). -- The deadline for Plaintiffs to file a reply is extended through and including July 7, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Healthcare, Inc. is an American for-profit operator of health care facilities that was founded in 1968.[CC] IGLOO PRODUCTS: Zannettino Suit Transferred to D. Delaware ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Anthony Zannettino, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Igloo Products Corp., Case No. 2:25-cv-01917 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on June 17, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00744-UNA to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Prop. Damage Prod. Liability. Igloo Products Corp. -- https://www.igloocoolers.com/ -- is an American manufacturer of ice chests, drink containers, and supporting accessories.[BN] IMC LOGISTICS: Benjamin Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kamika Benjamin, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. IMC LOGISTICS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB250424 was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, County of San Bernardino to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 16, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-05472. The Complaint alleges ten causes of action: Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Failure to Pay All Wages; Knowing and Intentional Failure to Comply with Itemized Employee Wage Statement Provisions; Failure to Timely Pay Wages Due at Termination; Failure to Timely Pay Employees; Failure to Reimburse for Business Expenses; Failure to Pay for All Hours Worked, Including Overtime Hours Worked; Violation of Business and Professions Code; and Penalties Pursuant to Labor Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jaime B. Laurent, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, California 90067.3107 Phone: 310.553.0308 Facsimile: 800.715.1330 Email: jlaurent@littler.com - and - Nicole Vongchanglor, Esq. Kenneth Villanueva, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON. P.C. 633 West Fifth Street, 63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213.443.4300 Facsimile: 213-443-4299 Email: nvongchanglor@littler.com jvillanueva@littler.com ITS TECHNOLOGIES: Appeals Court Upholds Cert. in Privacy Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- ID Tech reports that a Illinois appeals court has upheld class certification in a biometric privacy lawsuit against ITS Technologies & Logistics, LLC, allowing more than 800 current and former workers to collectively pursue claims under the state's Biometric Information Privacy Act. The ruling, issued June 24, 2025, in McGivney v. ITS, marks another step forward in BIPA enforcement for workplace time-tracking systems. The plaintiffs allege that ITS required employees to use biometric time clocks that captured and stored their fingerprints or hand geometry without first obtaining informed written consent, as mandated by BIPA. The appellate court agreed that the case met the necessary conditions for class certification, including common legal questions and representative adequacy. It concluded that the central issue -- whether ITS's biometric practices violated BIPA -- was "suitable for, if not demanding of, class-wide resolution." Legal and Financial Implications If the plaintiffs prevail, each class member could receive statutory damages of $1,000 for negligent violations or $5,000 for reckless or intentional ones. A 2024 amendment to BIPA now limits these damages to one award per person rather than per biometric scan, though courts are still determining whether that rule applies retroactively to pending cases. The case highlights the continued scrutiny of workplace biometric systems. Despite legal risks, the use of fingerprint and facial recognition technology for time and attendance tracking continues to grow. Recent industry developments suggest expanding deployment of these tools, even as lawsuits mount. Part of a Larger Trend in BIPA Enforcement The ITS decision joins a series of high-profile BIPA actions in Illinois. In March 2025, a federal court granted final approval for a $51.8 million settlement with Clearview AI over the unauthorized collection of facial biometric data. And in June 2025, a judge allowed a BIPA case to proceed against HMD Trucking over its use of driver-facing cameras. The ITS case now enters further litigation phases, including formal notice to class members, discovery, and potential motions or settlement talks. Its outcome could shape how employers implement biometric systems in compliance with evolving privacy laws across Illinois. [GN} JB IP LLC: Metz Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against JB IP, LLC. The case is styled as Paul Metz, individually and on behalf of all thosse similarly situated v. JB IP, LLC doing business as: Jungle Boys, Case No. 3:25-cv-01558-RBM-VET (S.D. Cal., June 18, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. JB IP, LLC doing business as Jungle Boys -- https://www.jungleboys.com/ -- specializes in cannabis cultivation and products, including flower, concentrates, and edibles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com JERRY'S ENTERPRISES: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jerry's Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Jerry's Foods, Case No. 0:25-cv-02508-NEB-DJF (D. Minn., June 17, 2025), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.jerrysfoods.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers groceries for sale, including but not limited to, meats, baked goods, produce, dairy, frozen foods, flowers and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com JP MORGAN: Cyr Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts ----------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Mozart Saint Cyr, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., Case No. 2584-CV-01139 was removed from the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on June 16, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-11751. The Plaintiff's Complaint does not allege a specific amount of alleged damages sought on behalf of Plaintiff or the putative class. Plaintiff instead alleges, on behalf of himself and the putative class purported to be "in the thousands," that "minimum statutory damages" should be awarded in the amount of $500 "per violation." In addition to claimed "minimum statutory damages," Plaintiff also seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages, prejudgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and "all other forms of equitable monetary relief."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Keri L. Engelman, Esq. Anna K. Perocchi, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Federal Street Boston, MA 02110-1726 Phone: +1.617.341.7700 Fax: +1.617.341.7701 Email: keri.engleman@morganlewis.com anna.perocchi@morganlewis.com KANSAS CITY LIFE: Agrees to Settle Insurance Class Suit for $45MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Life Insurance International reports that Kansas City Life Insurance Company (KCL) has agreed to a $45m settlement to address claims in class action litigation. The litigation concerns cost of insurance rates in certain universal life and variable universal life policies. The agreement, which involves approximately 88,000 policyholders, awaits preliminary and final approval from the courts. The settlement aims to address all current and potential claims related to the cost of insurance rates used by KCL in administering several of its universal life and variable universal life policies. The US insurer noted that the Sheldon litigation matter will be heard before the 16th Circuit Court, Jackson County, Missouri. All other claims will proceed before the US District Court for the Western District of Missouri. No dates have been scheduled for the settlement approval hearings and KCL stated there is no guarantee the courts will approve the agreement. The company noted that, by entering the settlement, it does not admit to any liability or wrongdoing regarding the claims or allegations in the lawsuits. KCL added it will "vigorously" defend any actions if the courts do not approve the settlement. KCL board vice-chairman, president and CEO Walter Bixby said: "We believe the settlement is the right course of action to remove future uncertainty and ongoing legal expense, serving the best interests of the policyholders, company and shareholders, and will allow us to focus on moving forward to better serve our policyholders and the life insurance marketplace." Established in 1895, KCL is headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri. The insurer focuses on providing financial protection through life insurance and annuities, operating in 49 states and the District of Columbia. [GN] KEURIG DR. PEPPER: Hod Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Adi Hod, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KEURIG DR PEPPER INC., Case No. 2584cv01128-BLS2 was removed from the Superior Court of Suffolk County, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on June 18, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-11784. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant's violation of the Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 149, which requires all applications for employment within the Commonwealth to contain a notice of job applicants' and employees' rights concerning lie detector tests. Despite this abundantly clear mandate, Defendant does not provide such written notice of rights in their applications for jobs in Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Reardon, Jr., Esq. 45 South Main Street, 3rd Floor West Hartford, CT 06107 Phone: (860) 955-9455 Fax: (860) 920-5242 Email: James.reardon@reardonscanlon.com - and - Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. ARISOHN LLC 513 8th Avenue, #2 Brooklyn, NY 11215 Phone: (917) 656-0569 Email: josh@arisohnllc.com The Defendants are represented by: Kelly M. Pesce, Esq. Jack S. Gearan, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP One International Place Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (617) 310-6000 Facsimile: (617) 310-6001 Email: kelly.pesce@gtlaw.com gearanj@gtlaw.com KIRKLAND'S INC: Dismissal of Miles Suit Under Appeal ---------------------------------------------------- Kirkland's, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended May 3, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 17, 2025, that a putative class action filed in May 2018 in the Superior Court of California captioned, "Miles v. Kirkland's Stores, Inc." The case is currently on appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court. On February 28, 2025, the District Court dismissed this case in its entirety, without prejudice. On May 2, 2025, a complaint was refiled in this matter in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The company was named as a defendant in The case has been removed to United States District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges, on behalf of Miles and all other hourly Kirkland's employees in California, various wage and hour violations and seeks unpaid wages, statutory and civil penalties, monetary damages and injunctive relief. On March 22, 2022, the District Court denied the plaintiff's motion to certify in its entirety, and on May 26, 2022, the Ninth Circuit granted the plaintiff's petition for permission to appeal. The appeal was argued before the Ninth Circuit on November 13, 2023, and on January 8, 2024, the Court issued its opinion affirming the District Court in part and reversing in part. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of certification as to the subclasses related to the security bag check and reversed as to the rest break claim. The Ninth Circuit did not find that there is liability nor that the rest break claim is certified. The District Court has scheduled a hearing on the surviving rest break claim last June 7, 2024. The company was named as a defendant in a putative class action filed in August 2022 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Sicard v. Kirkland's Stores, Inc. The complaint alleges, on behalf of Sicard and all other hourly store employees based in New York, that Kirkland's violated New York Labor Law Section 191 by failing to pay him and the putative class members their wages within seven calendar days after the end of the week in which those wages were earned, rather paying wages on a bi-weekly basis. plaintiff claims the putative class is entitled to recover from the company the amount of their untimely paid wages as liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The company believes the case is without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations. Kirkland's, Inc. is a specialty retailer of home décor and furnishings in the United States operating 329 stores in 35 states as of May 4, 2024, as well as an e-commerce website, www.kirklands.com, under the Kirkland's Home brand. KNOCKAROUND LLC: Broussard Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Knockaround, LLC. The case is styled as Kennedi Broussard, individually and on behalf of all those whose similarly situated v. Knockaround, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-01534-TWR-AHG (S.D. Cal., June 16, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Knockaround -- https://knockaround.com/ -- is the original affordable sunglasses, offering classically styled shades in a wide range of colors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald Donald Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com KOLE JAX DESIGNS: Brockington Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Tennessee --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kole Jax Designs, LLC. The case is styled as Sheri Butler Brockington, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Kole Jax Designs, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00193 (E.D. Tenn., June 16, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Kole Jax Designs -- https://kolejax.com/ -- sells customizable jewelry, accessories, and curated monthly subscription boxes.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (615) 485-0018 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com LEGION CORPORATION: Jones Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Legion Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Michael Rashad Jones, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Legion Corporation, Does 1 to 100, Inclusive, Case No. CGC25626230 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., June 17, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Legion Corporation -- https://www.legioncorporation.com/ -- provides a wide range of security solutions to meet the growing demands and complexities of the marketplace.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Win Pham, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: 310-432-0000 Email: wpham@lelawfirm.com LUSHA SYSTEMS INC: Hutchings Files Suit in D. Colorado ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lusha Systems, Inc. The case is styled as William Kelsey Hutchings, Jr., Barrie Dempsey, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. Lusha Systems, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-01908-NRN (D. Colo., June 18, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Fraud. Lusha Systems, Inc. -- https://www.lusha.com/ -- designs and develops software solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (954) 647-1866 Email: mweekes@milberg.com MAISON MIRU: Bonkowski Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Robert Bonkowski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MAISON MIRU LLC, Case No. 25STCV14695 was removed from the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 18, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-05546. The Plaintiff alleges that he brought this putative class action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, who have accessed and used the website maisonmiru.com. The Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant violated the California Trap and Trace Law, a provision of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"), by using trap and trace processes on its website.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Mark B. Chassman, Esq. MEISTER SEELIG & FEIN LLP 1250 Sixth Street, Suite 403 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Phone: (310) 929-7192 Email: mbc@msf-law.com META PIXEL: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert. Briefing Deadlines ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Re Meta Pixel Tax Filing Cases, Case No. 5:22-cv-07557-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting a four-week extension of the deadline for the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, from July 21, 2025, to Aug. 18, 2025. To avoid prejudice to Plaintiffs from the change in dates, the parties have agreed, subject to approval by the Court, to alter the class certification deadlines as follows: Event Proposed New Deadline The Plaintiffs' motion for class Aug. 18, 2025 Certification: Meta's Opposition to Class Certification: Oct. 27, 2025 Plaintiffs' Reply Brief: Dec. 15, 2025 There was one prior request to alter the class certification, which the Court granted. There is compelling good cause for this request because, as Meta represents, it is the result of unforeseen, extenuating circumstances, which arose through no fault of either party, and the parties have promptly sought relief from the Court. In addition, the requested extension is brief, and corresponds to the amount of time lost due to the deposition scheduling issue (i.e., approximately four weeks). A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bDQB4Z at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Neal Deckant, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: jsmith@bursor.com - and - Joel D. Smith, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, P.C. 867 Boylston Street, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02216 Telephone: (617) 377-7404 E-mail: joel@skclassactions.com - and - Lori G. Feldman, Esq. Michael Liskow, Esq. GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC 102 Half Moon Bay Drive Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520 Telephone: (917) 983-9321 E-mail: lfeldman@4-justice.com mliskow@4-justice.com eservice@4-justice.com - and - Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com rapeterson@locklaw.com kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com - and - Marshal J. Hoda, Esq. THE HODA LAW FIRM, PLLC 12333 Sowden Road, Suite B Houston, TX 77080 Telephone: (832) 848-0036 E-mail: marshal@thehodalawfirm.com - and - Patrick Yarborough, Esq. FOSTER YARBOROUGH PLLC 917 Franklin Street, Suite 220 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 331-5254 E-mail: patrick@fosteryarborough.com - and - John G. Emerson, Esq. EMERSON FIRM, PLLC 2500 Wilcrest, Suite 300 Houston, TX 77042 Telephone: (800) 551-8649 E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Darcy C. Harris, Esq. Lauren R. Goldman, Esq. Elizabeth K. Mccloskey, Esq. Abigail A. Barrera, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166-0193 Telephone: (212) 351-4000 Facsimile: (212) 351-4035 E-mail: lgoldman@gibsondunn.com dharris@gibsondunn.com emccloskey@gibsondunn.com abarrera@gibsondunn.com - and - Michael G. Rhodes, Esq. Kyle C. Wong, Esq. Caroline A. Lebel, Esq. COOLEY LLP 3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4004 Telephone: (415) 693-2000 Facsimile: (415) 693-2222 E-mail: rhodesmg@cooley.com kwong@cooley.com clebel@cooley.com MIKE ARNOLD: Szalanski Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENDA SZALANSKI, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MIKE ARNOLD, LEA GEREND, PHIL TROIA, MIKE WHALEY, and GREATBANC TRUST COMPANY, and PDQ FOOD STORES, INC. EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN, Case No. 3:19-cv-00940-wmc (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge William Conley entered an order that: 1) The Defendant GreatBanc Trust Company's motion to dismiss is granted. 2) The Defendants Mike Arnold, Lea Gerend, Phil Troia and Mike Whaley's motion to dismiss is granted. 3) The Plaintiff's amended complaint is dismissed with prejudice. 4) The Plaintiff's motion to certify class is denied as moot. 5) The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment for defendants and close this case. The Plaintiff Brenda Szalanski is a former employee of now-defunct PDQ Food and a participant in the PDQ Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP). In this putative class action, she contends that four PDQ executives and GreatBanc Trust Company, the Trustee of the ESOP, breached their fiduciary duties in negotiating and approving PDQ’s October 2017 sale to Kwik Trip in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, A copy of the Court's order dated June 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iX0Aik at no extra charge.[CC] NATIONAL CABLE: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HORAN, et al., v. NATIONAL CABLE SATELLITE CORPORATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-01114 (D.D.C., Filed April 14, 2025), the Hon. Beryl A. Howell Judge entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for extension of time to file motion for class certification and Defendants' consent. The parties should propose a schedule for briefing on a motion for class certification in their Joint Meet and Confer Report. The nature of suit states Statutory Actions. The Defendant is an American cable and satellite television network, created in 1979 by the cable television industry as a nonprofit public service.[CC] NATURE'S PATH: Must File Class Cert Opposition by Oct. 3 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as IAN MILLER and SONIA ECHEVVERIA- CORZAN, as an individuals, on behalf of themselves, the general public, and those similarly situated, v. NATURE'S PATH FOODS, INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-05711-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon S. Tigar entered an order granting joint stipulation to continue deadlines for class certification briefing: The deadline for the Plaintiffs' class certification motion and the Plaintiffs' expert disclosures for class certification is reset to July 25, 2025; The deadline for the Defendant's opposition to the class certification motion and the Defendant's expert disclosures for class certification is reset to Oct. 3, 2025; The class certification expert discovery cut-off is reset to Nov. 14, 2025; and The deadline for the Plaintiffs' class certification reply is reset to Dec. 2, 2025. Nature's is a Canadian privately held, family-owned producer of certified organic foods. A copy of the Court's order dated June 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CZieCn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Kali Backer, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 271-6469 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com kali@gutridesafier.com The Defendant is represented by: Jaikaran Singh, Esq. Charles B. Stevens, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 11988 El Camino Real, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (213) 972-4500 Facsimile: (213) 486-0065 E-mail: jsingh@Foley.Com charles.stevens@foley.com NEW YORK, NY: Class Cert Bid Filing in Miller Due March 13, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Miller, et al., v. City of New York, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00065 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Jan. 5, 2023), the Hon. Judge Pamela K. Chen entered an order on motion to adjourn conference and terminate deadlines and hearings: The deadline to initiate the anticipated class certification motion is March 13, 2026. The parties are reminded that initiation of any dispositive motions, including the anticipated class certification motion, must be done in accordance with the individual rules of the assigned District Judge. Given the impending class certification motion, the Court declines to set the last date to take the first step in dispositive motion practice at this time. The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.[CC] NEW YORK, NY: Class Cert Bid Filing in Z.Q. Extended to Sept. 16 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Z.Q., et al., v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-09866-JAV-RFT (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky entered an order extending discovery deadlines as follows: -- The Plaintiffs' expert report is due by June 30, 2025; -- The Defendants' expert report is due by Aug. 1, 2025; -- Expert depositions to be completed by Aug. 18, 2025; -- The Plaintiffs' anticipated class certification motion is due by Sept. 16, 2025; -- Daubert motions to be served by Sept. 16, 2025; -- The Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiffs' anticipated class certification motion is due by Oct. 29, 2025; -- Oppositions to Daubert motions to be served by Oct. 29, 2025; -- The Plaintiffs' reply in further support of their anticipated class certification motion is due by Nov. 12, 2025; and -- Replies in further support of any Daubert motions to be served by Nov. 12, 2025. New York City Department of Education manages the city's public school system. A copy of the Court's order dated June 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=l8FsV0 at no extra charge.[CC] NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY: Employees Sue Over Premium Health Plans ---------------------------------------------------------------- Audrey Pachuta of Daily Northwestern, reports that two former Northwestern employees filed a class-action lawsuit against the University on June 20, alleging that NU's employee health plan includes a more expensive "premium" option that does not provide any additional benefits for those insured. According to the filing, which was made by the former employees on behalf of those "similarly situated," the University offers three different tiers of healthcare coverage for those with full-time contracts, which varied in cost, while providing the same level of care. In 2018, the University established its employee welfare benefit plan, which allowed participants to choose a preferred provider organization from three different tiers, ranging from a "premier" provider with the lowest deductibles and highest premiums, to a "value" provider, which offered the opposite. The plaintiffs allege that employees who opted for the premium plan paid more money out of their paychecks for no added value. As a result, the filing alleges that NU is in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, a piece of 1974 federal legislation designed to protect employee benefits in private-sector workplaces. According to the suit, the University knew that its high-cost plan offered no greater incentives, but failed to inform its employees, instead misleading them into overpaying for coverage. The filing also alleges NU did not provide proper oversight of those managing the plan, something plaintiffs view as a further shortfall of its "affirmative obligation" to communicate information crucial to beneficiaries. The filing comes just 10 days after University President Michael Schill cited litigation expenses as one factor putting an "increasing strain" on the University's finances in a statement to the NU community. On behalf of all full-time employees enrolled in the premium PPO since 2019, the suit seeks reimbursement for all affected employees as well as an injunction to prevent future violations. [GN] OPENAI INC: Bid for Broad Cross-Use of Intercept Media Docs Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as The Intercept Media, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc. et al (RE: OPENAI, INC., COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LITIGATION), Case No. 1:24-cv-01515 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ona T. Wang entered an order denying OpenAI's request for broad cross-use of the Plaintiffs' documents and depositions. The parties are directed to meet and confer on OpenAI's AEO designations and inform the Court how they have elected to proceed by June 30, 2025. The parties are directed to begin finalizing and to submit a finalized deposition protocol and omnibus protective order for the Court's review by July 7, 2025. OpenAI asserts, in conclusory fashion, that absent broad, unfettered cross-use of Plaintiffs' documents, "[f]or the reasons discussed in OpenAI's supplemental letter regarding the Deposition Protocol," OpenAI "will have to litigate the cases individually, for example, filing separate motions on common issues" that the MDL Court could otherwise address at once. Notwithstanding OpenAI's failure to articulate ripe issues, the Court has reviewed ECF 223—which discusses OpenAI's arguments about deposition protocol disputes—but finds only the same speculative and conclusory arguments for the cross-use of Plaintiffs' depositions. The Plaintiffs assert that OpenAI used their copyrighted material to train their LLMs, and OpenAI has not articulated why one Plaintiff's documents are relevant to OpenAI's defenses in another case brought by a different Plaintiff. OpenAI operates as an investment company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jae6Cn at no extra charge.[CC] PARK MY FLEET: Class Cert Bid Filing Due April 20, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GIAVANNI MCKNIGHT, v. PARK MY FLEET LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00368-KES-SAB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stanley Boone entered an order re stipulation to modify scheduling order: Pre-Certification Non-Expert Discovery: Oct. 27, 2025 Pre-Certification Expert Disclosure: Dec. 29, 2025 Deadline for Pre-Certification Rebuttal Jan. 26, 2026 Expert Disclosure: Deadline for Pre-Certification Expert Feb. 23, 2026 Discovery: Deadline for Plaintiff to File Motion April 20, 2026 for Class Certification: ParkMyFleet provides fully staffed secured and gated mobility hubs. A copy of the Court's order dated June 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PHM4SW at no extra charge.[CC] PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Court Consolidated Actions with Sells Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PHERN SELLS, a single person; DENNIS HIGGINS and TRACY HIGGINS, husband and wife; WILLIAM HAMBY and CYNDI HAMBY, husband and wife; and DANIEL WHEELER, v. PROVIDENCE ST. JOSEPH HEALTH; PROVIDENCE HEALTH & SERVICES; PROVIDENCE HEALTH AND SERVICES — WASHINGTON d/b/a PROVIDENCE ST. MARY MEDICAL CENTER; and PROVIDENCE MEDICAL GROUP d/b/a PROVIDENCE MEDICAL GROUP SOUTHEAST WASHINGTON NEUROSURGERY, a/k/a PMG NEUROSCIENCE INSTITUTE, WALLA WALLA a/k/a NEUROSCIENCE INSTITUTE d/b/a PROVIDENCE; and JANE AND JOHN DOES 1–6, Case No. 4:24-cv-05160-SAB (E.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Stan Bastian entered an order consolidating Sells, Goold, And Angulo, for the purpose of considering class certification: The suits are: "Sells et al v. Providence St. Joseph Health et al., Case No. 4:24-CV05160- SAB;" "Goold, et al, v. Dreyer, et al., Case No. 4:25-CV-05025-SAB; and "Angulo, et al., v. Providence Health & Services Washington et al., Case 4:25-CV-05029-SAB, are consolidated, for the purpose of resolving the issue of class certification. The parties shall utilize case No. 4:25-CV-05029-SAB for any filings. The Defendant's motion to dismiss or stay in Sells Suit is denied. The Plaintiffs' request to strike the Defendants' filing of material facts, noted in their response is denied. The Defendant's motion to dismiss, first to file in Goold Suit is denied. The Plaintiffs' request to strike the Defendants' filing of material facts, noted in their response is denied. The Clerk of Court shall administratively close Sells Suit and Goold Suit until the issue of class certification is resolved. All deadlines and hearings in Sells and Goold are stricken. The District Court Clerk is directed to enter this Order, provide copies to counsel, and administratively close Sells suit and Goold suit. The Court finds consolidation appropriate for managing these three related matters and for the purposes of adjudicating the question of class certification. All three cases involve patients who allegedly suffered harm from surgeries performed and medical advice provided by Drs. Dreyer or Elskens, In Angulo, the Plaintiffs further seek to certify two classes of plaintiffs, Providence Class and MultiCare Class: Providence Class: "All surgical patients of the Doctors at Providence who were subject to the RVU compensation scheme in connection with their treatment. MultiCare Class: "All surgical patients of Dr. Jason A. Dreyer, DO, while he was employed in Spokane, Washington, by MultiCare Health Systems, from May 3, 2019, through November 18, 2021. The Angulo case was filed in King County Superior Court on May 13, 2022. On March 19, 2025, it was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, because of several related pending matters and in the interest of justice and judicial economy. The Sells case was filed on December 4, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1332. The Goold case was filed on March 11, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1332. Providence provides the full range of diagnostic, treatment, care and support services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=U8QEYB at no extra charge.[CC] REDDIT INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due August 18 ------------------------------------------------------------- Leading securities law firm Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP announces that a lawsuit has been filed against Reddit, Inc. (NYSE: RDDT) and certain of the Company's senior executives for potential violations of the federal securities laws. If you invested in Reddit, you are encouraged to obtain additional information by visiting: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/reddit-inc-securities-fraud-class-action. Investors have until August 18, 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 Reddit securities. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and is captioned Tamraz, Jr. v. Reddit, Inc., at al., No. 25-cv-05144. Why was Reddit Sued for Securities Fraud? Reddit owns and operates the eponymous social news aggregation, forum, and social media platform. Reddit receives a significant portion of its user traffic from individuals seeking answers to questions using Google Search. The complaint alleges that Reddit misrepresented and downplayed the impact that Google's use of Artificial Intelligence ("AI") technology in Google's search results had on Reddit's user growth. In truth, Google's use of AI dented Reddit's user growth by eliminating the need for individuals to visit and click through to Reddit to get answers to their questions. Rather, the answers appeared through Google's AI search results. The Stock Declines as the Truth is Revealed On May 1, 2025, Reddit reported a significant slowdown in daily active user growth. On this news, the price of Reddit stock declined $4.96 per share, or more than 4%, from $118.79 per share on May 1, 2025, to $113.83 per share on May 2, 2025. Then, on May 21, 2025, Wall Street analyst Baird cut its Reddit stock price target over concerns that Google's AI capabilities are stifling Reddit's user growth. On this news, the price of Reddit stock fell $9.79 per share, or over 9%, from $105.64 per share on May 20, 2025, to $95.85 per share on May 21, 2025. Click here for more information: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/reddit-inc-securities-fraud-class-action. What Can You Do? If you invested in Reddit 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/reddit-inc-securities-fraud-class-action 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. For more information about BFA and its attorneys, please visit https://www.bfalaw.com. https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/reddit-inc-securities-fraud-class-action [GN] SAIA MOTOR: Moore Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL MOORE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SAIA MOTOR FREIGHT LINE, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-03156-FLA-E (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on July 18, 2025, will move the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1), for an Order: 1. Certifying the proposed Class and/or Subclasses or any other Subclass the Court may devise; 2. Appointing Plaintiff as Representative of the proposed Class and/or Subclasses or any other Subclass the Court may devise; 3. Appointing Kane Moon, Allen Feghali, and Jacquelyne VanEmmerik of Moon Law Group, P.C., as Class Counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g); and, 4. Issuing such other Orders as necessary to effectuate certification. The Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint in the Los Angeles Superior Court on March 11, 2024. The Complaint alleged eight individual and class causes of action pursuant to the Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code. The putative Class is defined as follows: "All persons who worked for the Defendant in California as an hourly, non-exempt employee at any time from March 11, 2020, through the present." There are at least two potential putative Subclasses: the "Unreimbursed Uniform Expenses Subclass" and "Unreimbursed Cellphone Expenses Subclass." The Unreimbursed Uniform Expenses Subclass includes: "all Class Members who incurred at least one unreimbursed uniform expense in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties to the Defendant, or of his or her obedience to the directions of the Defendant, at any time from March 11, 2020, through the present." The Unreimbursed Cellphone Expenses Subclass includes: "All Class Members who incurred at least one unreimbursed cellphone expense in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties to the Defendant, or of his or her obedience to the directions of the Defendant, at any time during the Class Period." The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a Part-Time Dockworker in May 2018 and as a Full-Time City Driver in January 2019. Saia is a major less-than-truckload (LTL) and truckload shipping, distribution and consolidation, and logistics company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uo5PVN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. Allen Feghali, Esq. Jacquelyne VanEmmerik, Esq. MOON LAW GROUP, P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 232-3128 Facsimile: (213) 232-3125 E-mail: kmoon@moonlawgroup.com afeghali@moonlawgroup.com jvanemmerik@moonlawgroup.com SECURITY BENEFIT: Carrick Seeks to Redact Class Exhibits -------------------------------------------------------- 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 CO., a Kansas corporation, Case No. 5:20-cv-04038-HLT-RES (D. Kan.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to redact exhibits to the Plaintiffs' class certification motion. Security offers life and health insurance, retirement plans, annuities, mutual funds, and related services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Zwfz94 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 - Seth Ard, Esq. Russell F. Rennie, Esq. Steven Sklaver, Esq. Glenn Bridgman, Esq. Michael Adamson, Esq. Kimberly Page, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. One Manhattan West, 50th Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 336-8330 Facsimile: (212) 336-8340 E-mail: sard@susmangodfrey.com rrennie@susmangodfrey.com ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com gbridgman@susmangodfrey.com madamson@susmangodfrey.com kpage@susmangodfrey.com - and - Francis J. Balint, Jr., Esq. Andrew S. Friedman, Esq. BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C. 7301 N. 16th Street, Suite 102 Phoenix, AZ 85020-5266 Telephone: (602) 274-1100 E-mail: fbalint@bffb.com afriedman@bffb.com SELECT PORTFOLIO: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Nov. 14 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DeSimone, et al., v. Select Portfolio Services, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-03837 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Aug. 20, 2020), the Hon. Judge Pamela K. Chen entered an order on Motion for extension of time to complete discovery: -- The deadline to initiate class certification motion practice is Nov. 14, 2025. -- The parties are reminded that they may request a referral to mediation or a settlement conference before the Court at any time. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act (FDCA). Select Portfolio is a loan servicing company founded in 1989 as Fairbanks Capital Corp. with operations in Salt Lake City, Utah and Jacksonville, Florida.[CC] SKOGEN'S FOODLINER: Bid for Conditional Cert. in Dyer Due Oct. 31 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEREMY DYER, v. SKOGEN'S FOODLINER, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00322-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Anita Marie Boor entered a preliminary pretrial conference order as follows: -- The Plaintiff's motion for conditional Oct. 31, 2025 certification: -- Disclosure of class experts: Plaintiffs/Proponents: May 18, 2026 Defendants/Respondents: June 22, 2026 Rebuttal: July 27, 2026 -- Motions & Briefs to Certify Aug. 31, 2026 Class/Decertify Collective: -- Deadline for filing dispositive motions: March 16, 2027 -- Discovery Cutoff: July 16, 2027 -- First Final Pretrial Conference: Sept. 15, 2027 -- Second Final Pretrial Conference: Sept. 22, 2027 -- Trial: Sept. 27, 2027 Skogen's is a privately-held company that operates in the food & beverage retail industry. A copy of the Court's order dated June 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fa3SHE at no extra charge.[CC] SWIFT PORK: Court Extends Stay of Vail Suit ------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICHOLAS VAIL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. SWIFT PORK COMPANY, d/b/a JBS USA, Case No. 3:22-cv-00354-DJH-RSE (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Regina S. Edwards entered an order extending the stay currently in place by an additional 30 days to July 14, 2025, by which point the Parties shall have finalized the settlement agreement and the Plaintiff will file his motion for preliminary approval of class settlement. Swift produces and processes meat products. A copy of the Court's order dated June 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=X816sV at no extra charge.[CC] SYNGENTA CROP: Class Cert Hearing in FTC Suit Set for July 16 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION et al v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION AG, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00828 (M.D.N.C., Filed Sept. 29, 2022), the Hon. Judge Thomas D. Schroeder entered an order as follows: The Court has set a hearing in Case No. 1:23md3062 to discuss the parties' proposed schedules in that case for expert discovery and briefing class certification motions, as set out in their Joint Status Reports, and to hear a Motion to Amend and address any other scheduling issues. That hearing is set for Wednesday, July 16, 2025, at 10:30 a.m. at the Federal Courthouse in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Given the pretrial coordination of these cases, the Court will allow the Parties in this action an opportunity to participate and be heard as may be appropriate. In addition, if a hearing is necessary in this action on Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel, it will set for that same day and time, Wednesday, July 16, 2025, at 10:30 a.m. The Defendant Syngenta's Response to the Motion to Compel is due June 24, 2025, and Plaintiffs' Reply is due July 1, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Syngenta is a global agricultural technology company headquartered in Basel, Switzerland.[CC] TEACHERS HEALTH: Goodsell Suit Seeks Certification of Subclass -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIANA GOODSELL, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated; et al., v. TEACHERS HEALTH TRUST, a Nevada Trust; et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-01510-APG-DJA (D. Nev.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for unfavorable inference for spoilation of evidence pursuant to FRCP 37(e). Accordingly, the motion for an unfavorable inference should be granted because the Teachers Health Trust ("THT") failed to preserve any claims data prior to Jan. 1, 2016, which is material relevant evidence, and the elements of FRCP 37(e) are met requiring an unfavorable inference regarding the 2012-2015 claims data. The certified Class in this action consists of: "Clark County School District ("CCSD") employees considered as an Eligible Employee for enrollment in the THT health plans since May 11, 2012, including (1) licensed employees of CCSD, paid on the teachers' salary schedule, and eligible for representation by the CCEA (and their dependents); (2) licensed employees of participating CCSD charter schools who are acting in the capacity of a teacher (and their dependents); and (3) employees of the CCEA or the Teachers Health Trust (and their dependents)." The Plaintiffs seek certification of a subclass consisting of: "Class Members enrolled in the THT Health Plans from May 11, 2012 through Dec. 31, 2015 (the "2012-2015 Subclass")." Teachers provides health care services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JfFNgT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gene J. Stonebarger, Esq. STONEBARGER LAW, APC 101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100 Folsom, CA 95630 Telephone: (916) 235-7140 E-mail: gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com - and - Jack C. Juan, Esq. HAYES | WAKAYAMA 5798 S Durango Drive, Suite 105 Las Vegas, NV 89113 Telephone: (702) 656-0808 Facsimile (702) 655-1047 E-mail: jjuan@hwlawNV.com TEACHERS HEALTH: Suit Seeks to Amend Certified Class Definition --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIANA GOODSELL, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated; et al., v. TEACHERS HEALTH TRUST, a Nevada Trust; et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-01510-APG-DJA (D. Nev.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting the motion to amend the definition of the previously certified class and to certify the Subclasses. The certified Class in this action consists of: "Clark County School District ("CCSD") employees considered as an Eligible Employee for enrollment in the THT health plans since May 11, 2012, including (1) licensed employees of CCSD, paid on the teachers' salary schedule, and eligible for representation by the CCEA (and their dependents); (2) licensed employees of participating CCSD charter schools who are acting in the capacity of a teacher (and their dependents); and (3) employees of the CCEA or the Teachers Health Trust (and their dependents). The Plaintiffs propose the following Subclasses to be certified based upon the respective enrollment periods of Plaintiffs and the Class, and the damages incurred by THT member enrollees based upon the breaches of THT during these respective time periods. 1. The 2012-2015 Subclass "A Subclass defined as Class Members enrolled in a THT Health Plan between May 11, 2012 to Dec. 31, 2015." All named Plaintiffs, Annette Anas, Diana Goodsell, Sheri DeBartolo, Michelle Reilly and Paula Kevish are members of this Subclass. 2. The 2016-2018 Subclass "A Subclass defined as Class Members enrolled in a THT Health Plan between Jan. 1, 2016 to Dec. 31, 2018." Plaintiffs Diana Goodsell, Sheri DeBartolo, Michelle Reilly and Paula Kevish are members of this Subclass. " 3. The 2019-2021 Subclass "A Subclass defined as Class Members enrolled in a THT Health Plan between Jan. 1, 2019 to July 31, 2021." Plaintiffs Michelle Reilly and Paula Kevish are members of this Subclass. 4. The 2022-2024 Subclass "A Subclass defined as Class Members enrolled in a THT Health Plan between Aug. 1, 2021 to Dec. 27, 2024." Plaintiffs Michelle Reilly and Paula Kevish are members of this Subclass. Teachers provides health care services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Vcwn1k at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gene J. Stonebarger, Esq. STONEBARGER LAW, APC 101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100 Folsom, CA 95630 Telephone: (916) 235-7140 E-mail: gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com - and - Jack C. Juan, Esq. HAYES | WAKAYAMA 5798 S Durango Drive, Suite 105 Las Vegas, NV 89113 Telephone: (702) 656-0808 Facsimile (702) 655-1047 E-mail: jjuan@hwlawNV.com TRAJECTOR MEDICAL: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Dec. 12 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as WARRIORS AND FAMILY ASSISTANCE CENTER LLC, et al., v. TRAJECTOR MEDICAL LLC f/k/a VET COMP & PEN MEDICAL CONSULTING, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00290-AW-HTC (N.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Allen Winsor entered an order granting in part motion for extension: 1. The Plaintiffs' expert disclosure deadline is extended to Sept. 19, 2025. 2. The Defendant's expert disclosure deadline is extended to Oct. 20, 2025. 3. The Plaintiffs' rebuttal expert disclosure deadline is extended to Nov. 10, 2025. 4. The deadline to file a class certification motion is extended to Dec. 12, 2025. The deadline to respond is 21 days after the motion is filed, and the deadline to reply is ten days after the response is filed. 5. The deadline to complete discovery is extended to March 14, 2026. 6. The deadline to file a notice of mediator selection remains Jan. 14, 2026. 7. The mediation deadline is extended to April 18, 2026. 8. The dispositive-motions deadline is extended to April 7, 2026. Deadlines for responses and replies are as set out in the local rules. 9. This case will be removed from the trial calendar. If necessary, the court will set a new trial date later. Trajector provides medical evidence for clients' benefit claims. A copy of the Court's order dated June 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZhZkzn at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED AIRLINES: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to August 11 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Harrison, et al., v. United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-01743 (D.D.C., Filed June 21, 2024), the Hon. Judge Regina M. Rodriguez entered an order granting joint motion to amend scheduling order. The Court extends the following deadlines: -- Discovery due by Oct. 10, 2025; and -- Dispositive Motion Notice due by Oct. 20, 2025. The Court further extends the deadline for Plaintiffs to file a Motion seeking Class Certification in this matter by 60 days to Aug. 11, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) involving Minimum Wage or Overtime Compensation. United Airlines is a major airline in the United States headquartered in Chicago, Illinois that operates an extensive domestic and international route network across the United States and six continents with more destinations than any other airline.[CC] UNITED PARCEL: Malone Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL MALONE, RANDY SHEPLER, and KERI GREEN, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-03643-JDW (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying lawsuit as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3). The proposed class is defined as follows: "All hourly-paid Warehouse Workers who were employed by UPS at a Plissken PA Facility at any time since Aug. 16, 2018, through the date of class certification and who worked 40 or more hours in one or more workweek, excluding those individuals for whom UPS has a record of their having acknowledged UPS's arbitration agreement." "Warehouse Workers" means hourly-paid employees excluding work performed as a driver, driver's helper, or automobile mechanic. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to: -- appoint the undersigned law firms to serve as "Class Counsel;" -- approve both (i) the "Notice of Class Action Lawsuit" form and (ii) the class notice protocols and procedures. United is an American multinational shipping & receiving and supply chain management company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RScic9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sarah Schalman-Bergen, Esq. Krysten Connon, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: ssb@llrlaw.com kconnon@llrlaw.com - and - Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq. WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON 1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 656-3679 E-mail: rhancock@wwdlaw.com - and - Peter Winebrake, Esq. Deirdre Aaron, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO Twining Office Center, Suite 211 715 Twining Road Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com daaron@winebrakelaw.com UNITED STATES: Air Alliance Sues Over Environmental Grant Cuts -------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy J. Wolf of CBS News reports that when Donald Trump won reelection, Jennifer Hadayia knew she'd need a good lawyer. As the executive director of Air Alliance Houston, an environmental nonprofit advocacy organization that works to reduce the risks of air pollution on public health, she had fought the first Trump administration in court already on a variety of issues. But when Lee Zeldin, the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, began terminating environmental justice grants awarded by the Biden-era EPA in January and announced "the greatest day of deregulation" in mid-March to dismantle dozens of environmental policies, Hadaiya was gobsmacked: "We are in the very worst possible situation to couple regulatory rollbacks with funding decimation." Hadayia isn't the only one in this position. Zeldin's immediate termination of some $3 billion from the Environmental and Climate Justice block program impacted 350 environmental organizations, cities and tribes that all saw their grants evaporate without warning. Environmental justice grants are intended to help protect people from disproportionate exposure to industrial pollutants or environmental hazards and ensure everyone has access to a healthy living environment. For instance, lower-income communities that live near factories are often more exposed to pollutants that may damage their health. Rather than sue the agency on its own, as many others are currently doing, Air Alliance Houston will be trying a new legal tactic: joining a first-of-its-kind proposed class action lawsuit against the EPA and Zeldin to restore funding. "We're not in it just for us," Hadayia told CBS News, "Communities across the country that were selected for these funds all have needs. The class action benefits the greater good." EPA cut funding to program that tracks permits for pollution Air Alliance Houston was awarded a $3.1-million "community change grant" by the Biden EPA in 2024 to expand a program it created to bring more transparency to the Texas state environmental permitting process. The program, called Air Mail, tracks permits for pollution and alerts communities in Harris County, Texas, when a company requests a permit, so people know what may be emitted into the air and water near their home. Hadayia planned to expand the program to 10 other counties in Texas. She was one of 2,700 applicants who applied for the award. In fact, it was the first time Hadayia had ever tried to win a federal grant for Air Alliance Houston, and she was thrilled to receive the government's support. "We didn't want to have to rely on private philanthropy forever," she said. She filled out 20 pages of forms detailing requirements, compliance certification, underwent rigorous vetting and completed numerous checklists and reviews. In February, she said she seemed to lose consistent access to the grant money without warning, although at times, it would appear again in the nonprofit's accounts. "Randomly with no notice, I would get access to the money again," Hadayia said. Between February and May, she checked her account twice a day, every day. On four occasions, she said she successfully accessed funds, withdrawing a total of $60,000 to reimburse eligible expenses before she finally received a termination letter on May 1. The EPA did not respond to questions about why it terminated the grants. "We believe that our contract was illegally terminated. There was nothing in our terms and conditions that allows an administration -- Trump or otherwise -- to cancel a federal contract because they don't like what the contract is about," Hadayia told CBS News. "There was no noncompliance. There was no fraud, waste and abuse. We were selected rigorously and appropriately. We met all of the requirements. We were doing everything right." The new legal strategy for environmental groups Air Alliance Houston is one of 23 plaintiffs in the suit, and together, they are hoping the court will grant their request to certify and move forward as a class action. The other plaintiffs include environmental organizations, as well as local city governments, like Kalamazoo County, Michigan, and federally recognized tribes such as the Native Village of Kipnuk in Alaska. Like Air Alliance Houston, all of the plaintiffs were awarded grants of various amounts through the Environmental and Climate Justice Program, which was funded with $3 billion from the Inflation Reduction Act. The purpose of the grants is to address the climate crisis and various environmental harms at the local level. The grants were awarded to groups in rural and urban communities throughout the United States for a variety of initiatives including air quality monitoring, tree planting in urban heat areas, lead pipes replacement to improve community drinking water systems and resilience projects to bolster communities against intensifying extreme weather. CBS News contacted the EPA about the lawsuit, but the agency responded in an email saying it does not comment on current or pending litigation. Suing the Trump administration has become a full-time job for many environmental organizations affected by its funding cuts. Major groups like the Environmental Defense Fund, or the Natural Resources Defense Council, which employs hundreds of people and generate roughly $200 million in annual revenue, can sustain prolonged legal challenges to the federal government. Since 2025, the NRDC has been involved in 11 cases against the Trump administration. The nonprofits say that utilizing the court system is the only check on power they can lean on, and to date, the Trump administration has not prevailed in any of the environmental lawsuits filed. It is currently appealing the rulings, many of which would restore funding to environmental groups. Some nonprofits have been successful in getting their funding restarted, even during the appeals process. But not all nongovernmental organizations have the resources for a sustained legal battle. Air Alliance Houston is a small group that employs just 13 people, Hadaiya included, and it often spends more money than it makes. In 2023, according to available tax records, it generated $2.5 million in revenue, but had more than $2.7 million in expenses. The class action lawsuit would make it possible for Air Alliance Houston and smaller nonprofits to win broad relief, rather than piecemeal outcomes, and to pool their resources for what may be a long legal fight against the Trump EPA. Jillian Blanchard, a vice president at the Climate Change and Environmental Justice program at Lawyers for Good Government, called the termination of the EPA grants "unconstitutional" and said in a statement it was "not only destabilizing local projects addressing pollution, public health, and climate resilience," but also violates "core principles of administrative law and the separation of powers." Her group joined EarthJustice, the Southern Environmental Law Center and the Public Rights Project to file the case on behalf of the plaintiffs. Blanchard told CBS News she's never seen a class action lawsuit filed against the federal government over environmental funding issues. By bringing the class action case, the hope is to provide relief to the full class of eligible recipients, rather than forcing individual groups to seek pro bono legal assistance or spend their own limited budgets navigating their case through the court system. Hadayia considers herself fortunate, since she hasn't needed to furlough staff after her funds were cut. But she hopes the lawsuit can reinstate the grant, so she can finish the work. She wants the same for the other 349 eligible class members of the suit, who also spent significant time applying for awards to support communities that are struggling to address environmental pollution and climate change impacts. "It is the one-two punch of this administration to 'unleash American energy' by taking all of the roadblocks away," said Hadayia. "And at the same time, pulling out the resources from groups like mine whose mission is to advocate for the opposite, whose mission is to be the watchdog for those industries." [GN] VINFAST AUTO: Faces Class Suit Over Overstated Charging Speeds -------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims VinFast Auto has falsely advertised that its electric vehicles have rapid charging capabilities when, in fact, the cars require nearly 24 hours to fully charge. The 18-page lawsuit was filed by two California residents who allege they were misled by the automaker's charging representations when they leased 2024 VinFast VF 8 Plus electric vehicles in August of last year. Although VinFast advertises that its vehicles charge at the industry-standard 32-amp rate, an apparent software defect causes the cars to shut down and stop charging when consumers attempt to charge at that amperage, the suit alleges. To prevent this, users must reduce the amperage to 19 amps or below, dropping the charging power by almost 40 percent and approximately doubling the charging time, the case asserts. The amperage reduction results in a nearly 24-hour charging time, greatly exceeding what is reasonable for electric vehicles and rendering the cars "unusable for normal transportation," the complaint contends. "Plaintiffs and similarly situated consumers were misled into leasing or purchasing these vehicles under materially false pretenses," the class action lawsuit summarizes. "Despite repeated attempts to have the issues repaired, the problems persist." According to the filing, the manufacturer has failed to provide software updates or otherwise remedy the apparent VinFast charging defect. Indeed, the plaintiffs claim VinFast only offers "two inadequate solutions: install expensive new charging equipment at [the consumers'] cost or receive no assistance." What's more, the VinFast lawsuit alleges the automaker has continued to sell electric vehicles without disclosing the apparent charging limitations. The alleged misrepresentations and repair failures have caused the plaintiffs "daily inconvenience" and left them with cars that are impractical for their intended purpose, the suit argues. The VinFast lawsuit looks to represent all consumers or entities in the United States which, in the past four years, purchased or leased a VinFast VF 8 Plus vehicle that failed to charge at the advertised wattage rate (typically 6.6 kilowatts or more), resulting in materially longer charging times than represented by the manufacturer. [GN] VOLT MANAGEMENT: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 30, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIBEL GONZALEZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. VOLT MANAGEMENT CORP., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01348-KES-CDB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order that the parties’ stipulated request to continue class certification discovery and motion dates and deadlines of the scheduling order (Doc. 21) be granted as modified: Event Proposed Deadline Mid-Discovery Status Conference: Nov. 21, 2025 Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off: Jan. 12, 2026 Expert Discovery Cut-Off: March 3, 2026 Deadline to File a Motion for Class March 16, 2026 Certification: Deadline to File an Opposition to the March 30, 2026 Motion for Class Certification: Deadline to File a Reply in Support of April 9, 2026 the Motion for Class Certification: Hearing Date on Motion for Class May 11, 2026, Certification: at 10:30 AM The Plaintiff Maribel Gonzalez initiated this putative class action with the filing of a complaint on Sept. 26, 2024, in Kern County Superior Court. The Defendants removed the case to this Court on Nov. 4, 2024. Volt is a staffing and recruitment company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uAL2vZ at no extra charge.[CC] WALMART INC: Faces Suit Over Illegal Termination of Black Workers ----------------------------------------------------------------- ABC7 Chicago Digital Team reports that a class action lawsuit was filed Thursday, June 26, against Walmart for firing Black workers with criminal records. Former workers, attorneys and advocates gathered in Federal Plaza downtown Chicago to talk about it. "Having a record does not define you or your character," said Marcos Ceniceros, with Warehouse Workers for Justice. "It should not determine your worth, and it certainly shouldn't be used as an excuse to fire Black workers trying to build a better life." Some of those fired, like plaintiff Mark Balentine, worked for a subcontractor for years but were let go when Walmart took over and did background checks. "It's about hundreds of Black workers like me, who was tragically discarded and left to fend for themselves, not because we couldn't do our jobs, but because of something in our past," Balentine said. Walmart issued a statement, saying, "We don't tolerate discrimination of any kind. We will respond appropriately to the Court." [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***