---

              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, July 4, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 133

                            Headlines

4TH AVE: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid
7 CUPS OF TEA: Posted Profiles Without Consent, Vorpahl Says
7-ELEVEN INC: Baker Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
AFLAC INCORPORATED: Batiste Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI
AFLAC INCORPORATED: Byrne Sues Over Cyberattack and Data Breach

AGC BIOLOGICS: Class Cert Scheduling Order Entered in Lomibao
AHLSTROM RHINELANDER: Court Amends Scheduling Order
ALASKA: Court Certifies Two Classes in Mary Lawsuit
ALEX ADAMS: Davids Suit Seeks Provisional Class Certification
ALLIANZ SE: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Weir Securities Lawsuit

ALTRIA GROUP: Plaintiffs Seek to File Class Briefs Under Seal
ALTRIA GROUP: Plaintiffs Seek to File Class Cert Under Seal
ALTRIA GROUP: Reece Seeks to File Corrected Exhibits Under Seal
AMAZON.COM INC.: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 30, 2026
AMAZON.COM INC: Order on Daubert Bid Entered in Wilson Suit

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Galuppo Alleges ERISA Breaches
AMERICAN FAMILY: Hacker Bid to Seal Docs Tossed
AMERICARE SYSTEMS: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
AMERICOLD LOGISTICS: Morin Suit Removed to E.D. California
AMERIHOME MORTGAGE: Benson Suit Seeks Class Certification

AMERIHOME MORTGAGE: Court Narrows Claims in Benson Suit
APEX GLOBAL: Daly Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII/PHI
APEX GLOBAL: Fails to Protect Personal, Health Info, Morrison Says
APEX GLOBAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Williams Says
ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Iglesias Can File Class Cert Docs Under Seal

ATKORE INC: Conspires to Fix PVC Water Pipes' Prices, Suit Says
AUTOMATIC APPLIANCE: Post-Conference Order Entered in Fernandez
BANK OF AMERICA: Court Certifies Five Classes in Unemployment Suit
BETTERHELP INC: C.M. Suit Seeks to Modify Class Briefing Sched
BETTERHELP INC: Parties to Modify Time for Briefing

BLOOMBERG LP: Seeks to File Class Cert Exhibits with Redactions
BOLLA OPERATING: Class Cert. Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge
BYTEDANCE INC: Young Allowed Leave to File TAC
C & B LAUNDRY: Castillo Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
CAFE CORAZON: Conditional Status of Employee Collective Sought

CANVAS ENERGY: Wake Seeks Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement
CAPITAL ONE: Ruling on Bid to Modify Scheduling Order Entered
CARMICHAEL DEVELOPMENT: Hernandez Seeks Conditional Certification
CASSAVA SCIENCES: Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification
CDHA MANAGEMENT: Filing for Class Cert Bids Due May 20, 2026

CENTRAL STATES MANUFACTURING: Class Cert Opposition Due July 14
CHRIS REYKDAL: Class Settlement in N.D. Suit Gets Final Nod
CITY JEANS: Faces Zhang Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
COINBASE GLOBAL: Faces Carmassi Suit Over Private Data Breach
COMMUNICATIONS DATA: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Watson Says

CSX TRANSPORTATION: Loses Bid to Dismiss Blanton Suit
DAILYPAY INC: Davis Sues Over Predatory Lending Practices
DATAVANT INC: Garbowit Suit Seeks Class Certification
DELTA AIR: Parties Seeks Class Certification Briefing Schedule
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Plaintiff Must File Class Cert by Oct. 14

DOGS & CATS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Claude Claims
DONALD TRUMP: Thakur Suit Seeks Provisional Class Certification
DOXIMITY INC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due August 12
DYCK O'NEAL: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
ELLIS HOSPITAL: Parties Seek Class Certification Deadlines

ELON MUSK: OFPRS Seeks to Certify Investor Class
EMBRY-RIDDLE: Class Cert Response in Garceau Suit Stricken
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT: Bid to Certify Class Tossed w/o Prejudice
FRANCHISE CREATOR: Weingrad Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
FRANKLIN COUNTY, OH: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Reply

FROEDTERT THEDACARE: Court OK's Bid to Compel Arbitration of Claims
GENERAL MOTORS: Wrice-Scott Sues Over Engine Defect, Recall Remedy
GEORGIA: Cappelletti Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid
GOLDEN STATE FC: Scott Class Action Administratively Closed
GRAVY ANALYTICS: Foley CIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Calif.

HUSQVARNA LLC: Douglass Sues Over Website's Noncompliance of ADA
MARINEMAX INC: Class Settlement in Lomedico Suit Gets Final Nod
MDL 3143: Bid for Broad Cross-Use of Plaintiffs' Docs Tossed
META PLATFORMS: Tracking Pixel Collects Users' Info, Timothee Says
MICROGENICS CORP: Seeks More Time to Serve Class Cert Reply Docs

MICROSOFT CORP: Bid for Broad Cross-Use of Basbanes Docs Tossed
MICROSOFT CORP: Bid for Broad Cross-Use of Daily News Docs Tossed
MICROSOFT CORP: Bid for Broad Cross-Use of New York Docs Tossed
NAKED WHEY: Valenta Sues Over Deceptive Protein Product Claims
ON Q FINANCIAL: ConnectWise's Bid to Dismiss Feathers Suit OK'd

OPENAI INC: Bid for Broad Cross-Use of Millette Docs Tossed
OPENAI INC: Bid for Broad Cross-Use of Silverman Docs Tossed
OPENAI INC: Bid for Broad Cross-Use of Tremblay Docs Tossed
PHARMACARE US: Wins Summary Judgment on NDI & Disease Claims
PREMIUM BRANDS: Settlement Fairness Scheduled for Nov. 14

PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Court Consolidated Actions with Goold Suit
RENKIM CORP: Faces Cundiff Suit Over Data Security Failures
RENTGROW INC: Bid for Sanctions Tossed
SALVATION ARMY: Fails to Safeguard Private Data, Roach Says
SILVERGATE CAPITAL: $37.5MM Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 3

SOUTHCOAST HOSPITALS: Doe Privacy Suit Removed to D. Mass.
SUPER MICRO: Walnut's Bid for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff Tossed
TRIDENT MARITIME: Approval of Bid to Deem Filings as Timely Sought
TURQUOISE HILL: Class Settlement Gets Initial Nod
UNDER ARMOUR: Settlement Fairness Hearing Scheduled for Aug. 14

WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC: Miller Sues Over Illegal Wage Policies
ZZ DAY SPA: Faces Campbell Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Has $1.03BB Superfund Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Creditors Contest Judge's Talc Trial Handling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GMS Inc. Faces Product Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Medina Sues 3M Over Asbestos Containing Products


                            *********

4TH AVE: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robert Lewis, Jr., on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. 4th Ave.
Marketing, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02764-MLB (N.D. Ga.), the Parties
ask the Court to enter an order granting joint motion for limited
stay and to extend the time for the Plaintiff to file a motion for
class certification.

The Parties request that the motion be granted and the Court enter
an Order providing that all proceedings in this case, with the
exception of limited discovery on the issue of arbitrability, be
stayed for a period of 90 days from the date of the Court's Order.


The parties also request that the Plaintiff be able to file his
motion for class certification at a time that is Ordered by the
Court when a joint proposed Scheduling Order is issued.

On May 18, 2025, the Plaintiff filed its Class Action Complaint,
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act on
behalf of a national class. The Defendant's Answer to the Class
Action Complaint is currently due on July 3, 2025.

4th Ave is a black owned online Beauty and Hair retailer platform
in the US.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 26, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0QMYGo at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
          Valerie Chin, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, PC
          350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com
                  vchinn@chinnlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jennifer A. Adler, Esq.
          WEINBERG, WHEELER,
          HUDGINS, GUNN & DIAL, LLC
          3344 Peachtree Street, Suite 2400
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Telephone: (404) 876-2700
          Facsimile: (404) 875-9433
          E-mail: jadler@wwhgd.com

7 CUPS OF TEA: Posted Profiles Without Consent, Vorpahl Says
------------------------------------------------------------
JACQUELINE VORPAHL, Ph.D.; KARA NIELSON, LCPC; and BILL DESIENA,
LCSW, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated and
for the benefit of the general public, Plaintiffs v. 7 CUPS OF TEA,
CO., and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-05088 (N.D. Cal.,
June 16, 2025) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of the
Plaintiff and a nationwide class of licensed clinical
psychologists, licensed clinical professional counselors, licensed
clinical social workers and other licensed therapists to seek
redress for 7 Cups' improper, unauthorized, and illegal posting of
their professional profiles on www.7Cups.com without those
individuals' express prior authorization or consent.

According to the complaint, 7 Cups took such actions that had the
purpose and/or effect of diverting the actual and prospective
patients and clients of licensed clinical psychologists, licensed
clinical professional counselors, licensed clinical social workers
and other licensed therapists to other individuals employed by or
otherwise affiliated with 7 Cups, many of whom have virtually no
formal training or licensing required to perform such services. 7
Cups' actions violate several statutory and common law doctrines,
including the federal Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1125(a)(1)(A),
California's Unfair Competition Law; California's False Advertising
Law; misappropriation of name or likeness under Cal. Civ. Code, and
common law doctrines such as misappropriation, intentional and
negligent interference with prospective economic advantage and
unjust enrichment.

As a result of 7 Cups' acts and omissions alleged herein,
Plaintiffs seek remedies on their own behalf and on behalf of all
those similarly situated for violations of the aforementioned
statutes and common law doctrines and for the benefit of the
general public, as applicable.

7 Cups is an online direct-to-consumer mental health platform that
offers online counseling and therapy services to consumers through
its network of therapists who use the platform for online
interactions. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alan M. Mansfield, Esq.
          WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
          16870 West Bernardo Dr., Ste. 400
          San Diego, CA 92127
          Telephone: (619) 308-5034
          Facsimile: (888) 341-5048
          E-mail: amansfield@whatleykallas.com

               - and -

          Deborah J. Winegard, Esq.
          WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
          1068 Virginia Avenue NE
          Atlanta, GA 30306  
          Telephone: (404) 607-8222
          Facsimile: (404) 220-8625
          E-mail: dwinegard@whatleykallas.com

               - and -

          Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq.
          WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
          101 Federal Street, 19th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 203-8459
          Facsimile: (800) 922-4851
          E-mail: psheehan@whatleykallas.com

7-ELEVEN INC: Baker Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Barbara A. Baker, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. 7-Eleven Inc., Case No.
2:24-cv-01360 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Texas on June 23, 2025.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01609-X to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) for Employee Benefits.

7-Eleven -- https://www.7-eleven.com -- is the largest convenience
store chain in the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel R. Hurt, Esq.
          Ruari McDonnell, Esq.
          FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
          429 Fourth Avenue
          Law & Finance Building, Suite 1300
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: (412) 281-8400
          Facsimile: (412) 281-1007
          Email: jhurt@fdpklaw.com
                 rmcdonnell@fdpklaw.com

               - and -

          Oren Faircloth, Esq.
          David J. DiSabato, Esq.
          SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
          745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
          New York, NY 10151
          Phone: (212) 532-1091
          Email: ofaircloth@sirillp.com
                 ddisabato@sirillp.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ryan Wilk, Esq.
          Amanda Marie Scarpo, Esq.
          Jill M. Lashay, Esq.
          Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC
          501 Grant Street, Suite 200
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: (412) 561-8921
          Email: ryan.wilk@bipc.com
                 amanda.scarpo@bipc.com

AFLAC INCORPORATED: Batiste Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Batiste, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AFLAC INCORPORATED, Case No. 4:25-cv-00185-CDL (M.D.
Ga., June 21, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's
failure to secure the personally identifiable information ("PII")
and protected health information ("PHI") (collectively, "Private
Information") of Plaintiff and the members of the proposed Class,
where Plaintiff provided her Private Information to Defendant for
supplemental insurance services and products.

On June 20, 2025, Defendant began sending emails entitled "Aflac
Cybersecurity Incident" ("Notice Email") to Plaintiff and Class
Members, advising them that it recently detected suspicious
activity on its network. In its Notice Email, Defendant advises
that its investigation into the cybersecurity incident is ongoing
and that it has yet not confirmed the extent of unauthorized
activity, potentially impacted data, or the customers or other
individuals impacted in the cybersecurity incident ("Data
Breach").

As a result of the Data Breach, which Defendant failed to prevent,
the
Private Information of Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members,
was stolen. Instead, Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff
and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or
negligently failing to implement reasonable measures to safeguard
the Private Information of its current and former customers,
beneficiaries, employees, agents, and other individuals in its U.S.
business, and by failing to take necessary steps to prevent
unauthorized disclosure of that information. Defendant's woefully
inadequate data security measures made the Data Breach a
foreseeable, and even likely, consequence of its negligence.

The Plaintiff and Class Members would not have provided their
valuable Private Information had they known that Defendant would
make their Private Information Internet-accessible, not encrypt
personal and sensitive data elements, and not delete the Private
Information it no longer had reason to maintain. Through this
lawsuit, Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the
injuries they inflicted on Plaintiff and Class Members due to their
impermissibly inadequate data security measures, and to seek
injunctive relief to ensure the implementation of security measures
to protect the Private Information that remains in Defendant's
possession, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a customer of Defendant and provided Defendant
with her Private Information, including her Social Security
number.

The Defendant is a Georgia corporation located in Columbus,
Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Casondra Turner, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Phone: (866) 252-0878
          Fax: (771) 772-3086
          
               - and -

          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
          One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 525-4100
          Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
                 cardoso@kolawyers.com

AFLAC INCORPORATED: Byrne Sues Over Cyberattack and Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Byrne, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AFLAC INCORPORATED, Case No. 4:25-cv-00193-CDL (M.D.
Ga., June 23, 2025), is brought arising out of the recent
cyberattack and data breach resulting from Defendant's failure to
implement reasonable and industry standard security practices.

As a provider of insurance services, AFLAC knowingly obtains
sensitive customer and information and has a resulting duty to
maintain such information in confidence. The company has sensitive
information concerning over 50 million customers in the U.S. and
abroad.

The Plaintiffs bring this Complaint against Defendant for its
failure to properly secure and safeguard the sensitive information
that it collected and maintained as part of its regular business
practices, including, but not limited to: names; demographic
information, such as addresses, emails, and phone numbers
("Personally Identifying Information" or "Private Information") and
medical treatment and insurance information, which is protected
health information ("PHI") as defined by the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA") (collectively
with PII, "Private Information").

The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class
Members' "Private Information". This "Private Information" was
compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and
omissions and their utter failure to protect its customers'
sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiffs' and Class
Members' "Private Information" because of its value in exploiting
and stealing the identities of Plaintiffs and Class Members. The
present and continuing risk to victims of the Data Breach will
remain for their respective lifetimes, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs provided their Private Information to Defendant.

The Defendant is a company providing insurance products to millions
of policyholders and customers through its subsidiaries in the U.S.
and is one of the largest suppliers of supplemental health
insurance in the United States for medical expenses that are not
covered by a primary provider.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James M. Evangelista, Esq.
          EVANGELISTA WORLEY LLC
          10 Glenlake Parkway
          South Tower Suite 130
          Atlanta, GA 30328
          Phone: (404) 205-8400
          Email: jim@ewlawllc.com

               - and -

          Jennifer Czeisler, Esq.
          Edward Ciolko, Esq.
          STERLINGTON PLLC
          228 Park Avenue South, No. 97956
          New York, New York 10003
          Phone: (212) 433-2993
          Email: jen.czeisler@sterlingtonlaw.com
                 edward.ciolko@sterlingtonlaw.com

               - and -

          Blaine Finley, Esq.
          FINLEY PLLC
          1455 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 400
          Washington, D.C. 20004
          Phone: 281-723-7904
          Email: bfinley@finley-pllc.com

AGC BIOLOGICS: Class Cert Scheduling Order Entered in Lomibao
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EUFRONIO LOMIBAO, v. AGC
BIOLOGICS, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00361-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon.
Judge John H. Chun entered a Rule 16(B) scheduling order regarding
class certification motion:

  Deadline to complete discovery on class          Dec. 5, 2025
  certification (not to be construed as a
  bifurcation of discovery)

  Deadline for Plaintiffs to file motion for       Jan. 5, 2026
  class certification (noted pursuant to Local
  Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(d)(3) unless the
  parties agree to different times for filing
  the response and reply memoranda).

AGC provides development and manufacturing services for
protein-based biologics and advanced therapies.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 26, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3iNeSc at no extra
charge.[CC] 


AHLSTROM RHINELANDER: Court Amends Scheduling Order
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lucas Rougeau, et al., v.
Ahlstrom Rhinelander, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00546 (W.D.
Wisc., Filed Aug. 9, 2023), the Hon. Judge William M. Conley
entered an order granting the Parties' joint motion to amend the
scheduling order.

The suit alleges Diversity-Torts to Land.

Ahlstrom is a part of the global company Ahlstrom, specializing in
the production of advanced fiber-based materials, particularly in
Rhinelander, Wisconsin.[CC]



ALASKA: Court Certifies Two Classes in Mary Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY B., et al., v. KIM
KOVOL, Director, Alaska Department of Family and Community
Services, in her official capacity, et al., Case No.
3:22-cv-00129-SLG (D. Alaska), the Hon. Judge Sharon L. Gleason
entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' Motion to Substitute Next
Friends at Docket 255.

Bonnie Yazzie is substituted at the next friend for Mary B. and
Connor B. Justin Lazenby is substituted as next friend for Lana H.

Next, the Court grants the Defendants' Motions to Supplement at
Docket 228 and Docket 297.

Further, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, certifying two classes as follows:

-- A General Class of all children for whom Alaska's Office of
    Children's Services ("OCS") has or will have legal
    responsibility and who are or will be in the legal and
    physical custody of OCS.223

    The General Class is certified as to the Plaintiffs'
    substantive due process claim (Claim 1) and Child Welfare Act
    ("CWA") claim (Claim 3) only.

-- An Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") Subclass of
    children who are or will be in foster care and experience
    physical, cognitive, and psychiatric disabilities.

    The ADA Subclass is certified as to Plaintiffs' ADA and
    Rehabilitation Act claims (Claims 6 & 7) only.

Lastly, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion to amend motion for
class certification and appointment of class counsel at Docket 324.
The Court appoints the the Plaintiffs' counsel, including Kevin
Homiak and Galen Bellamy of Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, as class
counsel in this matter.

The Court finds that Ms. Yazzie has a "significant relationship
with, and is truly dedicated to the best interests of," Mary B. and
Connor B.39 Ms. Yazzie's disagreement with some of the factual
allegations or legal arguments in this case is immaterial, as she
is not a party or a witness and this case involves whether OCS
practices presently violate the rights of children in OCS custody.

The Court finds that Lana H. has shown injury-in-fact, causation,
and redressability by a preponderance of the evidence and she
therefore has standing to bring the ADA claim.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 25, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=d19EJt at no extra
charge.[CC]

ALEX ADAMS: Davids Suit Seeks Provisional Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ABBY DAVIDS, MD, et al.,
v. ALEX ADAMS, in his official capacity as Director of the Idaho
Department of Health and Welfare, et al., Case No.
1:25-cv-00334-AKB (D. Idaho), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order granting motion for temporary restraining order,
preliminary injunction, and provisional class certification.

The Plaintiffs move this Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 65 for a temporary restraining order (TRO), preliminary
injunction, and provisional class certification to enjoin
Defendants -- and their officers, agents, employees, attorneys, and
any persons who are in active concert or participation with them --
from requiring immigration status verification for receipt of Ryan
White benefits for Plaintiffs and all of the members of a
provisionally certified class.

Counsel for Plaintiffs are unaware of the counsel who will
represent Defendants. Plaintiffs have initiated personal service of
this Motion along with the Complaint, to be completed on July 27,
2025 at the physical addresses for the Defendants.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 26, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3kibjO at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul Carlos Southwick, Esq.
          Emily Myrei Croston, Esq.
          ACLU OF IDAHO FOUNDATION
          Boise, ID 83701
          Telephone: (208) 344-9750
          E-mail: psouthwick@acluidaho.org
                  ecroston@acluidaho.org

                - and -

          Joanna Cuevas Ingram, Esq.
          Kevin Siegel, Esq.
          Tanya Broder, Esq.
          NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER
          Washington, D.C. 20043
          Telephone: (213) 639-3900
          E-mail: cuevasingram@nilc.org
                  siegel@nilc.org
                  broder@nilc.org

                - and -

          Seth D. Levy, Esq.
          Vincent C. Capati, Esq.
          Jacqueline D. Relatores, Esq.
          Brian J. Whittaker, Esq.
          Alvaro Cure Dominguez, Esq.
          NIXON PEABODY LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4100
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3151
          Telephone: (213) 629-6000
          E-mail: slevy@nixonpeabody.com
                  vcapati@nixonpeabody.com
                  jrelatores@nixonpeabody.com
                  bwhittaker@nixonpeabody.com
                  acuredominguez@nixonpeabody.com

                - and -

          Nikki Ramirez-Smith, Esq.
          Casey Parsons, Esq.
          Talia Burnett, Esq.
          Neal Dougherty, Esq.
          RAMIREZ-SMITH LAW
          444 W. Iowa Ave.
          Nampa, ID 83686
          Telephone: (208) 461-1883
          E-mail: nsmith@nrsdt.com
                  cparsons@nrsdt.com
                  tburnett@nrsdt.com
                  ndougherty@nrsdt.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          James Craig, Esq.
          CIVIL LITIGATION AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEFENSE
          OFFICE OF THE IDAHO ATTORNEY GENERAL
          700 W. Jefferson Street
          Boise, ID 83720-0010
          E-mail: James.craig@ag.idaho.gov

ALLIANZ SE: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Weir Securities Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the appeal styled DAVID WEIR, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ALLIANZ SE;
ALLIANZ GLOBAL INVESTORS U.S. LLC, Defendants - Appellees, and
OLIVER BATE, Defendant, No. 24-4249 (9th Cir.), Judges Richard R.
Clifton, Jay S. Bybee and Danielle J. Forrest affirmed the
dismissal by the United States District Court for the Central
District of California of David Weir's class action complaint
against Allianz SE and its subsidiary Allianz Global Investors US
for federal securities violations.

Weir argues that two types of statements were materially
misleading: Allianz's statements about its overall risk
organization and roles in risk management and its three lines of
defense, and Allianz's statements about its risk mitigation
activities and system of internal controls. The Ninth Circuit finds
neither were materially misleading because they are akin to
transparently aspirational statements or corporate puffery.

Weir also argues that Allianz claimed not only that it had internal
controls and risk management procedures, but that those procedures
ensured compliance. Allianz said that its risk management approach
ensures that effective controls or other risk mitigation activities
are in place for all significant operational risks. According to
the Ninth Circuit, in this case, Allianz did not promise to
eliminate risk or that misconduct would never occur. Instead,
Allianz promised only that effective controls or other risk
mitigation activities are in place.

The Circuit Judges hold, "We agree that Weir failed to state a
claim against Allianz because he did not adequately plead that
Allianz made material misrepresentations. Weir also failed to state
claims against AGI US because he failed to satisfy the
purchaser-seller requirement for a federal securities fraud suit.
Accordingly, Weir did not state a controlling person claim. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291, and we affirm."

A copy of the Court's Memorandum dated June 27, 2025, is available
at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=B2E4Ee

ALTRIA GROUP: Plaintiffs Seek to File Class Briefs Under Seal
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Reece v. Altria Group,
Inc. et al. (RE: JUUL LABS, INC. ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No.
3:20-cv-02345-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to file all briefs
and supporting papers conditionally under seal.

On July 18, 2025, the parties will provide the Court with a
consolidated chart identifying what information should remain under
seal for the Court’s consideration.

Altria manufactures and sells smokeable and oral tobacco products
in the United States.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 20, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=G678cM at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robin F. Zwerling, Esq.
          Justin M. Tarshis, Esq.
          ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP
          41 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10010
          Telephone: (212) 223-3900
          E-mail: rzwerling@zsz.com
                  jtarshis@zsz.com

                - and -

          Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
          Kate M. McGuire, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          750 B Street, Suite 1820
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-4599
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
          E-mail: manifold@whafh.com

                - and -

          Fred T. Isquith, Sr., Esq.
          ISQUITH LAW PLLC
          103 East 84th Street
          New York, NY 10028
          Telephone: (718) 775-6478
          E-mail: isquithlaw@gmail.com

                - and -

          Merle C. Meyers, Esq.
          Michele Thompson, Esq.
          MEYERS LAW GROUP, P.C.
          44 Montgomery St. Suite 1010
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 362-7500
          E-mail: mmeyers@meyerslawgroup.com
                  mthompson@meyerslawgroup.com

ALTRIA GROUP: Plaintiffs Seek to File Class Cert Under Seal
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Reece v. Altria Group,
Inc. et al. (RE: JUUL LABS, INC. ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No.
3:20-cv-02345-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs ask
the Court to enter an order granting motion to file class
certification provisionally under seal.

The Defendants have designated materials contained and referred to
in Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification as Confidential and
Highly Confidential under the Protective Order.

Altria manufactures and sells smokeable and oral tobacco products
in the United States.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 20, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oultIS at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
          Ronnie Spiegel, Esq.
          David H. Seidel, Esq.
          Itak Moradi, Esq.
          Christopher Hydal, Esq.
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP
          601 California St. Suite 1505
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 500-6800
          Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
          E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
                  rspiegel@saverilawfirm.com
                  dseidel@saverilawfirm.com
                  imoradi@saverilawfirm.com
                  chydal@saverilawfirm.com

                - and -

          Michael M. Buchman, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          800 Third Avenue, Ste 2401
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 577-0040
          Facsimile: (212) 577-0054
          Email: mbuchman@motleyrice.com

                - and -

          John D. Radice, Esq.
          RADICE LAW FIRM, P.C.
          475 Wall Street
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (646) 245-8502
          Facsimile: (609) 385-0745
          E-mail: jradice@radicelawfirm.com

ALTRIA GROUP: Reece Seeks to File Corrected Exhibits Under Seal
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Reece v. Altria Group,
Inc. et al., (RE JUUL LABS, INC. ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No.
3:20-cv-02345-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks will move the
Court, pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5, for an
administrative order to conditionally file under seal a corrected
version of Sealed Versions of Exhibits 61-96, which were filed on
June 20, 2025.

Altria is a producer and marketer of tobacco, cigarettes, and
medical products in the treatment of illnesses caused by tobacco.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 23, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Xkw7Fu at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
          Elana Katcher, Esq.
          Laurence D. King, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          800 Third Avenue, 38th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 687-1980
          E-mail: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
                  ekatcher@kaplanfox.com
                  lking@kaplanfox.com

                - and -

          Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
          C. Andrew Dirksen, Esq.
          CERA LLP
          50 California St., Suite 1500
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 777-2230
          E-mail: scera@cerallp.com
                  cdirksen@cerallp.com

AMAZON.COM INC.: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 30, 2026
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAROLINE WILMUTH,
KATHERINE SCHOMER, and ERIN COMBS, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Case No.
2:23-cv-01774-JNW (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Jamal Whitehead
entered an order setting the following class certification
deadlines:

                  Event                             Deadline

  All discovery motions (Fact Discovery):         Feb. 15, 2026

  Close of fact discovery:                        March 31, 2026

  The Plaintiffs' class certification-related     May 15, 2026
  expert disclosures:

  Rebuttal class certification expert             June 30, 2026
  Disclosures:

  Close of expert discovery, including            Aug. 31, 2026
  Depositions:

  The Plaintiffs' motion for class                Sept. 30, 2026
  Certification:

  The Defendant's opposition to motion for        Oct. 30, 2026
  class certification:

  The Plaintiffs' reply in support of class       Nov. 4, 2026
  Certification motion:

  Hearing on class certification:                 To be announced

Amazon.com is a multinational technology company focused on
e-commerce, cloud computing, digital streaming, and artificial
intelligence.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bDw8Xq at no extra
charge.[CC]

AMAZON.COM INC: Order on Daubert Bid Entered in Wilson Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH FRAME-WILSON, et
al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2:20-cv-00424-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John H. Chun entered
an order regarding Daubert motion:

  1. Per the Court's Order, the parties, by and through their
     counsel, have agreed and stipulate as to the schedule of the
     Parties' Daubert briefing in connection with the Plaintiffs'
     class certification motion.

  2. Consistent with the Court's schedule in the related De Coster

     case, the Plaintiffs' response to Amazon's Daubert motion is
     due on the same day as their reply in support of their class
     certification motion, and the deadline for Amazon's reply in
     support of its Daubert motion is due five weeks later.

Amazon.com is a multinational technology company focused on
e-commerce, cloud computing, digital streaming, and artificial
intelligence.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 25, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mOauKP at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq.
          Kelly Fan, Esq.
          Anne F. Johnson, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  barbaram@hbsslaw.com
                  annej@hbsslaw.com
                  kellyf@hbsslaw.com

                - and -

          Zina G. Bash, Esq.
          Jessica Beringer, Esq.
          Shane Kelly, Esq.
          Alex Dravillas, Esq.
          Roseann Romano, Esq.
          KELLER POSTMAN LLC
          111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500
          Austin, TX, 78701
          Telephone: (512) 690-0990
          E-mail: zina.bash@kellerpostman.com
                  Jessica.Beringer@kellerpostman.com
                  shane.kelly@kellerpostman.com
                  ajd@kellerpostman.com
                  roseann.romano@kellerpostman.com

                - and -

          Alicia Cobb, Esq.
          Steig D. Olson, Esq.
          David D. LeRay, Esq.
          Nic V. Siebert, Esq.
          Maxwell P. Deabler-Meadows, Esq.
          Elle Mahdavi, Esq.
          Adam B. Wolfson, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
          SULLIVAN, LLP
          1109 First Avenue, Suite 210
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 905-7000
          E-mail: aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com
                  steigolson@quinnemanuel.com
                  davidleray@quinnemanuel.com
                  nicolassiebert@quinnemanuel.com
                  maxmeadows@quinnemanuel.com
                  ellemahdavi@quinnemanuel.com
                  adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          John A. Goldmark, Esq.
          MaryAnn Almeida, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
          920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98104-1610
          Telephone: (206) 622-3150
          Facsimile: (206) 757-7700
          E-mail: SteveRummage@dwt.com
                  JohnGoldmark@dwt.com
                  MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com

                - and -

          Karen L. Dunn, Esq.
          William A. Isaacson, Esq.
          Amy J. Mauser, Esq.
          Martha L. Goodman, Esq.
          Kyle Smith, Esq.
          Meredith Dearborn, Esq.
          PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
          GARRISON LLP
          2001 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006-1047
          Telephone: (202) 223-7300
          Facsimile: (202) 223-7420
          E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com
                  wisaacson@paulweiss.com
                  amauser@paulweiss.com
                  ksmith@paulweiss.com
                  mdearborn@paulweiss.com

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Galuppo Alleges ERISA Breaches
-------------------------------------------------
RONALD R. GALUPPO JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC, AMERICAN
AIRLINES EMPLOYEE BENEFITS COMMITTEE, and HARVEY WATT & COMPANY,
Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-00599-P (N.D. Tex., June 6, 2025)
seeks to recover long-term disability benefits due but unlawfully
withheld under the terms of the American Airlines, Inc. Pilot Long
Term Disability Plan, which is an "employee welfare benefit plan"
under Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

The Plaintiff brings claims for breach of fiduciary duties under
ERISA, accusing the Defendants of failing to provide a full and
fair review of his benefit claim as required by ERISA. He further
alleges that the Defendants systematically miscalculated his LTD
benefits, and those of other similarly situated Plan participants
and beneficiaries, by improperly excluding certain forms of
compensation, including: vacation, ratification bonuses, profit
sharing, one-time supplemental payment, bereavement, grievance
payouts, extended sick bank, and Special Assignment--from the
calculation of Average Monthly Compensation used to determine the
monthly LTD benefit amount under the Plan.

American Airlines, Inc. is a major airline headquartered in Forth
Worth, TX. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Andrew B. Stephens, Esq.
         Heather G. Hacker, Esq.
         HACKER STEPHENS LLP
         108 Wild Basin Rd. South, Suite 250
         Austin, TX 78746
         Telephone: (512) 399-3022
         E-mail: andrew@hackerstephens.com
                 heather@hackerstephens.com

                 - and -

         Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
         Hammons P. Hepner, Esq.
         SHARP LAW LLP
         4280 West 75th St.
         Prairie Village, KS 66208
         Telephone: (913) 901-0505
         E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com
                 hhepner@midwest-law.com

AMERICAN FAMILY: Hacker Bid to Seal Docs Tossed
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Craig Hacker, v. American
Family Mutual Insurance Company SI, et al., Case No.
2:22-cv-01936-DLR (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Douglas L. Rayes
entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion to seal.

In any event, the Court construes the Plaintiff's motion to seal as
the functional equivalent of the notice that otherwise would have
been required by LRCiv 5.6(d).

So construed, the Defendant's "response" to the Plaintiff's motion
to seal would have been the functional equivalent of its notice of
withdrawal of confidentiality designations or motion to seal.

American offers auto, home, life, umbrella, business, health, and
farm and ranch insurance products and services.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hO5dmr at no extra
charge.[CC]

AMERICARE SYSTEMS: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE LYON, HELEN
ANTONIO, and ANDREA BROWN on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. AMERICARE SYSTEMS, d/b/a Americare Senior
Living, Case No. 6:24-cv-03207-BP (W.D. Mo.), the Defendant asks
the Court to enter an order granting a six-week extension of time
to file its suggestions in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification of a collective under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA").

Accordingly, the Americare requests that its deadline to respond to
the motion for conditional certification be extended to August 7,
2025.

Americare offers complete commercial laundry and kitchen
solutions.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 20, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WDjRBt at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Robert D. Younger, Esq.
          Brian C. Hey, Esq.
          McMAHON BERGER, P.C.
          2730 North Ballas Road, Suite 200
          St. Louis, MO 63131
          Telephone: (314) 567-7350
          Facsimile: (314) 567-5968
          E-mail: younger@mcmahonberger.com
                  hey@mcmahonberger.com

                - and -

          David B. Helms, Esq.
          Benjamin D. Mooneyham, Esq.
          GM LAW PC
          8000 Maryland Avenues, Suite 1060
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 474-1750
          E-mail: davidh@gmlawpc.com
                  benm@gmlawpc.com

AMERICOLD LOGISTICS: Morin Suit Removed to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Gabriel Morin, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. AMERICOLD LOGISTICS, LLC, a
Delawar limited liability company; and DOES l through 10,
inclusive, Case No. CV-25-003941 was removed from the Superior
Court of the State California in and for the County of Stanislaus,
to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California on June 20, 2025, and assigned Case No.
2:25-cv-01745-AC.

The Complaint asserts the following causes of action: Failure to
Pay Minimum and Straight Time Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages;
Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit
Rest Periods; Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at Termination;
Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to
Indemnify Employees for Expenditures; Unfair Business
Practices.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Barbara A. Blackburn, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2000
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Phone: 916.830.7200
          Fax: 916.561.0828
          Email: bblackburn@littler.com

               - and -

          Hovannes G. Nalbandyan, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213.443.4300
          Fax: 213.443.4299
          Email: hnalbandyan@littler.com

AMERIHOME MORTGAGE: Benson Suit Seeks Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BENSON, et al, V.
AMERIHOME MORTGAGE COMPANY, LLC, et al, Case No. 2:24-cv-03467-JDW
(E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting
the Plaintiff's motion for class certification
severance and complaint submission:

    "All persons or entities who held, purchased, or beneficially
    owned Wells Fargo-issued or sponsored mortgage-backed
    securities (MBS) between Jan. 1, 2018, and Dec. 31, 2023, and
    suffered economic losses directly attributable to penalties
    imposed on Wells Fargo for mortgage-related violations during
    that period."

The Plaintiff moves to certify a class under FRCP 23(b)(3),
mirroring In re Countrywide Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 273 F.R.D. 586
(C.D. Cal. 2009), where certification was granted for investors
harmed by systemic mortgage fraud and a pattern of poor business
practices.

Wells Fargo's corporate recidivism in mortgage servicing
constituted bad business practices, adverse to regulatory
requirements and often fraudulent practices that directly and
intentionally degraded MBS value (bypassing stock market prices as
these two market’s fluctuations do not coincide).

Complaint Core Allegations

Wells Fargo operated a systemic mortgage servicing fraud (2018
CFPB: $1B; 2020 SEC: $3B; 2022 CFPB: $3.7B; 2023 class action:
$1B), violating its own post-2016 'ethics commitments' and
regulatory mandates.

Amerihome provides mortgage financial services.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 23, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5roUxc at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Plaintiff, pro se

          Paul N. Benson
          1233 Wharton Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19147
          pnb100@me.com
          Telephone: (267) 228-4723

AMERIHOME MORTGAGE: Court Narrows Claims in Benson Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL BENSON, v. AMERIHOME
MORTGAGE CO., LLC et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-03467-JDW (E.D. Pa.),
the Hon. Judge Joshua D. Wolson entered an order as follows.

  1. Wells Fargo's motion to dismiss is granted in part. Mr.
     Benson's federal claims for violation of RESPA and TILA are
     dismissed with prejudice.

  2. Mr. Benson's motion for leave to amend is denied.

  3. On or before June 30, 2025, any party may file a memorandum
     no longer than 5 pages, addressing why I should not remand
     this case to the Philadelphia Court Of Common Pleas in light
     of the ruling in Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109, 123 (3d Cir.
     2000).

  4. Mr. Benson's motion to strike is denied.

  5. Mr. Benson's motion to rejoin defendant is denied.

  6. Mr. Benson's motion to consolidate is denied.

  7. Mr. Benson's motion for class certification is denied.

Amerihome provides mortgage financial services.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=y5r3Om at no extra
charge.[CC]

APEX GLOBAL: Daly Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII/PHI
--------------------------------------------------------
Tremayne Daly, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. APEX GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-05198-LJL
(S.D.N.Y., June 22, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its
failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable
information and personal health information (together, "PII/PHI")
of Plaintiff and the Class members, including, without limitation:
names, dates of birth, home addresses, phone numbers, Social
Security numbers, driver's license numbers, medical services
received, dates of servicer, insurance information, treating
provider, medical treatment/diagnosis information, and financial
information.

In the course of its operations, the Defendant is entrusted with an
extensive amount of the Plaintiff's and the Class members' PII/PHI.
By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the
Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII/PHI, the Defendant assumed
non-delegable legal and equitable duties to the Plaintiff and the
Class members. Between June 18, 2024 and July 2, 2024, an intruder
gained entry to the Defendant's network, accessed the Plaintiff's
and the Class members' PII/PHI, and exfiltrated information (the
"Data Breach Incident").

The Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff and the Class members of
the incident until June 9, 2025, depriving the Plaintiff and the
Class Members of almost one year to protect themselves from the
fallout of the Incident. The Plaintiff's and the Class members'
PII/PHI was compromised due to the Defendant's negligent acts and
omissions and the failure to protect the Plaintiff's and the Class
members' PII/PHI. The Plaintiff and Class Members continue to be at
significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of
personal, social, and financial harm. The risk will remain for
their respective lifetimes.

The Defendant disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and the Class
members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently
failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to
ensure their PII/PHI was safeguarded, failing to take available
steps to prevent an unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to
follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies and
procedures regarding the encryption of data in the possession of
its vendor. As a result, the PII/PHI of the Plaintiff and Class
Members was compromised through access to and exfiltration by an
unknown and unauthorized third party, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff's PII/PHI was maintained by the Defendant by
utilizing a database and software.

The Defendant is a domestic limited liability company with its
principal place of business located in Montebello, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zane C. Hedaya, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
          1515 NE 26th Street
          Wilton Manors, FL 33305
          Phone: 813-340-8838
          Email: zane@jibraellaw.com

               - and -

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO PA
          401 E Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: 305.336.7466
          Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

APEX GLOBAL: Fails to Protect Personal, Health Info, Morrison Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
TOMISHUA MORRISON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APEX GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05034 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2025) is a
class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per
se, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment,
and violation of the New York General Business Law after an unnamed
threat actor gained access to Defendant's information systems
through a cybersecurity incident, involving information about its
customers, including Plaintiff.

The Defendant collects a significant amount of data including
personally identifiable information including patient names,
addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, drivers'
license numbers; financial account information; and protected
health information including health insurance information, provider
name, and other treatment information.

On or around July 14, 2024, the Defendant discovered suspicious
activity on its network systems. The Defendant discovered that an
unauthorized third-party accessed Defendant's systems between June
18, 2024, and July 2, 2024. This resulted in a double-extortion
ransomware attack on its systems in which hackers infiltrated
Defendant's information systems, performed reconnaissance
operations, identified and stole valuable files containing Class
Members' private information, and then encrypted Defendant's
systems.

Given that Defendant did not realize that it had been infiltrated
until the hackers announced themselves by disrupting Defendant'
information systems, it is likely that Defendant failed to
implement necessary and expected monitoring, alerting, and data
loss prevention tools that would have identified the malicious
activity in a timelier manner, says the suit.

Because of the Defendant's failures, the Plaintiff and the proposed
Class Members have suffered a severe invasion of their privacy and
must now face a substantial increase in identity theft and
financial fraud for years to come.

Apex Global Solutions, LLC provides back-office solutions for the
healthcare business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vicki J. Maniatis, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
           GROSSMAN, PLLC
          405 East 50th Street  
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (516) 491-4665
          Email: vmaniatis@milberg.com

               - and -

          Mariya Weekes, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
           GROSSMAN, PLLC
          201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (786) 879-8200
          Facsimile: (786) 879-7520
          E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com

APEX GLOBAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Williams Says
---------------------------------------------------------
KANDICE WILLIAMS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. APEX GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 7:25-cv-05040 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2025) arises from Defendant's
failure to protect highly sensitive personal identifiable
information and protected health information about its current and
former clients and their employees and patients.

According to a letter sent to Data Breach victims, cybercriminals
had unfettered access to Defendant's computer network for 14 days.
In other words, the Defendant had no effective means to prevent,
detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems -- thereby
allowing cybercriminals roam undetected and steal its current and
former clients and their employees' and patients' PII/PHI.

The complaint asserts that cybercriminals were able to breach
Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train
its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable
security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class' PII/PHI. In
short, Defendant's failures placed the Class' PII/PHI in a
vulnerable position -- rendering them easy targets for
cybercriminals.

The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim, having received a breach
notice. She brings this class action on behalf of herself, and all
others harmed by Defendant's misconduct.

Apex Global Solutions LLC is a New York based firm providing
financial and other services to nursing homes and long term care
facilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven P. Sukert, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.A.
          1 West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 332-4200
          E-mail: sukert@kolawyers.com

               - and -

          Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
          STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
          980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (872) 263-1100
          Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
          E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com

ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Iglesias Can File Class Cert Docs Under Seal
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS IGLESIAS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
ARIZONA BEVERAGES USA, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-09108-JSW (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Jeffrey White entered an order re: the Plaintiff's
administrative motion to consider whether materials should be
sealed in support of the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

     Document/Exhibit                     Portions to Seal

  The Plaintiff's Notice               Page 1: Lines 8, 10-12  
  of Motion and Motion;                Page 3: Lines 1-5, 9-
  Memorandum of Points                 10, 12-15, 21, 22, 24-25
  and Authorities ISO                  Page 5: Lines 1-2
  Plaintiff's Motion for               Page 7: Line 25
  Class Certification      

  Macartney Decl.                      Pages 24, 25

  Exhibit 1 [Product labels] to the    Entire Document
  Declaration of Alan Gudino ISO
  Plaintiff's Motion for Class
  Certification

Arizona is an American company that sells iced tea and energy
drinks.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 26, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=saO9Aw at no extra
charge.[CC]

ATKORE INC: Conspires to Fix PVC Water Pipes' Prices, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
NORTHERN MORAINE WASTEWATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ATKORE,
INC., DIAMOND PLASTICS CORPORATION, IPEX USA LLC, JM EAGLE, INC.,
NATIONAL PIPE & PLASTICS, INC., OTTER TAIL CORPORATION, WESTLAKE
CORPORATION, and OPIS, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-06642 (N.D.
Ill., June 16, 2025) is a civil antitrust action brought under the
Sherman Act by the Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and the proposed
Classes, consisting of all persons or entities who purchased PVC
municipal water pipes indirectly for end use from a Defendant in
the United States from at least January 1, 2021, to the present.

The Plaintiff's claims arise from Defendants' conspiracy to fix
prices and overcharge Plaintiff and the Class for PVC municipal
water pipes. PVC is an acronym for polyvinyl chloride, which is a
polymer of plastic. Considered commodity products, PVC Pipes are
tubular sections or hollow cylinders made from PVC. The demand for
PVC pipes is relatively stable due to the prevalence of
construction projects and infrastructure maintenance in the United
States.

During the Class Period, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendants and
their Co-conspirators conspired and combined to fix, raise,
maintain, and stabilize the price of PVC Pipes in the United
States. The Defendants did so by communicating through an
information-exchange firm called OPIS, which enabled the Defendants
to discuss and signal their pricing activities, gain access to
standardized pricing data from their competitors, and collectively
extract artificially inflated profits from their customers.

The Defendants' anticompetitive actions widened the spread between
the price that they pay to manufacture PVC Pipes and the price at
which they sold PVC Pipes, damaging Plaintiff and the Class, says
the suit.

Plaintiff Northern Moraine Wastewater Reclamation District is an
independent municipal corporation located in Island Lake, Illinois.
It operates a public sewage and wastewater collection and treatment
facility that serves more than 15,000 people across the communities
of Lakemoor, Port Barrington, Island Lake, and Holiday Hills, as
well and unincorporated areas of Lake and McHenry Counties,
Illinois.

Atkore, Inc. is a manufacturer of PVC Pipes in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
          Cadio Zirpoli, Esq.
          Christopher K.L. Young, Esq.
          Louis A. Kessler, Esq.
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1505
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 500-6800
          Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
          E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
                  czirpoli@saverilawfirm.com
                  cyoung@saverilawfirm.com
                  lkessler@saverilawfirm.com

               - and -

          Anthony J. O'Neill, Esq.
          Kenneth A. Michaels, Esq.
          Rezarta Cenaj Melo, Esq.
          BAUCH & MICHAELS, LLC
          53 W Jackson Blvd, Suite 1115
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 588-5000
          Facsimile: (312) 427-5709
          E-mail: aoneill@bmlawllc.com
                  kmichaels@bmlawllc.com
                  rmelo@bmlawllc.com

               - and -

          Benjamin J. Widlanski, Esq.
          Rachel Sullivan, Esq.
          KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON LLP
          2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 372-1800                 
          E-mail: bwidlanski@kttlaw.com
                  rs@kttlaw.com

AUTOMATIC APPLIANCE: Post-Conference Order Entered in Fernandez
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ, v.
AUTOMATIC APPLIANCE PARTS, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-02705-DEH-KHP
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katharine Parker entered a
post-conference order as follows:

On June 24, 2025, the parties appeared before the undersigned judge
for an initial case management conference. As discussed at the
conference and set forth below:

Any Amended Complaint shall be filed by July 11, 2025, and
thereafter, amendments to the pleadings and any joinder of parties
shall only be made upon a showing of good cause.

By July 18, 2025, Defendant shall file a letter informing the Court
whether it intends to file an Answer or, alternatively, a Motion to
Dismiss.

The Answer or Motion to Dismiss shall be due by August 1, 2025. If
Defendant files a Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff’s Opposition is
due by August 22, 2025. Defendant’s Reply is due by September 5,
2025. No pre-motion letter is required before filing the motion, if
filed.

Any Motion for Class Certification under Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure shall be due by October 1, 2025.

The deadline for completion of fact and expert discovery shall be
December 1, 2025.

The Plaintiff shall provide Defendant with a copy of the expert
report referenced during the conference by July 8, 2025.

The Defendant's Letter Motion for a pre-motion conference is denied
as moot.

Automatic supplies appliance parts and accessories.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 25, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7lIME8 at no extra
charge.[CC]

BANK OF AMERICA: Court Certifies Five Classes in Unemployment Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Bank of America California
Unemployment Benefits Litigation, Case No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB
(S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Gonzalo Curiel entered an order
granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
certifying the following five classes:

  1. Claim Denial Class:

     "All Bank of America EDD cardholders who notified the Bank
     that an unauthorized transaction had occurred on their Bank
     of America EDD debit card account ("Claim") at an automated
     teller machine ("ATM"), and whose Claim the Bank denied or
     closed at any time from Sept. 28, 2020 through June 8, 2021,
     based solely on Indicator 1 of the Bank's Claim Fraud Filter
     ("CFF")."

  2. Credit Rescission Class:

     "All Bank of America EDD cardholders who received permanent
     credit from the Bank in connection with their Claim, which
     credit the Bank rescinded at any time from Sept. 28, 2020
     through June 8, 2021, based solely on Indicator 1 of the
     Bank's CFF."

  3. Account Freeze Class:

     "All Bank of America EDD cardholders whose EDD debit card
     Account the Bank froze at any time from Sept. 28, 2020
     through March 17, 2021, based solely on Indicator 1 of the
     Bank's CFF, and whose Account the Bank (i) subsequently
     unfroze, or (ii) subsequently converted from frozen to
     blocked status on or after March 18, 2021 and then
     unblocked."

  4. Customer Service Class:

     "All members of the Claim Denial class and/or the Credit
     Rescission class who telephoned the Bank's customer service
     telephone number for its EDD cardholders at any time from
     Sept. 13, 2020 through Nov. 21, 2020, and whose telephone
     call was routed to the Bank's Claims call center."

  5. EMV Chip Class:

     "All members of the Claim Denial class and/or Credit
     Rescission class whose EDD debit card did not include an EMV
     chip prior to June 9, 2021."

     Excluded are EDD cardholders who reported not having the card

     in their possession at the time of the unauthorized
     transaction or who never received their card, including those

     who reported a lost or stolen card.

     Excluded from each class is any person whom the Bank has
     determined, pursuant to its Remediation Plan with the United
     States Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and Office

     of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), "(i) has been
     disqualified by the [S]tate [of California] from Program
     eligibility; (ii) has previously engaged in fraudulent
     Program conduct, such as submission of fraudulent claims or
     other abuses of the claims process; or (iii) has had their
     card frozen due to legal order processes, as a result of
     Internal/Vendor fraud investigations, or by Global Financial
     Crimes Compliance."

     Also excluded from each class is any person whose Claim or
     Account the Bank closed, in whole or in part, because the
     State of California requested the Bank to close that person's

     Claim or Account.

The Court also entered an order:

-- appointing the Plaintiffs Koole, McClure, Moon, Oosthuizen,
    Rivera, Willrich, and Yuan as class representatives for the
    Claim Denial class;

-- appointing Plaintiffs Chong and Moore as class representatives

    for the Credit Rescission class;

-- appointing Plaintiffs Chong, Koole, McClure, Moon, Moore,
    Rivera, and

-- appointing Yuan as class representatives for the Account
    Freeze class;

-- appointing Plaintiffs Chong, Moon, Moore, Oosthuizen,
    Willrich, and Yuan as class representatives for the Customer
    Service class; and

-- appointing Plaintiffs Chong, Koole, McClure, Moon, Moore,
    Oosthuizen, Rivera, Willrich, and Yuan as class
    representatives for the EMV Chip class; and

-- appointing Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP and Altshuler Berzon
    LLP to serve a co-lead class counsel.

Bank of America is an American multinational investment bank and
financial services holding company.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oHGgSU at no extra
charge.[CC]

BETTERHELP INC: C.M. Suit Seeks to Modify Class Briefing Sched
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as C.M., on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, v. BETTERHELP, INC., Case No.
3:23-cv-01033-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an
order granting joint stipulation to modify briefing schedule,
hearing date on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification:

The Parties stipulate pursuant to Local Rule 6-2 to the Court
entering an order modifying the time for briefing and argument on
the Motion as follows:

-- BetterHelp's opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion will be due
    on or before July 21, 2025.

-- The Plaintiffs' reply in support of their Motion will be due
    on or before Sept. 2, 2025;

-- The hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion will be set for Sept.
    25, 2025 or a date convenient for the Court thereafter.

BetterHelp is a mental health platform that provides direct online
counseling and therapy services via web or phone text
communication.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 25, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Qp2WnA at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary. M. Klinger, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
          PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (866) 252-0878
          E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
                  gabramson@milberg.com
                  ahoneycutt@milberg.com
                  rnelson@milberg.com

                - and -

          Christina Tusan, Esq.
          HAMMONDLAW, P.C.
          1201 Pacific Ave, Suite 600
          Tacoma, WA 98402
          Telephone: (310) 601-6766
          Facsimile: (310) 295-2385
          E-mail: ctusan@hammondlawpc.com

                - and -

          Maureen M. Brady, Esq.
          MCSHANE & BRADY
          4006 Central Street
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: (816) 888-8010
          E-mail: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com

                - and -

          Alan M. Mansfield, Esq.
          WHATLEY KALLAS LLP
          1 Sansome Street, 35th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (619) 308-5034
          Facsimile: (888) 341-5048
          E-mail: amansfield@whatleykallas.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Livia M. Kiser, Esq.
          Jeffrey Hammer, Esq.
          Craig H. Bessenger, Esq.
          James A. Unger, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1600
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 443-4355
          Facsimile: (213) 443-4310
          E-mail: lkiser@kslaw.com
                  jhammer@kslaw.com
                  cbessenger@kslaw.com
                  junger@kslaw.com

BETTERHELP INC: Parties to Modify Time for Briefing
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as C.M., on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, v. BETTERHELP, INC., Case No.
3:23-cv-01033-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Parties stipulate pursuant to
Local Rule 6-2 to the Court entering an order modifying the time
for briefing and argument on the motion as follows:

-- BetterHelp's opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion will be due
    on or before July 21, 2025.

-- The Plaintiffs' reply in support of their Motion will be due
    on or before Sept. 2, 2025;

-- The hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion will be set for Oct. 25,

    2025 or a date convenient for the Court thereafter.

BetterHelp is a mental health platform that provides direct online
counseling and therapy services via web or phone text
communication.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 25, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TMgFNf at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary. M. Klinger, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
          PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (866) 252-0878
          E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
                  gabramson@milberg.com
                  ahoneycutt@milberg.com
                  rnelson@milberg.com

                - and -

          Christina Tusan, Esq.
          HAMMONDLAW, P.C.
          1201 Pacific Ave, Suite 600
          Tacoma, WA 98402
          Telephone: (310) 601-6766
          Facsimile: (310) 295-2385
          E-mail: ctusan@hammondlawpc.com

                - and -

          Maureen M. Brady, Esq.
          MCSHANE & BRADY
          4006 Central Street
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: (816) 888-8010
          E-mail: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com

                - and -

          Alan M. Mansfield, Esq.
          WHATLEY KALLAS LLP
          1 Sansome Street, 35th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (619) 308-5034
          Facsimile: (888) 341-5048
          E-mail: amansfield@whatleykallas.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Livia M. Kiser, Esq.
          Jeffrey Hammer, Esq.
          Craig H. Bessenger, Esq.
          James A. Unger, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1600
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 443-4355
          Facsimile: (213) 443-4310
          E-mail: lkiser@kslaw.com
                  jhammer@kslaw.com
                  cbessenger@kslaw.com
                  junger@kslaw.com

BLOOMBERG LP: Seeks to File Class Cert Exhibits with Redactions
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ndugga v. Bloomberg L.P.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-07464-GHW-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendant asks the
Court to enter an order permitting the Bloom Declaration and BLP
Exhibits A, C, D, F, H, I, K, M, P, Q, T, U, X, Z, AA, CC, DD, and
GG to be filed with redactions; and BLP Exhibits N, V, Y, BB, EE,
FF, and JJ to be filed entirely under seal.

BLP also requests that the Court permit the related discussions of
these documents in its brief (and in any subsequent briefing
submitted in connection with this motion) to be filed with limited
redactions.

Bloomberg is an American privately-held financial, software, data,
and media company.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 23, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bmyCVb at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Elise M. Bloom, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          Telephone: (212) 969-3410
          Facsimile: (212) 969-2900
          E-mail: ebloom@proskauer.com

BOLLA OPERATING: Class Cert. Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Vasquez v. Bolla Operating
L.I. Corp., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-07014 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Nov.
16, 2022), the Hon. Judge Natasha C. Merle entered an order
referring motion to certify class to Mag. Judge Steven Tiscione for
a Report and Recommendation.

The suit alleges violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act and
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Bolla is a company primarily known for operating gas stations,
convenience stores, and related businesses in the New York City,
Long Island, and New Jersey areas.[CC]




BYTEDANCE INC: Young Allowed Leave to File TAC
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as REECE YOUNG, et al., v.
BYTEDANCE INC., et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-01883-VC (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order granting the motion for
leave to file a third amended complaint.

In any event, the motion is granted, and any amended complaint must
be filed within 21 days of this order. A further case management
conference is scheduled for Aug. 1, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., with a
joint case management statement due seven days prior, the Court
says.

ByteDance is a part of a global internet technology group operating
a range of content platforms.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 26, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=etWnYB at no extra
charge.[CC]

C & B LAUNDRY: Castillo Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
FELICITA CASIANO CASTILLO, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. C & B LAUNDRY LLC (D/B/A GRACIE'S
LAUNDRY), BENJAMIN WEISGAL, and EDDIE HUERTA, Defendants, Case No.
1:25-cv-04812 (S.D.N.Y., June 6, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and
the New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff Castillo was employed by Defendants as laundry worker
from approximately December 17, 2019 until on or about July 10,
2020, and from approximately April 2021 until on or about September
2024. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants without appropriate
minimum wage for the hours that she worked. In addition, the
Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff Castillo and other employees
with accurate wage statements at the time of their payment of
wages, says the suit.

C & B Laundry LLC owns, operates, or controls a laundromat, located
at 410 W 110th St, New York, NY 10025 under the name "Gracie's
Laundry." [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Michael Faillace, Esq.
         MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
         New York, NY 10165
         Telephone: (212) 317-1200
         Facsimile: (212) 317-1620

CAFE CORAZON: Conditional Status of Employee Collective Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICK POUNTNEY, et al.,
Individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. CAFE
CORAZON INC., et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00560-WED (E.D. Wis.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting conditional
certification of the following Collective:

    "All hourly, non-exempt employees at Cafe Corazon restaurants
    who contributed to a tip pool at any time since April 17,
    2022."

Cafe is a farm-to-table Mexican restaurant.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 24, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jfmSF5 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Connor J. Clegg, Esq.
          Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
          HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
          5150 N. Port Washington Rd., Suite 243
          Milwaukee, WI 53217-5470
          Telephone: (414) 271-8650
          E-mail: cclegg@hq-law.com
                  ljohnson@hq-law.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Erin M. Cook, Esq.
          Ashley E. McNulty, Esq.
          GODFREY KAHN, S.C.
          Milwaukee, WI 53202-5615
          Telephone: (414) 273-3500
          E-mail: mcook@gklaw.com
                  amcnulty@gklaw.com

CANVAS ENERGY: Wake Seeks Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wake Energy, LLC, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. Canvas
Energy, LLC, f/k/a Chaparral Energy, L.L.C., Case No.
5:22-cv-00822-G (W.D. Okla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order:

-- setting a hearing on the Plaintiff's unopposed amended motion
    to certify the settlement class for settlement purposes, and

-- preliminarily approving the class action settlement, to
    approve the form and manner of notice, and to set a date for a

    final fairness hearing.

In the alternative, the Plaintiff ask the Court to schedule a
hearing on the unopposed amended motion for class certification.

Because the Plaintiff's original unopposed motion for class
certification was denied as moot, the Plaintiff believes that a
hearing on the amended unopposed motion for class certification may
be needed to answer any questions the Court may still have.

On Jan. 17, 2024, the Parties executed a formal settlement
agreement.

On June 20, 2024, the Plaintiff filed its Amended Unopposed Motion
for Class Certification.

Canvas is an independent oil and natural gas exploration and
production company.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 23, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4MxqE4 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brady L. Smith, Esq.
          Harry "Skeeter" Jordan, Esq.
          BRADY SMITH LAW, PLLC
          One Leadership Square, Suite 1320
          211 N. Robinson Ave.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 293-3029
          E-mail: Brady@BLSmithLaw.com
                  Skeeter@BLSmithLaw.com

                - and -

          Randy C. Smith, Esq.
          RANDY C. SMITH AND ASSOCIATES
          One Leadership Square, Suite 1310
          211 North Robinson Ave.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 641-8662
          E-mail: randy@rcsmithlaw.com

CAPITAL ONE: Ruling on Bid to Modify Scheduling Order Entered
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as In re: Capital One
Financial Corporation, Affiliate Marketing Litigation, Case No.
1:25-cv-00023-AJT-WBP (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Anthony Trenga
entered an order on Plaintiffs' Motion to Modify Scheduling Order:


The Defendants submit a response to the Motion by June 30, 2025,
with the Plaintiffs to submit any reply by July 3, 2025.

The deadlines to serve expert disclosures and file a motion for
class certification are continued to a date to be determined by the
Court following its ruling on the Motion.

Capital is an American bank holding company.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OxApOg at no extra
charge.[CC]

CARMICHAEL DEVELOPMENT: Hernandez Seeks Conditional Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANKLIN
ALVARADO-HERNANDEZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Those
Similarly Situated, v. CARMICHAEL DEVELOPMENT, LLC and ANDY
CARMICHAEL a/k/a ANDREW A. CARMICHAEL, Jointly and Severally, Case
No. 1:25-cv-01254-TRJ (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting motion for conditional certification under
29 U.S.C. section 216(b).

The Plaintiff proposes that notice be sent to the following
collective:

    "All current and former employees of the Defendants who worked

    as laborers, machine operators, or similarly-situated hourly
    workers, from [3 years prior to order approving conditional
    certification] to Present, who were not paid overtime by the
    Defendants for work over 40 hours in a workweek, at the rate
    of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay."

On March 9, 2025, the Plaintiff filed their Complaint to recover
unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
On April 14, 2025, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint to
clarify that the Defendant Andy Carmichael is also known as Andrew
A. Carmichael.

Carmichael is a construction company based in Woodstock, GA and
specializes in Earthwork.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 23, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BVydRW at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon A. Thomas, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON A. THOMAS
          1 Glenlake Parkway, Suite 650
          Atlanta, GA 30328
          Telephone: (678) 862-9344
          Facsimile: (678) 638-6201
          E-mail: brandon@overtimeclaimslawyer.com

CASSAVA SCIENCES: Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Re Cassava Sciences, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:21-cv-00751-DAE (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order:

-- certifying the Class;

-- appointing them to serve as Class Representatives; and

-- appointing Lead Counsel Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP to
    serve as Class Counsel.

The proposed Class includes:

    "All purchasers or acquirers of Cassava common stock or call
    options on Cassava common or sellers of put options on Cassava

    common stock ("Cassava Securities") between Sept. 14, 2020 and

    Oct. 12, 2023, inclusive."

    Excluded from the Class are the Defendants and their immediate

    families, the officers and directors of the Company and their
    immediate families, their legal representatives, heirs,
    successors or assigns, and any entity in which any of the
    Defendants have or had a controlling interest.

This securities fraud class action alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Cassava and three of its
top executives: CEO Barbier, CFO Schoen, and Senior VP Burns.

The Plaintiffs allege that, between Sept. 14, 2020, and Oct. 12,
2023, inclusive, the Defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to
promote their experimental Alzheimer's drug, simufilam, by
concealing facts that undermined the integrity of Cassava’s
research.

Specifically, the Defendants used research tainted by extensive
data manipulation to obtain National Institutes of Health grants
and publish "in peer-reviewed journals" as part of a "strategy"
(i.e. scheme) to "validate]" Cassava's "unique scientific
approach."

Cassava is an American pharmaceutical company.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 20, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1Y0QC2 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel S. Drosman, Esq.
          Rachel Jensen, Esq.
          Kevin A. Lavelle, Esq.
          Megan A. Rossi, Esq.
          Heather Geiger, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: dand@rgrdlaw.com
                  rachelj@rgrdlaw.com
                  klavelle@rgrdlaw.com
                  mrossi@rgrdlaw.com
                  hgeiger@rgrdlaw.com

                - and -

          Joe Kendall, Esq.
          KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 744-3000
          Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
          E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com

                - and -

          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: clinehan@glancylaw.com

CDHA MANAGEMENT: Filing for Class Cert Bids Due May 20, 2026
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINA FIGUEROA, v.
CDHA MANAGEMENT, LLC, SPARK DSO, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-02186-WB
(E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Wendy Beetlestone entered a Preliminary
Pretrial Conference order as follows:

  1. Any further amendment to the Amended Complaint and any
     joinder of parties shall be completed by Sept. 22, 2025.

  2. All fact discovery shall be completed by Jan. 19, 2026.

  3. Any expert reports are due no later than Feb. 18, 2026. If an

     expert report is intended solely to contradict or rebut
     evidence on the same subject matter identified by another
     party, counsel shall serve such report on counsel for every
     other party no later than March 20, 2026.

  4. Any discovery depositions of expert witnesses shall be
     completed by April 20, 2026.

  5. Any motions for class certification shall be filed and served

     on or before May 20, 2026.

CDHA is a dental management company.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1UTpFm at no extra
charge.[CC]

CENTRAL STATES MANUFACTURING: Class Cert Opposition Due July 14
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shipp, et al., v. Central
States Manufacturing, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-05215 (W.D.
Ark., Filed Nov. 28, 2023), the Hon. Judge Timothy L. Brooks
entered an order granting Motion for Briefing Schedule as follows:

   (a) Defendants shall file a single consolidated opposition to
       Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification, not to exceed
       40 pages in length, by no later than July 14, 2025;

   (b) Plaintiffs shall be permitted to file a single Reply in
       support of their Motion for Class Certification, not to
       exceed 12 pages in length, by no later than July 24, 2025;

   (c) any opposition to any motion for summary judgment or
       Daubert and related expert disqualification motion shall be

       filed and served no later than the earlier of

           (i) 30 Days after service of the motion, or

          (ii) August 13, 2025; and

   (d) any reply in support of any motion for summary judgment or
       Daubert and related expert disqualification motion shall be

       filed and served no later than the earlier of

           (i) 14 Days after service of the pertinent opposition,
               or

         (ii) Aug. 27, 2025.

The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (E.R.I.S.A.)[CC]

CHRIS REYKDAL: Class Settlement in N.D. Suit Gets Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as N.D., et al., v. CHRIS
REYKDAL, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01621-LK (W.D. Wash.), the Hon.
Judge Lauren King entered an order:

-- granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion
    for attorneys' fees,

-- granting the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class
    action settlement, and

-- issuing of judgment against the Defendant.
and ORDERS as follows:

  1. The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement is fair,
     reasonable, and adequate. The Court grants final approval of
     the Settlement Agreement under Federal Rule of Civil
     Procedure 23.

  2. The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement is fair and
     reasonable in light of the Plaintiffs' claims. The Court
     grants final approval of the Settlement Agreement under
     Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c) and Local Civil Rule
     17(c).

   3. The Court approves the (1) reimbursement to the guardians of

     E.A. for up to $60,000 in documented expenses incurred to
     provide him with private educational and related support
     services since he was exited from the Selah School District,
     and (2) reimbursement or direct payment to the guardians of
     N.D. for up to $150,000 in documents expenses for educational

     services.

  4. The Court grants in part the Plaintiffs' motion for
     Attorney's fees and costs and awards attorney's fees in the
     amount of $416,915 and costs in the amount of $4,841.67.

  5. The Court will enter judgment consistent with this Order.

The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action alleging that
Washington's law that ends special education services at the end of
the school year during which a student turns 21 violates the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA").

The class is defined as:
    "All students who were exited from special education services
    due to age before their 22nd birthday between Nov. 11, 2020
    and the present."

On July 10, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion and
certified the following provisional class:

    "All students with disabilities in Washington who aged out of
    their special education programs at the end of the 2022-2023
    school year who have not yet turned 22 and all students with
    disabilities in Washington at risk of aging out of their
    special education programs before they turn 22 years old as a
    result of Section 28A.155.020 of the Revised Code of
    Washington and Section 392.172A.02000(2)(c) of the Washington
    Administrative Code."

A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RH7MCN at no extra
charge.[CC]

CITY JEANS: Faces Zhang Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW ZHANG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. City Jeans, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-05031 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2025) is a civil rights action
against City Jeans for its failure to design, construct, maintain,
and operate its website, https://www.cityjeans.com, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers
that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using
keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive
and include, but are not limited to inaccurate heading hierarchy,
inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, unclear labels for
interactive elements, the denial of keyboard access for some
interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be
performed solely with a mouse.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to
compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful
discrimination.

City Jeans, Inc. operates the website that offers a range of
footwear and apparel for men, women, and children, including boots,
sandals, slippers, sneakers, coats, jackets, hoodies, pants,
shirts, and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Uri Horowitz, Esq.
          Horowitz Law PLLC
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Telephone: (718) 705-8706  
          Facsimile: (718) 705-8705
          E-mail: uri@horowitzlawpllc.com

COINBASE GLOBAL: Faces Carmassi Suit Over Private Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
GIOVANNI CARMASSI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COINBASE GLOBAL, INC. and
COINBASE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-04838 (N.D. Cal., June
6, 2025) arises from Defendants' failure to adequately secure and
safeguard his and at least 69,460 other individuals' personally
identifiable information (PII) including names, addresses, masked
Social Security numbers, masked bank account numbers, bank account
identifiers, government identification images, account data, and
limited corporate data.

Despite knowing of the data breach since January 2025, the
Defendants only began notifying impacted persons nearly four months
later, on May 15, 2025, exacerbating the damages and risks to Class
Members, and in violation of various state data breach notification
statutes. The data breach notice letters also obscure the true
nature of the cyberattack and threat it posed--failing to
adequately inform Plaintiff and Class Members how many people were
impacted, how the "cybercriminals" accessed Defendants' systems and
the root cause of the Data Breach, whether the exfiltrated
information was encrypted or anonymized, why it took so long to
notify victims, or what specific remedial steps Defendants have
taken to safeguard PII within their systems and networks and to
prevent further cyberattacks going forward.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, now alleges claims for negligence, breach of
implied contract, unjust enrichment or quasi-contract, and
violation of the California Customer Records Act, California
Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, and California's Unfair Competition
Law.

Headquartered in New York, NY, Coinbase, Inc. is a cryptocurrency
exchange with a trading volume of $1.162 trillion, and over 3,700
employees. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
        Dustin L. Schubert, Esq.
        Amber L. Schubert, Esq.
        SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
        2001 Union St., Suite 200
        San Francisco, CA 94123
        Telephone: (415) 788-4220
        Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
        E-mail: rschubert@sjk.law
                dschubert@sjk.law
                aschubert@sjk.law

COMMUNICATIONS DATA: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Watson Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELE WATSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COMMUNICATIONS DATA GROUP, INC, d/b/a CDG,
DUO COUNTY TELEPHONE COOPERATIVE CORPORATION, INC. d/b/a DUO
BROADBAND, and CUMBERLAND CELLULAR, LLC, d/b/a DUO BROADBAND,
Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-02180-JEH-RLH (C.D. Ill., June 17,
2025) is a class action arising from Defendants' failure to protect
highly sensitive data.

According to the complaint, the Defendants stores a litany of
highly sensitive personal identifiable information about their
current and former customers, including Plaintiff. But Defendants
lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated their
insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach.

Cybercriminals were able to breach Defendants' systems because
Defendants failed to adequately train their employees on
cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards
or protocols to protect the Class' PII. In short, Defendants'
failures placed the Class' PII in a vulnerable position --
rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the suit.

Communications Data Group, Inc. is a SaaS business that sells
broadband, data, utility, and interconnect services to
telecommunications companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
          STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
          980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (872) 263-1100
          Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
          E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com

CSX TRANSPORTATION: Loses Bid to Dismiss Blanton Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL BLANTON, v. CSX
TRANSPORTATION, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00922-TJC-MCR (M.D. Fla.),
the Hon. Judge Timothy Corrigan entered an order that:

  1. The Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied. The Defendant
     shall answer the complaint no later than July 25, 2025.

  2. The parties shall file a case management report no later than

     July 25, 2025.

When Blanton filed this suit, it was more than three years after
his termination. The motion to dismiss makes a single argument:
that Blanton’s lawsuit is barred by FMLA’s two- or three-year
statute of limitations.

The circumstances of this case fall under the reasoning of American
Pipe and Crown, Cork, & Seal Co., and tolling is proper.

CSX argues tolling does not apply because the proposed class in
Bell was an improper "fail-safe" class and that it did not give CSX
"the essential information necessary to determine both the subject
matter and size of the prospective litigation."

The Defendant employed the Plaintiff until December 2020. CSX
terminated the Plaintiff for a workplace rules violation—alleged
misuse of time off on Dec. 24, 2020, under the Family and Medical
Leave Act.

CSX is a Class I freight railroad company.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 25, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xiRwGw at no extra
charge.[CC]

DAILYPAY INC: Davis Sues Over Predatory Lending Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
TERRY DAVIS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situ ated, Plaintiff v. DAILYPAY, INC., and DAILYPAY, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-03204-VMC (N.D. Ga., June 6, 2025)
arises from Defendants' predatory lending practices that allegedly
violated Georgia's Payday Lending Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants extend earned wage
advance (EWA) products to borrowers. These EWA products are
small-dollar advances that are usually for less than $100, and
charges fees between $1.99 and $3.99. However, the resulting annual
percentage rates of these products are matching loan-shark rates.
Moreover, these EWA products trap users in a cycle of reborrowing
that increases their financial distress, all in service of
generating revenue for predatory lenders, including Defendants,
says the suit.

DailyPay, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York,
NY. The company offers and enters into loan agreements with Georgia
consumers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Christopher B. Hall, Esq.
        Adam T. Mills, Esq.
        HALL & LAMPROS, LLP
        300 Galleria Parkway, Suite 300
        Atlanta, GA 30339
        Telephone: (404) 876-8100
        Facsimile: (404) 876-3477
        E-mail: chall@hallandlampros.com
                adam@hallandlampros.com

                - and -

        Joshua R. Jacobson, Esq.
        Jacob L. Phillips, Esq.
        JACOBSON PHILLIPS, PLLC
        2277 Lee Rd Ste B
        Winter Park, FL 32789
        Telephone: (321) 447-6461
        E-mail: joshua@jacobsonphillips.com
                jacob@jacobsonphillips.com
    
                - and -
    
        Lee Lowther, Esq.
        Courtney Ross Brown, Esq.
        CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
        One Allied Drive, Ste. 1400
        Little Rock, AR 72202
        Telephone: (501) 312-8500
        Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
        E-mail: llowther@cbplaw.com
                cbrown@cbplaw.com

DATAVANT INC: Garbowit Suit Seeks Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STACEY GARBOWIT and ALLEY
MCINNIS, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, v. DATAVANT, INC., as successor by merger to CIOX HEALTH,
LLC d/b/a CIOX HEALTH, WEST BOCA MEDICAL CENTER, INC., a Florida
corporation, and DELRAY MEDICAL CENTER, INC., a Florida
corporation, Case No. 9:25-cv-80345-DMM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class defined as:

    "All natural persons in Florida who, individually or through
    an authorized representative, requested access to their
    medical records and who, in violation of Florida law, were
    charged an excessive fee to obtain electronic access to their
    healthcare records by the Defendant, Datavant, acting on
    behalf of a hospital."

    Excluded from the Class are the presiding judge and any
    members of his or her immediate family, present and former
    officers and directors of the Defendants, all current
    employees of the Defendants and the Defendants' legal
    representatives, agents, attorneys, successors, or assigns.

    Also excluded are any federal, state, or local governmental
    entities and any jurors assigned to this action.

The case is a class action, brought under Florida law, on behalf of
Florida citizens who were charged copy fees by the Defendant, who
acts on behalf of hospitals to provide electronic copies of patient
hospital medical records, which far exceed the maximum limit
allowed by Fla. Stat. section 395.3025(1).

Datavant is a health information technology company, which develops
and maintains a digital ecosystem for the exchange of healthcare
data.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 26, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=elDy2h at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William J. Cornwell, Esq.
          David K. Friedman, Esq.
          Miranda N. Springfield, Esq.
          WEISS, HANDLER & CORNWELL, P.A.
          One Boca Place, Suite 205E
          2255 Glades Road
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 997-9995
          Facsimile: (561) 997-5280
          E-mail: wjc@whcfla.com
                  filings@whcfla.com
                  nw@whcfla.com
                  dkf@whcfla.com
                  gg@whcfla.com
                  mns@whcfla.com
                  jn@whcfla.com

                - and -

          Bruce F. Silver, Esq.
          SILVER INJURY LAW
          6100 Glades Road, Suite 201
          Boca Raton, FL 33434
          Telephone: (561) 488-3344
          Facsimile: (561) 488-5899
          E-mail: Bruce@silverinjurylaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Andrew T. Sarangoulis, Esq.
          Tala Amirfazli, Esq.
          BURR & FORMAN LLP
          200 E. Broward Blvd., Suite 1020
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          E-mail: asarangoulis@burr.com
                  tamirfazli@burr.com

DELTA AIR: Parties Seeks Class Certification Briefing Schedule
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUKAS GOODYEAR,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-05712-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint motion
to set briefing schedule for class certification and summary
judgment:

  1. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification:

     a. The Plaintiff must file his motion for class certification

        by Friday, Aug. 1, 2025.

     b. The Defendant must file its response brief by Friday, Aug.

        29, 2025.

     c. The Plaintiff must file his reply brief by Friday, Sept.
        19, 2025.

  2. The Defendant's motion for summary judgment:

     a. The Defendant must file its motion for summary judgment by

        Friday, Aug. 1, 2025.

     b. The Plaintiff must file his response brief by Friday, Aug.

        29, 2025.

     c. The Defendant must file its reply brief by Friday, Sept.
        19, 2025.

Delta provides scheduled air transportation for passengers,
freight, and mail over a network of routes.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 24, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dXEk2s at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
          Anna Claire Skinner, Esq.
          Madeline E. Hills, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT LLP
          Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-7900
          Facsimile: (312) 253-1443
          E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
                  dferri@dicellolevitt.com
                  askinner@dicellolevitt.com
                  mhills@dicellolevitt.com

                - and -

          Jonathan Palmer, Esq.
          KNIGHT PALMER, LLC
          1360 Peachstreet Street, N.E., Suite 1201
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 228-4822
          Facsimile: (404) 228-4821
          E-mail: jpalmer@knightpalmerlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Brett C. Bartlett, Esq.
          Lennon B. Haas, Esq.
          Seth J. Fortin, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          1075 Peachtree Street, N.E.
          Suite 2500
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3958
          Telephone: (404) 885-1500
          Facsimile: (404) 892-7056
          E-mail: bbartlett@seyfarth.com
                  lhaas@seyfarth.com
                  sfortin@seyfarth.com

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Plaintiff Must File Class Cert by Oct. 14
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, et al., v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Case No.
1:25-cv-01694 (D.C.C., Filed May 29, 2025), the Hon. Judge Tanya S.
Chutkan entered an order on motion for extension of time to
set/reset deadlines:

The Plaintiff shall file any motion for class certification by Oct.
14, 2025.

The suit alleges violation of the American with Disabilities Act
(ADA).[CC]



DOGS & CATS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Claude Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
WISLANDE CLAUDE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DOGS & CATS RULE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:25-cv-07957 (D.N.J., June 6, 2025) accuses the Defendant of
violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff brings the civil rights action against Defendant for
its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people. Due to the Defendant's
failure to build the website in a manner that is compatible with
screen access programs, the Plaintiff was unable to understand and
properly interact with the website, and was thus denied the benefit
of purchasing the pet food she wished to acquire from the website,
says the suit.

Dogs & Cats Rule, Inc. owns and operates the website,
www.catsanddogsrule.com, which serves as online store offering pet
food, supplies, and accessories. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Rami Salim, Esq.
        STEIN SAKS, PLLC
        One University Plaza, Suite 620
        Hackensack, NJ 07601
        Telephone: (201) 282-6500
        Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
        E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com

DONALD TRUMP: Thakur Suit Seeks Provisional Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NEETA THAKUR, et al., v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-04737-RFL (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Rita Lin entered an order granting the Plaintiffs'
motion for a preliminary injunction as modified and provisionally
certifying two classes.

The Plaintiffs ask the Court to vacate the grant terminations and
preliminarily enjoin Defendants from giving effect to those
terminations.

They seek this relief on behalf of themselves and a proposed class
of similarly situated UC researchers who likewise had their grants
terminated via form letters without a reasoned explanation and for
researching forbidden topics.

The Plaintiffs are also likely to succeed on their claims that the
en masse terminations via form letter were arbitrary and
capricious.

Plaintiffs have also shown irreparable harm. The undisputed
evidence is that the termination of their funding will likely
result in layoffs, educational interruptions, impair ongoing
research projects, harm Plaintiffs’ careers and reputations, and
suppress protected speech.

These claims present issues that are classically suited for
classwide adjudication. The numerous grant terminations for
researching forbidden topics raise common legal issues of viewpoint
discrimination and statutory authorization. Likewise, the record
shows that the mass terminations were carried out in a concerted
fashion through form letters with the same common flaws.

Accordingly, two overlapping classes of UC researchers will be
certified, consisting generally of (a) those whose grants were
terminated for researching blacklisted DEI topics, and (b) those
whose grants were terminated by form letter without any
grant-specific explanation.

The Plaintiffs allege specifically that the National Endowment for
the Humanities, the National Science Foundation, and the
Environmental Protection Agency abruptly terminated multi-year
grants that had previously been awarded to fund their research.
The Plaintiffs contend that these terminations lacked any reasoned
explanation and contravened the agencies' congressionally mandated
statutory purposes.

The Plaintiffs are six UC researchers who had multi-year grants
supporting their research suddenly terminated without explanation.

Donald Trump is an American politician, media personality, and
businessman.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1IxRRQ at no extra
charge.[CC]

DOXIMITY INC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due August 12
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Doximity, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 5:24-cv-02281-NW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Noel Wise entered an order vacating the July 1, 2025 case
management conference and setting the following deadlines:

               Scheduled Event                   Date

  Deadline to Complete ADR:                     Dec. 31, 2025

  Motion for Class Certification:               Aug. 12, 2025

  Opposition to Motion for Class                Sept. 26, 2025
  Certification:

  Reply in Support of Motion for Class          Oct. 27, 2025
  Certification:

  Hearing on Motion for Class Certification:    Nov. 19, 2025
                                                at 9 a.m.

  Close of Fact Discovery:                      Jan. 16, 2026

  Opening Expert Reports:                       Feb. 13, 2026

  Final Pretrial Conference:                    Aug. 19, 2026

  Trial:                                        Aug. 31, 2026
                                                at 9:00 a.m.

Doximity is an online networking service for medical
professionals.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 25, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0xhF3Q at no extra
charge.[CC]

DYCK O'NEAL: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAREN SAUNDERS, v. DYCK
O'NEAL, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-00335-RJJ-MV (W.D. Mich.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order extending the deadline
for the Defendant to file its responses to the Plaintiff's motion
for class certification and motion for summary judgment, up to and
including July 16, 2025.

Due to briefing deadlines in other matters, including one federal
appeals case, defense counsel needs additional time to prepare
briefing in this case.

The Defendant therefore requests the court grant an extension of 14
days to file response briefs to the pending motions.
Granting the Defendant's request will not prejudice the Plaintiff,
who has consented to the requested relief.

On June 4, 2025, the Plaintiff filed her motion for class
certification and her motion for summary judgment.

Dyck O'Neal operates as a debt collection law firm.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 26, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mGQsdm at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Dale T. Golden, Esq.
          Eugene Xerxes Martin, IV, Esq.
          MARTIN GOLDEN LYONS WATTS MORGAN, PLLC
          410 South Ware Blvd. Suite 806
          Tampa, FL 33619
          Telephone: (813) 251-3632
          E-mail: dgolden@mgl.law
                  xmartin@mgl.law

                - and -

          Mark S. Pendery, Esq.
          HONIGMAN LLP
          300 Ottawa Avenue NW, Suite 400
          Grand Rapids, MI 49503
          Telephone: (616) 649-1910
          E-mail: mpendery@honigman.com

ELLIS HOSPITAL: Parties Seek Class Certification Deadlines
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Davella v. Ellis Hospital,
Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-00726-MAD-MJK (N.D.N.Y.), the Parties ask
the Court to enter an order granting proposed class certification /
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) decertification deadlines:

  a. Opt-in written discovery deadline: Sept. 3, 2025;

  b. The Defendant's deadline to designate Opt-in Plaintiff's for
     deposition: Sept. 17, 2025;

  c. All depositions and written discovery: Feb. 17, 2026;

  d. The Plaintiff's motion for Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Class
     Certification: March 17, 2026.

Ellis offers an extensive array of inpatient and outpatient
services – including cardiac, cancer, emergency, neuroscience and
women's services.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 25, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kZgEw5 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Parties are represented by:

          Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE
          COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400,
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105

ELON MUSK: OFPRS Seeks to Certify Investor Class
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS
PENSION AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM, v. ELON R. MUSK, ELON MUSK REVOCABLE
TRUST DATED JULY 22, 2003, EXCESSION LLC, AND JARED BIRCHALL, Case
No. 1:22-cv-03026-ALC-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff will move the
Court for entry of an Order:

    (i) certifying a class of investors (the "Class") defined as:
        "All persons or entities who sold Twitter common stock
        and/or call options and/or purchased put options between
        March 25, 2022 and April 4, 2022, inclusive, and were
        damaged thereby;

   (ii) appointing Lead Plaintiff as Class Representative; and

  (iii) appointing Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP as
        Class Counsel.

OFPRS manages and administers retirement funds for active and
retired firefighters.

Elon Musk is known for his leadership of Tesla, SpaceX, X, and the
Department of Government Efficiency. Musk has been considered the
wealthiest person in the world since 2021; as of May 2025, Forbes
estimates his net worth to be US$424.7 billion.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 23, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=F0FmVN at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq.
          Katherine M. Sinderson, Esq.
          Jeremy P. Robinson, Esq.
          Jonathan G. D'Errico, Esq.
          Emily A. Tu, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 554-1400
          Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
          E-mail: salvatore@blbglaw.com
                  katie@blbglaw.com
                  jeremy@blbglaw.com
                  jonathan.derrico@blbglaw.com
                  emily.tu@blbglaw.com

EMBRY-RIDDLE: Class Cert Response in Garceau Suit Stricken
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Garceau v. Embry-Riddle
Aeronautical University, Inc., Case No. 6:24-cv-00755 (M.D. Fla.,
Filed April 23, 2024), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an
endorsed order:

-- Striking response in opposition to the plaintiff's motion for
    class certification; and

-- Finding as moot motion to extend deadline to file reply.

The Defendant's Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification fails to comply with Local Rule 3.01.

Specifically, Local Rule 3.01(b) provides that a response to a
motion shall be "no longer than twenty pages inclusive of all
parts."

The Defendant shall refile its response to 38 Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification on or before June 30, 2025. Then, Plaintiff
shall file its reply to Defendant's response to Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification on or before July 9, 2025.

The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (E.R.I.S.A.). [CC]

Embry-Riddle is a private university focused on aviation and
aerospace programs based in Daytona Beach, Florida, and Prescott,
Arizona.

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT: Bid to Certify Class Tossed w/o Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOE 1, et al., v. EQUAL
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, et al., Case No.
1:25-cv-01124-RBW (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Reggie Walton entered an
order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion
to stay consideration of premature motion for summary judgment and
motion for class certification and for extension of time to respond
to amended complaint.

The motion is granted to the extent that it seeks (1) an extension
of time to respond to the Plaintiffs' amended complaint; (2) an
extension of time to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment; and (3) denial without prejudice of the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

Equal enforces laws that make discrimination illegal in the
workplace.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 26, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5tSLCc at no extra
charge.[CC] 


FRANCHISE CREATOR: Weingrad Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LEON WEINGRAD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FRANCHISE CREATOR, LLC, d/b/a FRANCHISE
CREATOR, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-22746 (S.D. Fla., June 17,
2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the TCPA by
causing multiple telephone solicitation calls to be initiated to
Plaintiff and members of the National Do Not Call Registry Class in
a 12-month period, despite the person's registration of his or her
telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry.

Franchise Creator, LLC, which does business under the name
Franchise Creator, is a Florida-based company that sells services
whereby it helps individuals franchise their business ideas and
create franchises.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
          Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          237 South Dixie Highway, 4th Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 469-5881  
          E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
                  rachel@kaufmanpa.com

FRANKLIN COUNTY, OH: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Reply
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TREY SMITH-JOURNIGAN, and
PAUL E. WILLIAMS, JR., both Individually and on behalf of a class
of Others similarly situated, v. FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO, Case No.
2:18-cv-00328-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting motion for extension of time to fil reply
brief in support of the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 26, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZZ0FrB at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ELMER ROBERT KEACH, III, PC
          One Pine West Plaza, Suite 120
          Albany, NY 12205
          Telephone: (518) 434-1718
          E-mail: bobkeach@keachlawfirm.com

FROEDTERT THEDACARE: Court OK's Bid to Compel Arbitration of Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN GOSTON,
individually and for others similarly situated, v. FROEDTERT
THEDACARE HEALTH, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-01482-BHL (E.D. Wis.), the
Hon. Judge Brett H. Ludwig entered an order granting the
Defendant's motion to compel arbitration of the Plaintiff's
individual claims and staying the Plaintiff's individual claims
pending the completion of arbitration of the Plaintiff's individual
claims.

The Court further entered an order that the Plaintiff's motion to
amend the complaint is granted. The Clerk is directed to docket the
Plaintiff's proposed amended complaint as a separate docket entry
as of the date of this Order.

The Plaintiff Lauren Goston has filed a class and collective action
against the Defendant alleging that Froedtert violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and the Wisconsin Wage Payments, Claims
and Collections Law (WPCCL) by misclassifying her as an independent
contractor and failing to pay her overtime.

Froedtert is a healthcare entity that operates hospitals and
clinics throughout Wisconsin.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KKtfg4 at no extra
charge.[CC]

GENERAL MOTORS: Wrice-Scott Sues Over Engine Defect, Recall Remedy
------------------------------------------------------------------
FELICIA WRICE-SCOTT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:25-cv-11815-TGB-APP (E.D. Pa., June 17, 2025) is a class
action brought by the Plaintiff to recover the material economic
losses she has suffered as a result of GM's alleged misconduct
arising from the underlying defective V-8 engines and GM's recall
remedy.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has recalled 600,000
trucks and SUVs following an investigation conducted by the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. GM admitted that a
major defect in its 6.2-liter V-8 engines caused catastrophic
engine failure (the "Engine Defect"). GM now requires owners to
start using higher-viscosity motor oil as part of a recall remedy.
Thicker oil may (or may not) help mitigate the Engine Defect, but
it will also materially decrease fuel economy and require owners to
purchase hundreds of extra gallons of gasoline over their vehicles'
lifespans.

Thus, due to the underlying defect and GM's recall remedy, owners
are presented with two bad options: do nothing, risk catastrophic
engine failure, or get the recall and pay hundreds of dollars more
for gasoline, says the suit.

The Plaintiff purchased a new 2023 Chevrolet Suburban -- a "Class
Vehicle" -- on or around August 2022, from a dealer in Cherry Hill,
New Jersey. The Plaintiff decided to purchase the Class Vehicle
based in part on GM's representations and omissions regarding the
vehicle's reliability, performance, cost of ownership, and fuel
economy. He did not know that the Class Vehicle had a defect that
could lead to catastrophic failure or that, in an effort to remedy
the Engine Defect, GM would require owners to use a
higher-viscosity motor oil that would materially decrease the
vehicle's fuel economy.

General Motors LLC designs, builds, and sells cars, trucks,
crossovers, and automobile parts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
          Dan Tomascik, Esq.
          LAUKAITIS LAW LLC
          954 Avenida Ponce De Leon, Suite 205, #10518
          San Juan, PR 00907
          Telephone: (215) 789-4462
          E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com
                  dtomascik@laukaitislaw.com

               - and -

          Mason A. Barney, Esq.
          Lisa R. Considine, Esq.
          Leslie L. Pescia, Esq.
          SIRI | GLIMSTAD LLP
          745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
          New York, NY 10151
          Telephone: (212) 532-1091
          Facsimile: (646) 417-5967
          E-mail: mbarney@sirillp.com
                  lconsidine@sirillp.com
                  lpescia@sirillp.com

GEORGIA: Cappelletti Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIGID CAPPELLETTI, et
al., v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, et al., Case No.
5:25-cv-00009-LGW-BWC (S.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting an extension of time to file their motion
for class certification.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants engaged in racial
discrimination in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Georgia introduces and supports programs that help communities
realize growth and development.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 23, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GULJqo at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jared B. Magnuson, Esq.
          Jonathan F. Cohn, Esq.
          William T. Thompson, Esq.
          Mark M. Rothrock, Esq.
          LEHOTSKY KELLER COHN LLP
          3280 Peachtree Road NE
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (512) 693-8350
          E-mail: jared@lkcfirm.com
                  jon@lkcfirm.com
                  will@lkcfirm.com
                  mark@lkcfirm.com

GOLDEN STATE FC: Scott Class Action Administratively Closed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Scott v. Golden State FC,
LLC, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-02147 (N.D. Cal., Filed March 26,
2021), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order
directing the Clerk to administratively close the case in light of
the parties' status report.

The Court will reopen the case once there is a ruling on the class
certification motion in Trevino v. Golden State FC, LLC , Lead Case
No. 1:18-cv-00120-KES-BAM (E.D. Cal.).

The requirement that the parties notify the Court within 48 hours
of a decision on the motion remains in effect.

The nature of suit states Labor Litigation.CC]

GRAVY ANALYTICS: Foley CIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOSHUA FOLEY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GRAVY ANALYTICS, INC.,
GAMELOFT, INC., GAMELOFT SE, and IMANGI STUDIOS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. CV0006161, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Marin, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California on June 6, 2025.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:25-cv-04811 to the proceeding.

The case arises from Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA).

Based in Virginia, Gravy Analytics is location intelligence company
that provides enterprise-grade location analytics on-demand. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

         Jason A. Orr, Esq.
         BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
         1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2700
         Los Angeles, CA 90067-4301
         Telephone: (310) 820-8800
         Facsimile: (310) 820-8859
         E-mail: jorr@bakerlaw.com

HUSQVARNA LLC: Douglass Sues Over Website's Noncompliance of ADA
----------------------------------------------------------------
BLAIR DOUGLASS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HUSQVARNA, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:25-cv-00771 (W.D. Pa., June 6, 2025) arises from Defendant’s
ongoing failure to effectively communicate with Plaintiff because
its website is not sufficiently compatible with screen reader
auxiliary aids.

The Plaintiff was injured when he attempted to remotely access the
goods and services available at Defendant's physical facilities
through the website, https://www.husqvarna.com/us/, while Plaintiff
was physically located in Pittsburgh, PA. Accordingly, the
Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and
asserts claims for violations of Americans with Disabilities Act.

Headquartered in North Carolina, Husqvarna, LLC makes various
goods, like chainsaws, lawnmowers, and more, and services, like
customer service, return processing, and technical support,
available to consumers in Pennsylvania and across the country.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Kevin W. Tucker, Esq.
         Kevin Abramowicz, Esq.
         Chandler Steiger, Esq.
         Stephanie Moore, Esq.
         Kayla Conahan, Esq.
         Jessica Liu, Esq.
         EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC
         6901 Lynn Way, Suite 503
         Pittsburgh, PA 15208
         Telephone: (412) 877-5220
         Facsimile: (412) 626-7101
         E-mail: ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com
                 kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com
                 csteiger@eastendtrialgroup.com
                 smoore@eastendtrialgroup.com
                 kconahan@eastendtrialgroup.com
                 jliu@eastendtrialgroup.com

MARINEMAX INC: Class Settlement in Lomedico Suit Gets Final Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANDRO LOMEDICO and KEVIN
J. NIBLOCK, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. MARINEMAX, INC., Case No. 8:24-cv-01784-MSS-AEP (M.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge Mary Scriven entered an order granting the
Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final approval of class action
settlement is granted.

The settlement agreement is finally approved and shall govern the
Parties' conduct in the settlement of this class action.

The Settlement Class, as defined in the settlement agreement, is
finally certified for settlement purposes under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(a) and 23(b)(3). The Plaintiffs Lomedico and Niblock are
confirmed as the Class Representatives, and Mariya Weekes and
Brittany Resch are confirmed as Class Counsel.

The Plaintiffs' unopposed application for attorneys' fees and
costs, is granted. Class Counsel is awarded $339,268.90 in
attorneys' fees and $576.25 in litigation costs.

The case is dismissed with prejudice.

On July 29, 2024, Plaintiff Sandro Lomedico filed a putative class
action complaint against Defendant MarineMax, Inc. on behalf of
himself and similarly situated individuals, Case No. 8:24-cv-01784
Subsequently, on Aug. 20, 2024, Plaintiff Kevin J. Niblock also
filed a putative class action complaint against MarineMax, Inc.,
Case No. 8:24-cv-01955. On Sept. 25, 2024, the Court entered an
Order consolidating the two actions. The Plaintiffs filed their
Consolidated Complaint on Oct. 1, 2024.

On Feb. 3, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement, which the Court granted. In
the Order granting preliminary approval, the Court provisionally
certified the Settlement Class, defined as

     "All natural persons who were identified to receive a
     notification letter from MarineMax, Inc. or Newcoast as a
     result of the Data Incident."

     Excluded from the Settlement Class are all attorneys and
     employees of Settlement Class Counsel, any judicial officer
     to whom this case is assigned, and persons who validly opt
     out of the settlement by following the procedure.

     The Settlement provides for a non-reversionary $1,018,825.50
     all cash Gross Settlement Amount.

MarineMax is a Florida-based company that sells boats and offers
financing, insurance, and educational programs.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wkSsoE at no extra
charge.[CC]

MDL 3143: Bid for Broad Cross-Use of Plaintiffs' Docs Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Re: OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement
Litigation, Case No. 1:25-md-03143 (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=WnKdkR at no extra
charge.[CC]

META PLATFORMS: Tracking Pixel Collects Users' Info, Timothee Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
NATASSIA TIMOTHEE, TOMMY DIEP, ESPERANZA REYES, MARIAELENA
BURCIAGA, and STACY PENNING on behalf of themselves, all others
similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiffs v. META
PLATFORMS, INC., SACRAMENTO FOOD BANK AND FAMILY SERVICES, LOS
ANGELES REGIONAL FOOD BANK, CENTRAL CALIFORNIA FOOD BANK, and SAN
FRANCISCO FOOD BANK d/b/a SAN FRANCISCO-MARIN FOOD BANK,
Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-05106 (N.D. Cal., June 17, 2025)
arises from the Defendants' violation of the California Invasion of
Privacy Act, the California Consumer Privacy Act, the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, the common law right to privacy, and
California's Constitutional Right to Privacy.

According to the complaint, the Defendants incorporate Meta's
tracking technology, the Meta Tracking Pixel, on their websites,
which they know allows Meta to contemporaneously intercept, and
subsequently sell, vast quantities of Plaintiffs and other users'
sensitive financial and personal information, including medical
information, without their knowledge or consent.

Meta (formerly known as Facebook) offers to website owners the
Pixel, which allows owners to track users' actions on their
websites, and measure the effectiveness of advertising, by adding
the Pixel's source code to their websites. When embedded on a
third-party website, the Pixel tracks each user's activity on that
website and sends that data to Meta, linking this information with
users' personal identities.

Through the Pixel, Meta collects information such as visited
websites and user interactions with content, allowing Meta to build
detailed user profiles. Over time, as the Pixel collects more data,
Meta can refine and expand the user profile, enabling it to serve
highly-targeted advertisements based on a user's habits and
preferences, for its own profit, alleges the suit.

Meta Platforms, Inc. is an American multinational technology
company headquartered in Menlo Park, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
          Melanie R. Monroe, Esq.
          Trevor Flynn, Esq.
          Peter Grazul, Esq.
          Allison Ferraro, Esq.
          FITZGERALD MONROE FLYNN PC
          2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Telephone: (619) 215-1741
          E-mail: jfitzgerald@fmfpc.com
                  mmonroe@fmfpc.com
                  tflynn@fmfpc.com
                  pgrazul@fmfpc.com
                  aferraro@fmfpc.com

MICROGENICS CORP: Seeks More Time to Serve Class Cert Reply Docs
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Moreland v. Microgenics
Corp., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00748-ENV-MMH (E.D.N.Y.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting four (4) day
extension of time, from June 26, 2025, to June 30, 2025, to serve
reply papers in further support of the DOCCS Defendants' summary
judgment and denial of class certification motions.

The requested extension would amend the briefing schedule to
provide that the DOCCS defendants’ reply papers are to be served
by June 30, 2025.

Microgenics develops, manufactures, and markets medical equipment.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 23, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9EVIEr at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jeffrey P. Mans, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JEFFREY P. MANS
          Albany, NY 12211-0282
          Telephone: (518) 265-4135
          E-mail: adkhighlander@gmail.com

MICROSOFT CORP: Bid for Broad Cross-Use of Basbanes Docs Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Basbanes et al v.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00084 (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.

Microsoft is an American multinational corporation and technology
conglomerate.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AQI3e7 at no extra
charge.[CC]

MICROSOFT CORP: Bid for Broad Cross-Use of Daily News Docs Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Daily News LP et al v.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al. (RE: OPENAI, INC., COPYRIGHT
INFRINGEMENT LITIGATION), Case No. 1:24-cv-03285 (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.

Microsoft is an American multinational corporation and technology
conglomerate.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8NPZxR at no extra
charge.[CC]

MICROSOFT CORP: Bid for Broad Cross-Use of New York Docs Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as The New York Times Company
v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al. (RE: OPENAI, INC., COPYRIGHT
INFRINGEMENT LITIGATION), Case No. 1: 23-cv-11195 (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.

Microsoft is an American multinational corporation and technology
conglomerate.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9eEhne at no extra
charge.[CC]

NAKED WHEY: Valenta Sues Over Deceptive Protein Product Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
CAROL VALENTA, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NAKED WHEY, INC. dba Naked Nutrition, a
Florida corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01543-RSH-DEB
(S.D. Cal., June 17, 2025) alleges that Defendant's Vegan Protein
Powder products are misbranded and falsely advertised because they
feature deceptive protein claims on the label and misrepresent the
percent of Recommended Daily Value of protein contained in each
serving in violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

The complaint asserts that protein claims on the principal display
panels of the Products are deceptive and misleading to reasonable
consumers because these claims are not clarified and contextualized
by the disclosure of the quality-adjusted percent daily value in
the Nutrition Facts panel.

Consumers including Plaintiff reasonably relied on these label
statements such that they would not have purchased the Products
from Defendant if the truth about the Products was known, or would
have only been willing to pay a substantially reduced price for the
Products had they known that Defendant’s representations were
false and misleading, says the suit.

Naked Whey, Inc., dba Naked Nutrition, is a Florida corporation
with its principal place of business in Miami.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles C. Weller, Esq.
          CHARLES C. WELLER, APC
          11412 Corley Court
          San Diego, CA 92126
          Telephone: (858) 414-7465
          Facsimile: (858) 300-5137

ON Q FINANCIAL: ConnectWise's Bid to Dismiss Feathers Suit OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jack Feathers, et al., v.
On Q Financial LLC, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00811-SMB (D. Ariz.),
the Hon. Judge Susan Brnovich entered an order granting the
Defendant ConnectWise's motion to dismiss.

The further entered an order:

-- dismissing the Plaintiffs' negligence and declaratory relief
    claims as to ConnectWise without prejudice and dismissing the
    negligence per se claim with prejudice.

-- giving the Plaintiffs leave to amend their Complaint.

The Plaintiffs shall have 30 days from the date of this Order to
file a Second Amended Complaint if they so choose.

At bottom, Plaintiffs have not shown that declaratory judgment
entered against ConnectWise would redress any alleged injury. As a
result, Plaintiffs lack standing to bring a declaratory judgment
claim against ConnectWise, and the Court will therefore dismiss the
claim as asserted against ConnectWise.

Therefore, the Plaintiffs have failed to allege that ConnectWise
owed them a cognizable duty under Arizona law. As a result, their
negligence claim fails and must be dismissed.

The case is a data breach case in which hackers accessed and
exfiltrated personally identifiable information (PII) from the
customer databases of Defendant On Q Financial, a mortgage lender.

On Feb. 13, 2024, an independent security researcher notified
ConnectWise that an issue with its ScreenConnect program could
allow unauthorized actors to access the software.

On March 29, 2024, On Q Financial sent Plaintiffs a Notice of Data
Security Incident letter.

On Q operates as a mortgage company.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 26, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uNlfiK at no extra
charge.[CC]

OPENAI INC: Bid for Broad Cross-Use of Millette Docs Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Millette v. OpenAI, Inc.
et al. (RE: OPENAI, INC., COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LITIGATION), Case
No. 1:25-cv-03297 (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=m1gw8e at no extra
charge.[CC]

OPENAI INC: Bid for Broad Cross-Use of Silverman Docs Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Silverman et al v. OpenAI,
Inc. et al. (RE: OPENAI, INC., COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LITIGATION),
Case No. 1:25-cv-03483 (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=GdFWtx at no extra
charge.[CC]

OPENAI INC: Bid for Broad Cross-Use of Tremblay Docs Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tremblay et al v. OpenAI,
Inc. et al., (E: OPENAI, INC., COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LITIGATION),
Case No. 1:25-cv-03482 (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=uoOArA at no extra
charge.[CC]

PHARMACARE US: Wins Summary Judgment on NDI & Disease Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MONTIQUENO CORBETT and ROB
DOBBS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. PHARMACARE U.S., INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00137-JES-AHG (S.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge James Simmons, Jr. entered an order granting
summary judgment on both the NDI claims and the Disease claims to
the Defendant.

Further, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' request to file portions
of their opposition under seal and the Plaintiffs' request to allow
non-electronic filing of portions of Exhibit F of the Declaration
of Trenton R. Kashima.

In sum, there is no dispute of material fact. As a matter of law,
the Challenged Misrepresentations are ambiguous, not deceptive, and
are not misleading to a reasonable consumer.

The Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against the Defendant,
asserting various consumer protection and breach of warranty claims
based on Sambucol products, PharmaCare's dietary supplements
containing black elderberry extract.

On Nov. 29, 2021, the Plaintiffs1 filed a Second Amended Complaint.


On May 25, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which was granted in part and denied in part.

Pharmacare offers dietary supplements for wide range of specific
and general health issues.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2qNxU2 at no extra
charge.[CC]

PREMIUM BRANDS: Settlement Fairness Scheduled for Nov. 14
---------------------------------------------------------
IF YOU MADE PURCHASES AT ANN TAYLOR FACTORY STORES OR LOFT
OUTLET STORES BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 4, 2018, AND MAY 28, 2025, WHILE IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, NEW YORK, OHIO, OREGON, PENNSYLVANIA,
TEXAS, WASHINGTON, OR WISCONSIN YOU MAY BE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE A
SETTLEMENT VOUCHER FOR $11 OFF ANY PURCHASE USABLE TOWARD FUTURE
PURCHASES AT ANN TAYLOR FACTORY STORES OR LOFT OUTLET STORES.

Plaintiffs Demetra Binder, Angela Waldner, Christina Calcagno, and
Deborah O'Dea (the "Class Representatives") filed a lawsuit (the
"Action") against Premium Brands OpCo LLC ("Defendant"), on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated. The Action alleges
that Defendant advertised purportedly improper discounts on
merchandise sold in its Ann Taylor Factory Stores or Loft Outlet
Stores.

Defendant denies each and every one of the allegations of unlawful
conduct, any wrongdoing, and any liability whatsoever, and no court
or other entity has made any judgment or other determination of any
liability. Defendant further denies that any Class Member is
entitled to any relief and, other than for Settlement purposes,
that this Action is appropriate for certification as a class
action.

The Court has decided that everyone who fits within one of the
following descriptions is a Class Member for purposes of the
proposed Settlement:

California Class:

All persons who, while in the state of California purchased one or
more products at a purported discount at Defendant's Ann Taylor
Factory Stores or LOFT Outlet Stores from September 4, 2020, to
November 4, 2024, and did not receive a refund or credit for their
purchase(s).

New York Class:

All persons who, while in the state of New York, purchased one or
more products at a purported discount at Defendant's Ann Taylor
Factory Stores or LOFT Outlet Stores from September 4, 2021, to
November 4, 2024, and did not receive a refund or credit for their
purchase(s).

Ohio Class:

All persons who, while in the state of Ohio, purchased one or more
products at a purported discount at Defendant's Ann Taylor Factory
Stores or LOFT Outlet Stores from September 4,

Oregon Class:

All persons who, while in the state of Oregon, purchased one or
more products at a purported discount at Defendant's Ann Taylor
Factory Stores or LOFT Outlet Stores from September 4, 2023, to
November 4, 2024, and did not receive a refund or credit for their
purchase(s).

Pennsylvania Class:

All persons who, while in the state of Pennsylvania, purchased one
or more products at a purported discount at Defendant's Ann Taylor
Factory Stores or LOFT Outlet Stores from September 4, 2018, to
November 4, 2024, and did not receive a refund or credit for their
purchase(s).

Texas Class:

All persons who, while in the state of Texas, purchased one or more
products at a purported discount at Defendant's Ann Taylor Factory
Stores or LOFT Outlet Stores from September 4, 2022, to November 4,
2024, and did not receive a refund or credit for their
purchase(s).

Washington Class:

All persons who, while in the state of Washington, purchased one or
more products at a purported discount at Defendant's Ann Taylor
Factory Stores or LOFT Outlet Stores from September 4, 2020, to
November 4, 2024, and did not receive a refund or credit for their
purchase(s).

Wisconsin Class:

All persons who, while in the state of Wisconsin, purchased one or
more products at a purported discount at Defendant's Ann Taylor
Factory Stores or LOFT Outlet Stores from September 4, 2021, to
November 4, 2024, and did not receive a refund or credit for their
purchase(s).

Defendant has agreed to provide each Class Member who timely
submits a valid Claim Form by the Claim Filing Deadline, one (1)
Settlement Voucher, which may be applied for up to $11.00 toward
any purchase at Ann Taylor Factory Stores or LOFT Outlet Stores.
Defendant has further agreed to provide to each Class Member, for
whom it has an email address, and who does not submit a Claim Form
by the Claim Filing Deadline one (1) Settlement Voucher, which may
be applied for up to $11.00 toward any purchase at Ann Taylor
Factory Stores or LOFT Outlet Stores.

Settlement Vouchers can be applied toward any purchase at Ann
Taylor Factory Stores or LOFT Outlet Stores. Settlement Vouchers
will apply to the purchase prices that Defendant offers to the
general public, will be transferable to others without restriction,
and will be usable in conjunction with any other discount or offer.
The Settlement Vouchers can be used at any time, for a period of
six months after they are  distributed, and will have no residual
value if the amount redeemed is less than the Settlement Voucher
amount. Settlement Vouchers are not redeemable for cash (including
no cash back). In the event of a return, Defendant will not credit
back the Settlement Voucher amount.

You may exclude yourself from a Class and the Settlement. If you
want to be excluded, you must send a signed letter or postcard
stating: (a) the Class Member's name, address, and phone number;
(b) be signed by the Class Member; and (c) include the statement
"I/we request to be excluded from the class settlement in Binder et
al., v. Premium Brands OpCo LLC" and include the case number,
postmarked no later September 10, 2025 to the Settlement
Administrator at:

Binder et al., v. Premium Brands OpCo LLC Settlement
c/o Settlement Administrator
P.O. Box 25226
Santa Ana, CA 92799

If you timely request exclusion from a Class, you will be excluded
from the Class, you will not receive a Settlement Voucher, you will
not be bound by the Judgment entered in the Action, and you will
not be precluded from prosecuting any timely, individual claim
against Defendant based on the conduct complained of in the
Action.

The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing to determine if the
Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and to consider Class
Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and costs, as
well as the Individual Service Awards to the Class
Representatives.

If you wish to object to the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy
of the Settlement Agreement or the proposed
Settlement, you must send a written objection to the Settlement
Administrator at the address set forth below no later than (i.e.,
postmarked by) September 10, 2025.

Binder et al., v. Premium Brands OpCo LLC Settlement
c/o Settlement Administrator
P.O. Box 25226
Santa Ana, CA 92799

On November 14, 2025 at 1:30 pm Pacific Standard Time, a hearing
will be held on the fairness of the proposed Settlement. At the
hearing, the Court will be available to hear any objections and
arguments concerning the proposed Settlement's fairness. The
hearing will take place before the Hon. Michael D. Washington in
the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, located at
325 S. Melrose Dr, Vista, CA 92081. The hearing may be postponed to
a different date or time or location without notice. Please
check this website for any updates about the Settlement generally,
or the Fairness Hearing specifically. If the date or time of the
Fairness Hearing changes, an update to the Settlement Website will
be the only way you will be informed of the change.

To see a copy of the Settlement Agreement, the Court's Preliminary
Approval Order, Class Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and
costs, and the operative Complaints filed in the Action, please
visit the Settlement Website located at:
www.PBOCpricingsettlement.com. Alternatively, you may contact
the Settlement Administrator at the email address:
info@PBOCpricingsettlement.com or the U.S. postal (mailing)
address:

Binder et al., v. Premium Brands OpCo LLC Settlement
c/o Settlement Administrator
P.O. Box 25226
Santa Ana, CA 92799


PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Court Consolidated Actions with Goold Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRADEEN GOOLD; CAL ALVIN
HARRIS and MIDGE HARRIS, husband and wife; CHRISTINA COLE and
MARCUS COLE, wife and husband; JEFFERY NEHLS and MELISSA NEHLS,
husband and wife; SANDEE HAHN and STEPHEN HAHN, wife and husband,
v. DR. JASON A. DREYER, DO, and LAURA DREYER, husband and wife and
the marital community thereof; 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. 4:25-cv-05025-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=Y68GoQ at no extra
charge.[CC]

RENKIM CORP: Faces Cundiff Suit Over Data Security Failures
-----------------------------------------------------------
ECHO DAWN CUNDIFF, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RENKIM CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case No. 2:25-cv-11692-SJM-APP (E.D. Mich., June 6, 2025) arises
from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard
Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and former
customers' of Defendant's clients sensitive information, including
personally identifiable information such as name, medical debt
account balance, Social Security number, date of service, contact
information, and protected health information  such as patient
reference number.

On June 2, 2025, the Defendant announced that an unauthorized actor
gained access to its network on March 2, 2025. Hackers accessed and
acquired files containing unencrypted private information of
Plaintiff and Class Members. Moreover, Defendant failed to timely
and adequately notify Plaintiff and Class Members about the data
breach's occurrence and scope. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks
redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for
negligence, breach of third-party beneficiary, unjust enrichment,
and for violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.

Headquartered in Southgate, MI, Renkim Corporation operates as a
consumer communications company. It provides both print and
electronic mail solutions to its clients. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
          One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com

RENTGROW INC: Bid for Sanctions Tossed
--------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Szewczyk v. RentGrow,
Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-10734 (D. Mass., Filed May 11, 2022), the
Hon. Judge Myong J. Joun entered an order denying the Defendant's
Motion for Sanctions:

The litigation arises under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The
Plaintiff alleged that RentGrow's tenant screening report falsely
or misleadingly implied that he was registered on the national sex
offender registry, when in fact his record was limited to the
Colorado registry.

The Plaintiff brought both individual and putative class claims.
Following the close of discovery, the Court granted summary
judgment for RentGrow.

RentGrow faults Plaintiff for failing to develop admissible
evidence that its report caused a loss of housing. While that
deficiency proved fatal at summary judgment, the Court cannot
conclude that continuing the case amounted to bad faith or
unreasonably multiplied the proceedings.[CC]

SALVATION ARMY: Fails to Safeguard Private Data, Roach Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL ROACH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE SALVATION ARMY NATIONAL CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01024 (E.D. Va., June 16, 2025) is a
class action against Salvation Army for its failure to properly
secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated
individuals' personally identifiable information from criminal
hackers, including names, dates of birth, addresses, Social
Security numbers, driver's license numbers, and/or other government
identification card numbers.

On or about March 28, 2025, Cybernews' dark web tracker,
Ransomlooker, first noted a post by the ransomware gang Chaos,
indicating that it had obtained sensitive information from
Salvation Army and that the data will be released soon. While
Salvation Army has not yet acknowledged the attack, Chaos very
recently posted a sample of the stolen data. Based on this sample
date, the information affected appears to be the PII of up to
101,000 employees and 1.4 million volunteers, says the suit.

The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit to address Salvation
Army's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' PII that it
collected and maintained, and its failure to provide timely and
adequate notice to Plaintiff and Class Members of the breach, the
types of information that were accessed, and that such information
was subject to unauthorized access by cybercriminals.

The Plaintiff seeks to remedy the harms on behalf of Plaintiff and
all similarly situated individuals whose PII was accessed and/or
compromised during the Data Breach. Accordingly, the Plaintiff,
individually and on behalf of the Class, asserts claims for
negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust
enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidence, and
declaratory and injunctive relief.

The Plaintiff is a former employee of Salvation Army. He provided
PII to Salvation Army in connection with obtaining employment.

Salvation Army is a national non-profit headquartered in
Alexandria, Virginia. It is part of an international organization
and is an evangelical part of the universal Christian Church.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Hilton Wise, Esq.
          Dylan Scout Graham, Esq.
          WISE LAW FIRM, PLC
          10640 Page Ave., Suite 320
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 934-6377
          Facsimile: (703) 934-6379
          E-mail: dwise@wiselaw.pro
                  dgraham@wiselaw.pro

               - and -

          Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com

               - and -

          Alyssa Brown, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500
          Burbank, CA 91505
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: abrown@ahdootwolfson.com

SILVERGATE CAPITAL: $37.5MM Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 3
-------------------------------------------------------------
In Re Silvergate Capital Corporation Securities Litigation
Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of
California
Case Number: 3:22-cv-01936
Class Period: 11/07/2019 - 03/21/2023
Case Leaders: Hannah Ross, John Rizio-Hamilton, Jonathan D.
Uslaner
Case Team: Lauren M. Cruz

This is a securities class action filed on behalf of (a) all
persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
publicly traded stock of Silvergate Capital Corporation
("Silvergate") between November 7, 2019 through March 21, 2023,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby; and (b)
all persons or entities who purchased Silvergate stock in or
traceable to Silvergate's securities offerings conducted on or
about January 22, 2021, March 9, 2021 to May 18, 2021, July 29,
2021, and December 7, 2021 (collectively, the "2021 Offerings"),
and were damaged thereby. The action alleges violations of the
Exchange Act of 1934 and violations of the Securities Act of 1933
against Silvergate, its CEO, Alan Lane, and certain other
executives, directors, and underwriters involved in the 2021
Offerings. The Honorable James Edward Simmons Jr. is presiding over
the case.

Plaintiffs Have Reached a Proposed Settlement of the Action for
$37.5 Million

Lead Plaintiffs, Indiana Public Retirement System, Boston
Retirement System, Public School Teachers' Pension & Retirement
Fund of Chicago, International Union of Operating Engineers, Local
No. 793, Members Pension Benefit Trust of Ontario, UMC Benefit
Board, Inc. and Wespath Institutional Investments LLC, both as
administrative trustees of the Wespath Funds Trust (collectively,
"Lead Plaintiffs"); and Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund
("Bucks County," and collectively with the Lead Plaintiffs,
"Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and the Settlement Class,
have reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $37,500,000 in
cash that, if approved, will resolve the Action (the
"Settlement").

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected and you may be eligible for a payment from the Settlement.
The Settlement Class
consists of:

(a) all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
the publicly traded common stock of Silvergate Capital from
November 7, 2019 through March 21, 2023, inclusive, and were
damaged thereby, and

(b) all persons and entities who purchased Silvergate Capital
securities in and/or traceable to any of Silvergate Capital's
securities offerings during 2021, and were damaged thereby

Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Settlement Class
by definition (see paragraph 16 of the Notice) or may request
exclusion pursuant to the instructions set forth in the Notice (see
paragraph 44 of the Notice).

Please read the Notice to fully understand your rights and options.
Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can be found in the Case
Documents list on the right of this page. You may also visit the
case website, www.SilvergateSecuritiesLitigation.com, for more
information about the Settlement.

To be eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement,
you must submit a Claim Form postmarked (if mailed) or submitted
on-line by no later than October 21, 2025.

Payments to eligible claimants will be made only if the Court
approves the Settlement and a plan of allocation, and only after
any appeals are resolved, and after the completion of all claims
processing. Please be patient, as this process will take some time
to complete.

IMPORTANT DATES AND DEADLINES

October 21, 2025

Claim Filing Deadline. Claim Forms must be postmarked (if mailed)
or submitted on-line no later than October 21, 2025.

August 13, 2025

Exclusion Deadline. To exclude yourself from the Settlement Class,
you must submit a written request for exclusion so that it is
received no later than August 13, 2025, in accordance with the
instructions in the Notice.

August 13, 2025

Objection Deadline. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the
proposed Plan of Allocation, or the motion for attorneys' fees and
expenses, must be submitted so they are received no later than
August 13, 2025, in accordance with the instructions in the
Notice.

September 3, 2025 at 9:00 a.m.

Settlement Hearing. The Settlement Hearing will be held on
September 3, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. Pacific time, before the Honorable
James E. Simmons, Jr. either in person at the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California, Edward J. Schwartz United
States Courthouse, Courtroom 4B, 221 West Broadway, San Diego, CA
92101, or by telephone or videoconference. The Settlement Hearing
will be held by the Court to consider, among other things, whether
the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and
should be approved; whether the proposed Plan of Allocation is fair
and reasonable and should be approved; and whether Lead Counsel's
motion for attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved.

Background and History of the Litigation

On January 19, 2023, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
("BLB&G") filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California alleging violations of the
federal securities laws by Silvergate Capital Corporation
("Silvergate" or the "Company"), certain of the Company's senior
executives, members of the Company's Board of Directors, and the
underwriters of Silvergate's secondary public offerings of Class A
common stock (the "SPOs"), conducted on or around January 22, 2021,
and December 7, 2021.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, and in
connection with the SPOs, Silvergate made false and misleading
statements to investors concerning the Company's robust compliance
framework, as well as its anti-money laundering and customer
identification programs. Silvergate also assured investors that it
maintained sufficient liquidity to cover inflows and outflows on
its platform. The complaint alleges that, in truth, the Company's
lax compliance practices enabled its customers to engage in large
scale criminal activities, including an egregious fraud perpetrated
by FTX and Alameda Research and massive money laundering
operations.

Plaintiffs further allege that the truth began to emerge on
November 7, 2022, when Silvergate announced the sudden and
unexplained demotion of its Chief Risk Officer, Tyler Pearson—the
son-in-law of CEO Alan J. Lane.

Over the ensuing months, news continued to emerge concerning the
Company's lax compliance practices, which allowed its customers to
engage in large scale criminal activities, including a massive
fraud at FTX and money laundering operations. Then, on January 5,
2023, the Company disclosed that the collapse of FTX led to a run
on Silvergate Bank, causing its deposits to decline by $8.1
billion, or over 68%, over the three months ending in December
2022. The complaint alleges that these disclosures caused a
precipitous decline in the price of Silvergate shares.

On March 1, 2023, the Court appointed International Union of
Operating Engineers, Local No. 793, Members Pension Benefit Trust
of Ontario, UMC Benefit Board, Inc. and Wespath Institutional
Investments LLC, both as administrative trustees of the Wespath
Funds Trust, Indiana Public Retirement System, Boston Retirement
System, and Public School Teachers' Pension & Retirement Fund of
Chicago as Lead Plaintiffs and approved their selection of BLB&G as
co-Lead Counsel for the Class.

Lead Plaintiffs filed the amended, operative complaint on May 11,
2023. Defendants filed their motions to dismiss the complaint on
July 10, 2023, and the parties completed briefing on October 23,
2023. Judge Simmons held a hearing on Defendants' motions on
November 29, 2023. Defendants' motions remained pending until they
were denied as moot, without prejudice to refiling, in light of the
Parties' Settlement.

At the end of June 2024, the Parties held their first mediation
session, in what would become extended settlement negotiations
conducted through the Honorable Layn Phillips, a former federal
judge and well-respected mediator. In connection with the
mediation, the Parties exchanged extensive mediation statements,
including as to potential damages, and Defendants provided
Plaintiffs' counsel with additional financial information. During
that first session, Plaintiffs and Defendants exchanged multiple
offers, but a resolution was not achieved. However, the Parties
continued to engage in settlement negotiations through Judge
Phillips, with Defendants providing Plaintiffs further financial
information over the next several months.

On September 18, 2024, Silvergate Capital filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy protection. The Parties engaged in further negotiations
in light of the bankruptcy over the next few months and ultimately
agreed to a second in-person mediation session with Judge Phillips
on February 6, 2025. The Parties met for a full-day session with
Judge Phillips on that date and continued their negotiations. That
mediation session was ultimately unsuccessful, but extensive
negotiations continued over subsequent months. Finally, the Parties
came to agreement on key monetary and non-monetary terms, which
then culminated in a signed term sheet and, ultimately, a
Stipulation of Settlement that was executed on May 9, 2025.

On May 22, 2025, the Court preliminarily approved the Settlement
and authorized notice of the Settlement to be sent to potential
Settlement Class Members. The Court has scheduled the final
Settlement Hearing to consider whether to grant final approval to
the Settlement and related matters for September 3, 2025.


SOUTHCOAST HOSPITALS: Doe Privacy Suit Removed to D. Mass.
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOHN DOE, JAMES DOE, AND JANE DOE, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
SOUTHCOAST HOSPITALS GROUP, INC. d/b/a ST. LUKE’s HOSPITAL, TOBEY
HOSPITAL, SOUTHCOAST BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, AND CHARLESTON MEMORIAL
HOSPITAL, Defendant, Case No. 2273CV00673, was removed from the
Bristol County Superior Court Department of the Massachusetts Trial
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
on June 6, 2025.

The Clerk of Court for the District of Massachusetts assigned Case
No. 1:25-cv-11649 to the proceeding.

The case alleges the following state law or common law causes of
action: Interception of Wire Communications in Violation of
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Invasion of Privacy in
Violation of General Law Chapter 214 Section 1B, Breach of
Fiduciary Duty and/or Common Law Duty of Confidentiality, Breach of
Express Contract, Breach of Implied Contract, and Unjust
Enrichment.

Southcoast Hospitals Group, Inc. owns and operates three hospitals
in Massachusetts. [BN]

The  Defendants are represented by:

         William J. Egan, Esq.
         Julianna M. Charpentier, Esq.
         ROBINSON & COLE LLP
         One Boston Place, 25th Floor
         Boston, MA 02108
         Telephone(617) 557-5900
         E-mail: wegan@rc.com
                 jcharpentier@rc.com

                 - and -

         James F. Monagle, Esq.
         MULLEN COUGHLIN LLC
         309 Fellowship Rd., Suite 200
         Mt. Laurel, New Jersey 08054
         Telephone: (267) 930-1529
         E-maill: jmonagle@mullen.law

SUPER MICRO: Walnut's Bid for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH AVERZA, et al., v.
SUPER MICRO COMPUTER, INC., et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-06147-EJD
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward Davila entered an order denying
Crain Walnut's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff.

Super is an American information technology company.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 26, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qnD5D6 at no extra
charge.[CC]
 


TRIDENT MARITIME: Approval of Bid to Deem Filings as Timely Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANNON OATES JEFFERSON,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
TRIDENT MARITIME SYSTEMS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00375-LMB-LRV (E.D.
Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting
motion to deem timely the filings of the Plaintiff's unopposed
motion for preliminary approval of proposed class action settlement
and for issuance of notice to settlement class and the Plaintiff's
motion for hearing.

Due to unexpected technical difficulties in accessing the PACER
system, counsel encountered delays in filing.

As a result, the Plaintiff's filings were submitted approximately
eight (8) and fourteen (14) minutes past midnight, respectively, on
Tuesday, June 24, 2025.

The delay was minimal and unintentional. Plaintiff made good-faith
efforts to file the motions prior to the deadline.

The Defendant offers engineered maritime solutions, specializing in
cryogenic insulation, marine outfitting, system integration,
automation, hybrid propulsion, energy management, scrubber
installation and environmental solutions.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 24, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ETbCpt at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Srourian, Esq.
          SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
          468 N. Camden Dr., Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 474-3800
          E-mail: daniel@slfla.com

                - and -

          David Hilton Wise, Esq.
          Dylan Scout Graham, Esq.
          WISE LAW FIRM PLC
          10640 Page Avenue, Suite 320
          Fairfax, Virginia 22030
          Telephone: (703) 934-6377
          E-mail: dwise@wiselaw.pro
                  dgraham@wiselaw.pro

TURQUOISE HILL: Class Settlement Gets Initial Nod
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as In re Turquoise Hill
Resources Ltd. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:20-cv-08585-LJL
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis J. Liman entered an order
preliminarily approving settlement and authorizing dissemination of
notice of settlement:

The Parties have proposed the certification of the following
Settlement Class pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and solely for purposes of effectuating
the proposed Settlement:

     "All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired

     Turquoise Hill common stock, call options on Turquoise Hill
     common stock (or sold put options on Turquoise Hill common
     stock), or swaps replicating a purchase of Turquoise Hill
     common stock, in domestic transactions or on U.S. exchanges,
     during the period from July 17, 2018 through July 31, 2019,
     inclusive, and were damaged thereby."

     Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) the Defendants
     and Former Defendants; (ii) Immediate Family Members of any
     Individual Defendant or Individual Former Defendant; (iii)
     any person who is, or was during the Class Period, an officer

     or director of Rio Tinto, RTIH, or Turquoise Hill; (iv) any
     affiliates or subsidiaries of Rio Tinto, RTIH, or Turquoise
     Hill; (v) any entity in which any Defendant, Former
     Defendant, or any member of their Immediate Families has or
     had a controlling interest; (vi) the legal representatives,
     heirs, agents, affiliates, successors, or assigns of any such

     excluded persons and entities; and (vii) any prohibited
     person or organization who or which is a sanctions target,
     the subject of any applicable trade sanction or embargo or
     appears on a list of prohibited persons or organizations.

     Also excluded from the Settlement Class are any persons who
     exclude themselves by submitting a request for exclusion that

     is accepted by the Court.

  2. The Court will hold a settlement hearing on Oct. 15, 2025 at
     10:30 a.m.

Turquoise was a Canadian mineral exploration and development
company.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 26, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0mQVN1 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael D. Blatchley, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
          New York, NY 10020

The Defendants are represented by:

          Corey Worcester, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          295 Fifth Avenue, 9th Floor
          New York, NY 10016

UNDER ARMOUR: Settlement Fairness Hearing Scheduled for Aug. 14
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES KENNEY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
KEVIN A. PLANK, et al.,
Defendants

CIRCUIT COURT FOR
BALTIMORE CITY
Case No. 24-C-18-003939

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF DERIVATIVE
ACTIONS

TO: ALL OWNERS OF CLASS A COMMON STOCK OR CLASS C COMMON STOCK OF
UNDER ARMOUR, INC. AS OF MAY 7, 2025 AND WHO CONTINUE TO HOLD SUCH
UNDER ARMOUR COMMON STOCK AS.OF THE DATE OF THE SETTLEMENT
HEARING.

Pursuant to an Order of the Baltimore city Circuit Court, that a
proposed settlement has been reached in the following stockholder
derivative actions: (i) Kenney v. Plank, et al., Lead Case No.
24-C-18-003939 (Balt. City Cir. Ct. Md.), pending in this Court;
and (ii) Paul v. Plank, et al, Nos. 1:18-cv-02239 (D. Md.) and
24-1144 (4th Cir.), currently on appeal in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit from the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland. If the Court approves the
proposed Settlement, you shall be forever barred from contesting
the fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness of the proposed
Settlement and from pursuing the Released Plaintiffs' Claims.

This is a summary notice only. This notice should be read in
conjunction with, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to,
the text of the Stipulation. For additional information about the
claims asserted in the Settling Actions and the terms of the
proposed Settlement, please refer to the documents filed in the
Settling Actions, the Stipulation, and the Long-Form Notice. The
Stipulation and Long-Form Notice may be viewed on the "Investor
Relations" page of Under Armour's corporate website, at
https://about.underarmour.com/en-us/investors.html.

A hearing will be held before the Court on August 14, 2025 at 9:30
a.m., via Zoom for Government at which the Court will determine:
(i) whether to approve the Settlement, on the terms and conditions
set forth in the Stipulation, as fair, reasonable, and adequate and
in the best interests of Under Armour and Under Armour's
stockholders; (ii) whether the notice of the Settlement effectuated
pursuant to the Court's June 3, 2025 Order met applicable legal and
due process standards; (iii) whether the Court should enter the
Judgment substantially in the form of Exhibit C to the Stipulation,
dismissing with prejudice the Consolidated State Derivative Action
against Defendants and releasing the Released Claims; (iv) whether
the Court should approve Plaintiffs' Counsel's application for a
Fee and Expense Award and Service Awards; and (v) such other
matters as the Court deems appropriate. You have an opportunity to
be heard at this hearing Any updates regarding the Settlement
Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of the hearing
or updates regarding in-person or remote appearances at the
hearing, will be posted to the docket of the Court.

You have the right, but are not required, to appear in person or
through counsel at the Settlement Hearing to object to the proposed
Settlement or the Fee and Expense Amount and/or Service Awards, or
to otherwise present evidence or argument that may be proper and
relevant. However, no Current Under Armour Stockholder shall be
heard or entitled to contest the approval of the proposed
Settlement, the Judgment to be entered approving the same, or the
Fee and Expense Amount and/or Service Awards, unless such Person
has filed, and served on counsel as noted below, a written and
signed notice of objection that includes: (i) the objector's name,
address, and telephone number (and if represented, that of his,
her, or its counsel), along with a representation as to whether the
objector intends to appear at the Settlement Hearing: (ii)
documentation establishing that the objector owned shares of Under
Armour common stock as of May 7, 2025 and continues to hold such
Under Armour stock; (iii) a statement of all of the objector's
objections to any matters before the Court, all of the objector'
grounds for the objections or reasons for the objector's desiring
to appear and be heard, as well as all documents or writings the
objector desires the Court to consider, including any legal and
evidentiary support; and (iv) if the objector has indicated that
he, she, or it intends to appear at the Settlement Hearing, the
identities of any witnesses the objector may call to testify and
any exhibits the objector intends to introduce into evidence at the
Settlement Hearing.

If you wish to object, you must file any such written objection(s)
and corresponding materials with the Clerk of the Baltimore City
Circuit Court, located at the Clarence M. Mitchell, Jr. Courthouse,
100 N. Calvert St Baltimore, MD 21202, on or before July 24, 2025,
and serve (by hand, first-class mail, or express service) such
written objection(s) and corresponding materials by that same date
on each of the following Settling Parties' counsel:

For Plaintiffs:

Craig W. Smith
Shane P. Sanders
ROBBINS LLP
5060 Shoreham Place, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92122
Telephone (619) 525-3990
Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
E-mail: csmith@robbinsllp.com
        ssanders@robbinsllp.com

For Defendants:

Samuel P. Groner
Michael P. Sternheim
FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER & JACOBSON LLP
One New York Plaza New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 859-8000
Facsimile: (212) 859-4000
E-mail: samuel.groner @friedfrank.com
        michael.sternheim@friedfrank.com

James D. Wareham
FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER & JACOBSON LEP
801 17th Street, NW Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 639-7000
Facsimile: (202) 639-7003
E-mail: james.wareham@friedfrank.com

G. Stewart Webb, Jr.
VENABLELLP  
750 East Pratt Street, Suite 900  
Baltimore, MD 21202
Telephone: (410) 244-7400
Facsimile: (410) 244-7742
E-mail: gswebb@venable.com

YOUR WRITTEN OBJECTIONS MUST BE ON FILE WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT
AND SERVED ON THE ABOVE-LISTED COUNSEL TO THE PARTIES NO LATER THAN
JULY 24, 2025.

Any Person who fails to object in the manner described above shall
be (i) deemed to have forever waived the right to object to any
aspect of the proposed Settlement, the Judgment, and the Fee and
Expense Award and/or the Service Awards (including any right of
appeal or collateral attack); be (ii) forever barred and foreclosed
from objecting to the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the
Settlement, the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal entered upon
the Settlement, or the Fee and Expense Award and/or the Service
Awards; and be (iii) deemed to have waived and forever barred and
foreclosed from being heard, in this or any other proceeding with
respect to matters concerning the proposed Settlement, the
Judgment, or the Fee and Expense Award and/or fo e Service Awards.

PLEASE NOTE: Because the Settlement involves the resolution of
stockholder derivative actions, which were brought on behalf of and
for the benefit of the Company the benefits from the Settlement
will go to Under Armour. Current Under Armour Stockholders will not
receive any direct payment as a result of the Settlement.
ACCORDINGLY, THERE 1S NO PROOF OF CLAIM FORM FOR STOCKHOLDERS TO
SUBMIT IN CONNECTION WITH THIS SETTLEMENT.

STOCKHOLDERS ARE NOT REQUIRED T0 TAKE ANY ACTION IN RESPONSE TO
THIS SUMMARY NOTICE.
Questions regarding this Summary Notice, the Settling Actions, and
the Settlement should be made to the following counsel for
Plaintiffs:

Craig W. Smith
Shane P. Sanders
ROBBINS LLP
5060 Shoreham Place, Suite 300 San Diego, CA92122
Telephone: (619) 525-3990
Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
E-mail: csmith@robbinsllp.com
        ssanders@robbinsllp.com

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR UNDER ARMOUR REGARDING THIS
NOTICE.

By Order of the Court


WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC: Miller Sues Over Illegal Wage Policies
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID F. MILLER III, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE,
Defendant, Case No. 2585CV0810C (Mass. Super., Worcester Cty., June
16, 2025) arises from the Defendant's unfair policy and practice of
paying its employees whom it classifies as exempt on a monthly
basis on the final business day of the month for the work performed
during that month, even though these employees did not elect to be
paid monthly, in violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's illegal policy of
paying its faculty and adjunct faculty members on a monthly basis
on the final business day of the month for the work performed
during that month, results in all wages earned in the first half of
the month being paid, at a minimum, approximately nine days late.

The Defendant's illegal wage policies have resulted in the
withholding of millions of dollars in wages, causing harm to the
Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees classified by
Defendant as exempt, who have been employed by Defendant at any
time from three years prior to April 24, 2025, through to the final
judgment of this matter, asserts the complaint.

Plaintiff Miller is an adult resident of Norfolk County,
Massachusetts. He has been employed by Worcester Polytechnic
Institute as an Adjunct Instructor since approximately May 2013.

Worcester Polytechnic Institute is a private university located in
Worcester, Worcester County, Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raymond Dinsmore, Esq.
          Ryan B. Guers, Esq.
          HAYBER, MCKENNA & DINSMORE, LLC
          One Monarch Place, Suite 1340
          Springfield, MA 01144
          Tel: (413) 785-1400
          Fax: (860) 218-9555
          Email: rdinsmore@hayberlawfirm.com
                 rguers@hayberlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Julian Hammond, Esq.
          Ari Cherniak, Esq.
          Polina Brandler, Esq.
          HAMMONDLAW, PC
          1201 Pacific Ave., 6th Floor
          Tacoma, WA 98402
          Telephone: (310) 601-6766
          Facsimile: (310) 295-2385  
          E-mail: jhammond@hammondlawpc.com
                  acherniak@hammondlawpc.com
                  pbrandler@hammondlawpc.com

ZZ DAY SPA: Faces Campbell Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
YASMIN CAMPBELL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ZZ DAY SPA, INC, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-04782 (S.D.N.Y., June 6, 2025), arises from Defendant’s
failure to make its website usable and independently accessible to
blind and visually impaired individuals.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's website displays
information about services, promotions, and other offerings.
However, significant accessibility barriers prevent blind and
visually impaired users from browsing or completing transactions.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's
discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights
Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

ZZ Day Spa, Inc. offers spa services, including massages and
facials, through its website, https://zzdayspa.com, which allows
customers to book appointments and purchase gift cards online.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
         GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
         1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
         Manhasset, NY 11030
         Telephone: (347) 941-4715
         E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Has $1.03BB Superfund Liabilities
-------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc., at March 31, 2025, accrued liabilities
of US$941,000,000 for manufactured gas plant (MGP) sites and
US$91,000,000 for Other Superfund sites for a total of
US$1,101,000,000 in environmental liabilities, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2025.

Hazardous substances, such as asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) and coal tar, have been used or generated in the course of
operations of the Utilities and their predecessors and are present
at sites and in facilities and equipment they currently or
previously owned, including sites at which gas was manufactured or
stored.

The Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act of 1980 and similar state statutes (Superfund)
impose
joint and several liability, regardless of fault, upon generators
of hazardous substances for investigation and remediation costs
(which include costs of demolition, removal, disposal, storage,
replacement, containment and monitoring) and natural resource
damages. Liability under these laws can be material and may be
imposed for contamination from past acts, even though such past
acts may have been lawful at the time they occurred. The sites at
which the Utilities have been asserted to have liability under
these laws, including their manufactured gas plant sites and any
neighboring areas to which contamination may have migrated, are
referred to herein as "Superfund Sites."

For Superfund Sites where there are other potentially responsible
parties and the Utilities are not managing the site investigation
and remediation, the accrued liability represents an estimate of
the amount the Utilities will need to pay to investigate and,
where
determinable, discharge their related obligations. For Superfund
Sites (including the manufactured gas plant sites) for which one
of
the Utilities is managing the investigation and remediation, the
accrued liability represents an estimate of the company's share of
the undiscounted cost to investigate the sites and, for sites that
have been investigated in whole or in part, the cost to remediate
the sites, if remediation is necessary and if a reasonable estimate
of such cost can be made. Remediation costs are estimated in light
of the information available, applicable remediation standards and
experience with similar sites.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Creditors Contest Judge's Talc Trial Handling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Hernandez of Bloomberg Law reports that a committee
representing asbestos claimants is contesting Judge Marvin Isgur's
recommendation to move a central dispute in Barretts Minerals
Inc.'s Chapter 11 case from bankruptcy court to federal district
court.

In an objection filed Wednesday, June 11, 2025, the unsecured
creditors' committee claimed the proposed transfer would violate
established legal precedent and infringe upon the constitutional
rights of asbestos victims. The committee urged the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas to keep the matter in the
Houston bankruptcy court, where Judge Marvin Isgur is currently
overseeing the case.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GMS Inc. Faces Product Liability Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------
GMS INC., certain of its subsidiaries, have been the subject of
claims related to alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products
they distributed prior to 1979, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "The building materials industry has been
subject to personal injury and property damage claims arising from
alleged exposure to raw materials contained in building products as
well as claims for incidents of catastrophic loss, such as building
fires. As a distributor of building materials, we face an inherent
risk of exposure to product liability claims if the use of the
products we have distributed in the past or may in the future
distribute is alleged to have resulted in economic loss, personal
injury or property damage or to have violated environmental, health
or safety or other laws. Such product liability claims have
included and may in the future include allegations of defects in
manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers
inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability or a breach
of warranties."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Sd0F3z


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Medina Sues 3M Over Asbestos Containing Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eva Medina, Individually and as successor-in-interest to Lawrence
Medina, Deceased, and Stephanie Torres, Lawrence Medina, Jr.,
Monica Raupp, Jonathan Medina, and Carson Medina, individually, and
other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, ARKEMA INC. f/k/a PENNWALT
CORPORATION, AUTOZONE, INC., BWDAC, INC., COTY, INC., DAP INC.,
n/k/a LA MIRADA PRODUCTS CO., INC., GENUINE PARTS COMPANY,
GEORGE'S
AUTO SUPPLY INC., IMI FABI (DIANA) LLC, IMI FABI (USA) INC., IMI
FABI, LLC, KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC., MORSE TEC LLC f/k/a
BORGWARNER MORSE TEC LLC, Individually and as Successor-In-Interest
to BORGWARNER CORPORATION, PARKER-HANNIFIN CORPORATION, as
successor-in-interest to EIS BRAKES, PFIZER, INC., PNEUMO ABEX LLC,
Individually and as Successor-By-Merger to PNEUMO ABEX
CORPORATION,
Successor-In-Interest to ABEX CORPORATION f/k/a AMERICAN BRAKE SHOE
COMPANY, f/k/a AMERICAN BRAKE SHOE AND FOUNDRY COMPANY including
the AMERICAN BRAKEBLOK DIVISION, Successor-By-Merger to the
AMERICAN BRAKE SHOE AND FOUNDRY COMPANY and THE AMERICAN BRAKEBLOK
CORPORATION, f/k/a THE AMERICAN BRAKE MATERIALS CORPORATION, R.T.
VANDERBILT HOLDING COMPANY, INC., Individually and as successor to
RT VANDERBILT COMPANY, INC., SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC as
successor-in-interest to Fisons Corporation, SHERWIN WILLIAMS
COMPANY, SMITH
AUTO PARTS INC., STANDARD MOTOR PRODUCTS INC. individually and as
successor-in-interest to EIS BRAKES STATER BROS. INC., SUMITOMO
CORPORATION OF AMERICA, UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, VANDERBILT
MINERALS LLC f/k/a RT Vanderbilt Company Inc., individually and as
successor to International Talc Co., VI-JON, LLC, f/k/a VI-JON,
INC., f/k/a CUMBERLAND SWAN HOLDINGS, INC. WESTERN AUTO SUPPLY
COMPANY d/b/a ADVANCE AUTO PARTS, WESTROCK MWV LLC successor in
interest to Meadwestvaco, and DOES 1 THROUGH 400 INCLUSIVE, et
al.,
Case No. 25STCV17238 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 13,
2025), is brought arising out of Defendants' purposeful efforts to
serve directly or indirectly the market for their asbestos and/or
asbestos containing products, including but not limited to talc,
in
this State, either through direct sales or utilizing an established
distributing channel with the expectation that their products
would
be purchased and/or used with the State of California.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Decedent
was exposed to respirable asbestos, which he inhaled and which
thereby entered his body, and which caused him to suffer the severe
and permanent harm, up to and including death, as set forth
herein.
Decedent suffered permanent injuries, including, but not limited to
mesothelioma, and ultimately death, and the mental, physical and
emotional distress attendant thereto, all to Plaintiffs' incurred
general damages in a sum in excess of $75,000.00.

Decedent and Plaintiffs have paid and/or incurred liability for
medical costs, including, but not limited to, the costs of
physicians, surgeons, nurses, hospital care, medicine, hospices,
medical imaging, palliative care and other medical treatment, and
funeral expenses, the true and exact amount thereof being unknown
to Plaintiffs at this time. Decedent incurred loss of the ability
to perform household services, loss of income, a diminishment of
earning potential, and other pecuniary losses, the full nature and
extent of which are not yet known to Plaintiffs, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff, Eva Medina, is the spouse of Lawrence Medina
("Decedent").

The Defendants bottled, blended, mixed, marketed, manufactured,
sold, supplied, distributed, rebranded, relabeled, and otherwise
placed asbestos-containing products into the stream of
commerce.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sarah Gilson, Esq.
          MEIROWITZ & WASSERBERG, LLP
          95 Third Street, 2nd Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94103
          Phone: (212) 897-1988
          Email: sgilson@mwinjurylaw.com




                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***