250711.mbx

250711.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, July 11, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 138 Headlines 307 SW 2ND ST LLC: Rose Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida 4TH AVE: Class Cert Bid Filing in Lewis Suit Extended AAMCO TRANSMISSIONS: Frost Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ADAMS COMMUNITY: Parties Seek to Extend Case Management Deadlines AFLAC INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Hatch Suit Says AFLAC INCORPORATED: Minter Files Suit in M.D. Georgia AFLAC INCORPORATED: Synoga Files Suit in M.D. Georgia AHOLD DELHAIZE: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Benson Says AIR ALLIANCE: Joins Class Action Against EPA Over Grant Funding ALBERT CORP: July 11 Scheduling Conference in Feeman Vacated ALEX ADAMS: Reply Briefs Davids Due July 11 ALLBIRDS INC: Judge Grants Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Suit ALLSTATE PROPERTY: Class Cert Fact Discovery Due Feb. 16, 2026 AMAZON.COM INC: Discovery Deadlines Extended in Mbadiwe Suit AMAZON.COM INC: Miller Bid for Rule 23 Class Certification Tossed AMAZON.COM SERVICES: McGee Suit Removed to E.D. California AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Wins Summary Judgment v. Won APEX GLOBAL: Bid for Appointment of Interim Class Counsel OK'd APEX GLOBAL: Court Consolidates Four Actions ARCHITECTURAL GLASS: Alvarado Seeks OT Wages Under Labor Code ASHLYNN MARKETING: Federal Court Partially Tossed Class Claims BRIDGES EXPERIENCE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Collins Says CANVAS ENERGY: Amended Bid to Certify Settlement Class Tossed CAREBRIDGE MEDICAL: Jones Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA CARVANA LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Jennings Due Feb. 23, 2026 CARVANA LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Harvin Due Feb. 23, 2026 CHARLES SCHWAB: Bueno Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties CIGNA HEALTH: Stewart Seeks to File Class Exhibits Under Seal CITIBANK NA: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines CMRE FINANCIAL: Bartlett Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Reaches $9MM Prelim Deal in Rankings Suit CORA TEXAS: Bid to File Class Cert Reply Granted in Gonzalez COSTA DEL MAR: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response COWBOY LOGIC: Kern Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action CURIUM US LLC: Doe Sues Over Recent Cyberattack and Data Breach DONALD TRUMP: Plaintiffs Seek To Re-Note Class Certification Bid DYCK O'NEAL: Class Cert Opposition Due July 16 ELEVANCE HEALTH: Settles Mental Health Coverage Suit for $12.9MM ENOVIX CORP: Class Cert Opposition Extended to 35 Days ENOVIX CORP: Plaintiffs' Must File Rule 12 Opposition by July 28 ENVIOS ESPINOZA: Zambrano Loses Summary Judgment Bid on OT Claim EPISOURCE LLC: Gantt Files Suit in C.D. California ERIE INDEMNITY: Eberhardt Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania ERIE INDEMNITY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Crowley Says FANDUEL INC: Operates Illegal Gambling Websites, Beltran Alleges FARMERS INSURANCE: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due July 31 FLYING WINGS: Court Resets Time for Oral Argument FORESTERS LIFE: Case Management Statement Entered in Velez Suit GC MANUFACTURING: Day Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation HALLKEEN MANAGEMENT: Class Settlement in Cassamas Gets Initial Nod HANLEY CENTER: Colbert Seeks Conditional Cert of Specialists Class HARPER WOODS, MI: Wayne County Dismissed from Carlock Suit HYUNDAI MOTOR: Class Cert Bid Filing in Hageman Suit Due Oct. 10 INTEL CORP: Judge Certifies Suit Over Married Retirees' Penalties INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Cunningham Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania J&T HARVESTING: Flores Seeks Conditional Cert of Collective J-CO CONCRETE: Class Cert Bid Filing in Jackson Suit Due Oct. 6 LARSON MOTORS: Agrees to Settle Wage-and-Hour Suit for $1.8MM LVNV FUNDING: Seeks to File Class Cert Opposition by July 16 MARKETSOURCE INC: Brum Seeks to Certify Class and Subclasses MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Bid to Seal Class Docs OK'd MERCY LIFE: Partial Bid to Dismiss with Prejudice Tossed MI RINCONCITO: Gacia Suit Seeks Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages MOUNTAIRE FARMS: Faces Haff Class Suit Over No-Poach Agreement MULTI MEDIA LLC: J.M. Files Suit in S.D. California NUNA BABY: Baig Sues Over Defective Convertible Car Seat OMNEX GROUP: Arias Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing OPENAI INC: Denial Sues Over Unlawfully Acquired Copyrighted Works PAYCHEX NORTH AMERICA: Cudney Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PESERICO USA: Ariza Sues Over Unlawful Disability Discrimination PETCO HEALTH: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set August 29 PRECISION TAX: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Devito Says QUALITY CLEANERS: Jenkins Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida RED LOBSTER: Baker Suit Removed to C.D. California ROBLOX CORP: Class Cert Reply Brief Extension Sought RRH VICTORY INC: Aguilar Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. RV DEPOT LLC: George Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Texas SAN DIEGO, CA: Eulitt Suit Seeks to Stay All Proceedings SANFORD ELECTRIC: Herrick Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Aug. 25 SHENZHEN SMOORE: B.Z. Sues Over Cannabis Vaporizers' Price Fixing SHIMANO NORTH: Proposed Deal Hearing in Crankset Suit Set Aug. 4 TEAM HEALTH: Class Cert Bid Filing in Buncombe Due May 15, 2026 TEAM HEALTH: Class Cert Bid Filing in Plaquemine Due May 15, 2026 TOYOTA MOTOR: Class Cert Hearing in Mixon Suit Due July 22, 2026 TRUE BLUE: Faces Connors Over Illegal Automatic Renewal Scheme UNDERDOG SPORTS: Operates Illegal Gambling Websites, Head Alleges UNITED STATES: Fired Scientists Sue Over Privacy Act Violations UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER: Class Settlement Hearing Set November 13 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA: Appeal Filed in Student Refund Suit VIKI INC: Settles Data Privacy Class Action Lawsuit for $8MM VITAC CORPORATION: Anderson Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification WALGREENS BOOTS: Continues to Defend Klein Securities Class Suit WALGREENS BOOTS: Continues to Defend VillageMD Class Suit in Ill. WESTECH SECURITY: Plaintiff Must File Class Cert Bid by July 14 WESTGATE RESORTS: Bid to Exclude Fahey's Opinions Partly OK'd WESTGATE RESORTS: Bid to Exclude Free's Opinions Partly OK'd WM WHOLESALE: Hernandez Suit Seeks to Certify Classes ZR CONSULTING: Mott Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Rules Atlas Turner in Default of Case ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Defends Exposure Lawsuits ********* 307 SW 2ND ST LLC: Rose Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 307 SW 2ND ST LLC. The case is styled as Zoe Rose, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 307 SW 2ND ST LLC doing business as: Kemistry Nightclub, Case No. 0:25-cv-61339-AHS (S.D. Fla., July 1, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. 307 SW 2ND ST LLC doing business as Kemistry Nightclub -- https://kemistrynightclub.com/ -- is an event venue in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald Donald Lane, Jr., Esq. Zane Charles Hedaya, Esq. Faaris Kamal Uddin, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com faaris@jibraellaw.com 4TH AVE: Class Cert Bid Filing in Lewis Suit Extended ----------------------------------------------------- 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 Hon. Judge Michael Brown entered an order granting the Parties' joint motion for limited stay and to extend the time for the Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification. The Court stays all proceedings, with the exception of limited discovery on the issue of arbitrability, for a period of 90 days from the date of this Order. 4th Ave is an online Superstore for professional quality hair, beauty, and personal care products. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mnvAJC at no extra charge.[CC] AAMCO TRANSMISSIONS: Frost Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AAMCO Transmissions, LLC. The case is styled as Jason Frost, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AAMCO Transmissions, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-03362 (E.D. Pa., July 1, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Declaratory Judgement. AAMCO Transmissions Inc. -- https://www.aamco.com/ -- is an American transmission-repair franchise founded by Robert Morgan and Anthony A. Martino in 1957 in Philadelphia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick Howard, Esq. SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT & BENDESKY 1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 575-3895 ADAMS COMMUNITY: Parties Seek to Extend Case Management Deadlines ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DELANDRIA MCGUIRE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. ADAMS COMMUNITY CARE CENTER, LLC, Case No. 5:24-cv-00127-KS-BWR (S.D. Miss.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint motion to extend case management deadlines. Adams Community has begun gathering the necessary documents and contacting third parties to assist with the document review, analysis, and calculations. The Parties anticipate that this process will be lengthy, and thus, the Parties intend to schedule a mediation for the second or third week of November. Accordingly, the Parties request an extension of the deadline to conduct class certification-related discovery from July 11, 2025, to Jan. 9, 2026. Likewise, the Parties request an extension of the deadline for filing any motion to conditionally certify the collective action from Aug. 25, 2025, to Feb. 6, 2026. On March 14, 2025, the Court entered a Scheduling Order setting a July 11, 2025, deadline to conduct class certification-related discovery and an Aug. 25, 2025, deadline for filing any motion to conditionally certify the collective action. Adams offers a range of services from primary care to specialized treatments and senior living care. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TvqQ04 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: William "Jack" Simpson, Esq. SIMPSON, PLLC 100 South Main Street Booneville, MS 38829-0382 Telephone: (662) 913-7811 Facsimile: (662) 728-1992 E-mail: jack@simpson-pllc.com The Defendant is represented by: Robin Banck Taylor, Esq. Blythe K. Lollar, Esq. BUTLER│SNOW LLP 1020 Highland Colony Parkway – Suite 1400 Ridgeland, MS 39157 Telephone: (601) 948-5711 Facsimile: (601) 985-4500 E-mail: Robin.Taylor@butlersnow.com Blythe.Lollar@butlersnow.com AFLAC INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Hatch Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------- ADAM HATCH and MARLENA NEAGLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AFLAC, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00208-CDL (M.D. Ga., July 1, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and other sensitive information of its customers and employees including, but not limited to: names, claims information, health information, social security numbers, and other private information. On June 20, 2025, the Defendant began sending data breach notice emails to Plaintiffs and Class Members, informing them that an unauthorized party recently accessed its network and acquired personal information (the "Data Breach"). Omitted from the data breach notice email were the details of the root cause of the Data Breach, the vulnerabilities exploited, and the remedial measures undertaken to ensure such a breach does not occur again. To date, these omitted details have not been explained or clarified to the Plaintiffs, who retain a vested interest in ensuring that their PII remains protected. The mechanism of the cyberattack and potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiffs' PII was a known risk to Defendant, and thus, Defendant was on notice that failing to take steps necessary to secure the PII from those risks left the data in a dangerous condition, says the suit. The Data Breach was a direct result of the Defendant's failure to implement an information security program designed to ensure the security and confidentiality of customer information. The Class that Plaintiffs seeks to represent is defined as follows: Nationwide Class: "All individuals residing in the United States whose PII was accessed and acquired by an unauthorized party as a result of the Data Breach, as reported by Defendant." Excluded from the Class are the following individuals and/or entities: Defendant and Defendant's parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers and directors, and any entity in which Defendant has a controlling interest; all individuals who make a timely election to be excluded from this proceeding using the correct protocol for opting out; and all judges assigned to hear any aspect of this litigation, as well as their immediate family members. AFL provides supplemental insurance. It offers various insurance products, primarily in the US and Japan, including accident, cancer, critical illness, hospital, short-term disability, and dental.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andre Belanger, Esq. Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.* POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com andre.belanger@poulinwilley.com scmad@poulinwilley.com AFLAC INCORPORATED: Minter Files Suit in M.D. Georgia ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AFLAC Incorporated. The case is styled as Jeffrey Alonzo Minter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AFLAC Incorporated, Case No. 4:25-cv-00205-CDL (M.D. Ga., June 30, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Aflac Incorporated -- https://www.aflac.com/ -- is an American insurance company and is the largest provider of supplemental insurance in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. 800 S. Gay ST, Ste. 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: cturner@milberg.com AFLAC INCORPORATED: Synoga Files Suit in M.D. Georgia ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AFLAC Incorporated. The case is styled as Charlene Synoga, Tonya Grubbs, Jack Keiffer, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. AFLAC Incorporated, Case No. 4:25-cv-00206-CDL (M.D. Ga., June 30, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Aflac Incorporated -- https://www.aflac.com/ -- is an American insurance company and is the largest provider of supplemental insurance in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. 800 S. Gay ST, Ste. 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: cturner@milberg.com AHOLD DELHAIZE: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Benson Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ NANCY BENSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AHOLD DELHAIZE USA SERVICES, LLC and HANNAFORD BROS. CO., LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00555-TDS-LPA (M.D.N.C., July 2, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendants with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information and Protected Health Information that was impacted in a data breach that the Defendant publicly disclosed in June 2025 (Data Breach). On Nov. 6, 2024, Ahold detected a cybersecurity issue involving unauthorized access to some of its internal U.S. business systems. In response, Defendant Ahold launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the Data Breach. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former employees of the Defendants. Ahold is a grocery retail group. Hannaford is an American regional supermarket chain headquartered in Scarborough, Maine. Hannaford is a subsidiary of Ahold. The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Wilkerson, Esq. WILKERSON JUSTUS PLLC P.O. Box 54 Asheville, NC 28802 Telephone: (828) 316-6902 E-mail: dwilkerson@wilkersonjustus.com - and - Leanna Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE First Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, Florida 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com AIR ALLIANCE: Joins Class Action Against EPA Over Grant Funding --------------------------------------------------------------- Kyle McClenagan, writing for Houston Public Media, reports that Air Alliance Houston has joined a class-action lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over the termination of grant funding under the Trump administration. The local nonprofit joined the lawsuit. It was filed by Earthjustice, the Southern Environmental Law Center, Public Rights Project and Lawyers for Good Government and pertains to $3 billion in Environmental and Climate Justice grants. Air Alliance Houston, along with more than 20 municipalities, argue that since the grants were approved by Congress in 2022, the EPA cannot legally terminate them. "We have been told by the Trump administration that clean air is a priority for all Americans," Air Alliance Houston executive director Jennifer Hadayia said in a statement. "The illegal cancellation of these clean air grants will do the exact opposite. Here in Houston — one of the most polluted cities in the country — our grant would have helped people who live day-to-day with air pollution to have a meaningful say in the environmental decisions that affect their lives." According to Air Alliance Houston, the grants funded initiatives such as air quality monitoring, pollution notification systems, tree planting in urban heat zones and lead pipe replacement. The EPA had not filed a response to the lawsuit as of Wednesday, July 2, and declined to comment to Houston Public Media, citing the ongoing litigation. In a March news release about grant cuts, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said the agency was cutting grants to comply with Trump's executive orders and to save taxpayer money. "Working hand-in-hand with (the Department of Government Efficiency) to rein in wasteful federal spending, EPA has saved more than $2 billion in taxpayer money," Zeldin said. "It is our commitment at EPA to be exceptional stewards of tax dollars." [GN] ALBERT CORP: July 11 Scheduling Conference in Feeman Vacated ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT FEEMAN, et al., v. ALBERT CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-03605-MWC-BFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michelle Williams Court entered a civil trial order as follows: The scheduling conference scheduled for July 11, 2025, is vacated. The Scheduling Order governing this action is set forth in the Schedule of Pretrial and Trial Dates chart below. The box in the upper right-hand corner of the chart states whether the trial will be by jury or court. If the parties seek to set additional dates, they may file a Stipulation and Proposed Order. This may be appropriate in class actions, patent cases, or cases for benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Final Pretrial Conference, Hearing on Oct. 9, 2026 Motions in Limine: Last Date to Hear Motion to Amend Pleadings Aug. 15, 2025 or Add Parties: Last Date to File Class Certification Motion: Jan. 7, 2026 Fact Discovery Cut-Off: Apr. 24, 2026 Expert Discovery Cut-Off: May 29, 2026 Albert is a Brookline-based condominium management firm. A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8gosez at no extra charge.[CC] ALEX ADAMS: Reply Briefs Davids Due July 11 ------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Davids, 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 (D. Idaho, Filed June 26, 2025), the Hon. Judge Amanda K. Brailsford entered an order directing the parties to adhere to the expedited briefing schedule with regard to Plaintiffs' pending Motion for Class Certification: -- Briefs in opposition are due: July 7, 2025 -- Any reply brief is due: July 11, 2025 -- Plaintiffs are additionally July 2, 2025 ordered to submit, by: The suit alleges violation of Civil Rights Act. The Defendant provides services and oversight to promote healthy people, safe children, and stable families.[CC] ALLBIRDS INC: Judge Grants Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ JDSupra reports that on June 23, 2025, Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin of the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class action brought against a footwear and apparel company (the "Company") and certain of its officers, directors, and underwriters. Shnayder v. Allbirds, Inc., No. 23-cv-01811 (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025). The Plaintiffs asserted claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging that defendants made false or misleading statements in connection with the Company's initial public offering ("IPO") and in subsequent public disclosures. The Court dismissed the Securities Act claims for lack of statutory standing, holding that plaintiffs did not sufficiently allege their shares were directly traceable to the IPO, and also dismissed the Exchange Act claims, holding that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead scienter. The Plaintiffs alleged defendants made false or misleading statements and omissions related to the Company's (i) investment in new product offerings, (ii) expansion of its retail store fleet, and (iii) commitment to its brand awareness. The Court first dismissed the Securities Act claims, holding that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege statutory standing in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Slack Technologies, LLC v. Pirani. Plaintiffs alleged that they purchased Company stock "pursuant and/or traceable to" the IPO registration statement, claiming that the Company issued shares in a single offering under one registration statement. The Court held that was "[n]ot so" because the registration statement provided that employees could sell a certain amount of their shares beginning on the first day of trading of the IPO shares, thus commingling IPO shares with pre-existing shares. The Court thus held that plaintiffs "may not rely on a cursory allegation that their stock is 'traceable'" to the IPO registration statement, but granted leave to amend if plaintiffs could "in good faith add allegations that their shares are directly traceable" to the registration statement. The Court next dismissed the Exchange Act claims, holding that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege a strong inference of scienter. In so holding, the Court rejected plaintiffs' allegations based on the "core operations" theory. The Court found that even if defendants were very "hands on and controlling" such that "they were aware of the major swifts in a strategy that ended up failing, that is not enough." The Court similarly found unpersuasive allegations regarding defendants' acknowledgement of the missteps, stating that it "does not support an inference that they acted with intent to defraud" and that management "simply may have been confident that they could overcome the problems or merely underestimated the severity of such problems." The Court further found plaintiffs' reliance on alleged confidential witness statements was "misplaced," noting that allegations "that executives were mismanaging [the Company], that they were presented with data showing their anticipated path forward would lead to failure, or that they were making mistakes by reducing spending on brand marketing and core products in favor of other approaches do not, without more, plausibly suggest that [defendants] adopted employees' views and moved forward believing that failure would be the inevitable end result of continuing down the path employees were cautioning against." The Court also found that allegations about "personnel changes, unaccompanied by additional allegations of wrongdoing, are insufficient." Finally, the Court found plaintiffs' allegations regarding stock sales by two defendants to be insufficient where there were no alleged sales by the third individual defendant, and the allegations concerning defendants' compensation did not plausibly suggest a significant enough correlation between financial results and compensation to support a strong inference of scienter. Accordingly, taking the allegations as a whole, the Court held that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead a strong inference of scienter and dismissed the Exchange Act claims with leave to amend. [GN] ALLSTATE PROPERTY: Class Cert Fact Discovery Due Feb. 16, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN SCHOTT and ANGELA THOMAS, v. ALLSTATE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:24-cv-00136-CDL (M.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Clay D. Land entered a scheduling order. The parties have agreed to extend the deadline for all parties to serve their Initial Disclosures to July 15, 2025. General Fact discovery ends Feb. 16, 2026. Expert discovery ends May 20, 2026 The parties shall try again to resolve their differences on a proposed protective order. Their joint motion for protective order is due by July 21, 2025 Such motions to be filed and served by: September 15, 2025. Allstate offers insurance for your car, home, rental, motorcycle and more. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Q7KJrc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael L. McGlamry, Esq. N. Kirkland Pope, Esq. POPE MCGLAMRY, P.C. 3391 Peachtree Road, N.E., Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30326 Telephone: (404) 523-7706 Facsimile: (404) 524-1648 E-mail: efile@pmkm.com The Defendant is represented by: Rodger L. Eckelberry, Esq. Mathew G. Drocton, Esq. Kevin P. Zimmerman, Esq. Chelsea M. Lamb, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 200 Civic Center Dr., Ste. 1200 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 228-1548 E-mail: kzimmerman@bakerlaw.com mdrocton@bakerlaw.com efile@pmkm.com reckelberry@bakerlaw.com clamb@bakerlaw.com AMAZON.COM INC: Discovery Deadlines Extended in Mbadiwe Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAFARI MBADIWE and RACHEL MILLER on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-09542-VSB (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Vernon Broderick entered order extending discovery deadlines as follows: The Parties shall meet and confer regarding expert discovery within ninety (90) days of the close of fact discovery; and Within 21 days of the resolution of all summary judgment motions in the FTC and CA AG cases, should this case still be pending, the parties shall meet and confer and submit a proposed schedule for class certification briefing in the above-captioned case. The Parties agree to the above-described schedule for the purpose of facilitating coordinated discovery. Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kPgqKe at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel Goldman, Esq. BIENERT KATZMAN LITTRELL WILLIAMS LLP 903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 350 San Clemente, CA 92673 Telephone: (949) 369-3700 E-mail: dgoldman@bklwlaw.com - and - Gordon Ball, Esq. GORDON BALL, PLLC 3728 West End Avenue Nashville, TN 37205 Telephone: (865) 525-7028 E-mail: gball@gordonball.com The Defendant is represented by: Karen L. Dunn, Esq. William A. Isaacson, Esq. Amy J. Mauser, Esq. Meredith Dearborn, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 2001 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 223-7300 Facsimile: (202) 223-7420 E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com wisaacson@paulweiss.com amauser@paulweiss.com mdearborn@paulweiss.com AMAZON.COM INC: Miller Bid for Rule 23 Class Certification Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER MILLER, et al., v. AMAZON.COM, INC., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00204-BJR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification: Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have not met their burden to satisfy the superiority requirement under Rule 23(b)(3). Further analysis of the Rule 23 factors is unnecessary, and the motion for class certification is denied. In this putative class action, the Plaintiffs claim that Amazon unlawfully withheld portions of their drivers' tips, in violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act ("WCPA"). The Plaintiffs, who worked as Amazon Flex delivery drivers, allege that between 2016 and 2019, Amazon failed to honor its promise that workers would receive 100% of the tips that customers added for tip-eligible deliveries. The Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify the following class: "All individuals who performed tipped delivery services using Amazon Flex for the Defendants Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Logistics, Inc., anywhere in the United States between January 2017 and August 2019." Amazon.com is an online retailer that offers a wide range of products. A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6NCF5h at no extra charge.[CC] AMAZON.COM SERVICES: McGee Suit Removed to E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Calvin W. McGee III, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25CV012481 was removed from the Sacramento County Superior Court, State of California, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on June 30, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01839-TLN-JDP. In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges three causes of action against Amazon: Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Periods; Wage Statement Penalties; and Unfair Competition and Unfair Business Practices in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Megan Cooney, Esq. Katie M. Magallanes, Esq. Andrew M. Kasabian, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1200 Irvine, CA 92612-4412 Phone: 949.451.3800 Facsimile: 949.451.4220 Email: mcooney@gibsondunn.com kmagallanes@gibsondunn.com akasabian@gibsondunn.com AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Wins Summary Judgment v. Won ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAONAISSA WON, v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-02811 (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis entered an order granting Amazon's motion for summary judgment and denying Won's cross-motion for partial summary judgment. In sum, the court concludes that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact that warrants a jury trial on Won's discrimination and retaliation claims, and Amazon is entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to those claims. Accordingly, Amazon's motion for summary judgment on Counts I, II, N, and V is granted, and Won's cross-motion for partial summary judgment on Count I is denied. The Plaintiff Won brings this action against the Defendant for alleged violations of the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"), New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), and the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act ("USERRA") for wrongfully discriminating and retaliating against the Plaintiff and failing to reemploy her on the basis of her status as a caregiver and person in uniformed service. The Plaintiff is a single mother and the sole custodian of her adolescent son, who was seven years old when Amazon terminated her employment in September 2019. Amazon is a global retailer that operates a fulfillment center in Staten Island, New York. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated June 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KqihO0 at no extra charge.[CC] APEX GLOBAL: Bid for Appointment of Interim Class Counsel OK'd -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEIA THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. APEX GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 7:25-cv-05021 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Philip M. Halpern entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for consolidation and appointment of interim class counsel. The Court further Orders that Kopelowitz Ostrow PA and Finkelstein, Blankinship, FreiPearson & Garber, LLP—are appointed Interim Class Counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(3). Within thirty (30) days of this Order, Interim Class Counsel shall file a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. Apex is a provider of financial management services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aKyulb at no extra charge.[CC] APEX GLOBAL: Court Consolidates Four Actions -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Thompson V. Apex Global Solutions, LLC, Case No. 7:25-cv-05021-PMH (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Philip M. Halpern entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion to consolidate actions pending in the Southern District of New York relating to the unauthorized access of Defendant Apex Global Solutions, LLC's network systems that occurred between June 18 and July 2, 2024 and to appoint Todd S. Garber of Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP and Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow PA as Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel. (1) Thompson v. Apex Global Solutions, LLC, No. 7:25-cv-05021, filed on June 13, 2025; (2) Morrison v. Apex Global Solutions LLC, No. 1:25-cv-05034, filed on June 16, 2025; (3) Williams v. Apex Global Solutions, LLC, No. 7:25-cv-05040, filed on June 16, 2025; (4) Daly v. Apex Global Solutions, LLC, No. 1:25-cv-05198, filed on June 22, 2025 (collectively, the "Related Actions"). Counsel for all parties have conferred and all parties agree to the requested consolidation. Plaintiffs in all Related Actions consent to the requested leadership appointments. The Defendant takes no position with respect to the requested leadership appointments. The Plaintiff also requests that the Court appoint Todd S. Garber of FBFG and Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow PA as Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel. Apex is a provider of financial management services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Aru466 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd S. Garber, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP One North Broadway, Suite 900 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 298-3281 E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com ARCHITECTURAL GLASS: Alvarado Seeks OT Wages Under Labor Code ------------------------------------------------------------- EDMER ALVARADO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ARCHITECTURAL GLASS & ALUMINUM, CO., INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25CV128422 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., June 26, 2025) stems from the Defendants' alleged failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to maintain accurate records of hours worked and meal periods, failure to timely pay all wages to terminated employees, failure to indemnify necessary business expenses, and failure to furnish accurate wage statements pursuant to the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff brings the First through Eighth Causes of Action individually and as a class action on behalf of himself and certain current and former employees of the Defendants. The Class consists of the Plaintiff and all other persons who have been employed by any Defendants in California as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee during the statute of limitations period applicable to the claims pleaded here. The Defendants own/owned and operate/operated an industry, business, and establishment within the State of California, including Alameda County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung L. Yang, Esq. Tiffany Hyun, Esq. Sean Hardy, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 355 S. Grand Ave., Suite 1450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 985-1150 Facsimile: (213) 985-2155 E-mail: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com tiffany.hyun@thesentinelfirm.com sean.hardy@thesentinelfirm.com ASHLYNN MARKETING: Federal Court Partially Tossed Class Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a federal court in California partially tossed class claims of false advertising and product liability against Ashlynn Marketing Group, which allegedly did not properly warn consumers that their kratom capsules and powders can be addictive. Variances across state laws keep the consumers from continuing with a nationwide class, but the California claims may proceed. Evidence on the record suggests the company violated their duty to consumers by not properly warning them of kratom’s addictive properties. [GN] BRIDGES EXPERIENCE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Collins Says --------------------------------------------------------------- CHELSEA COLLINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BRIDGES EXPERIENCE, INC., Case No. 7:25-cv-01290-BO (E.D.N.C., July 2, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information and Protected Health Information that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed in June 2025. The Plaintiff's claims arise from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The Defendant is a clinical experience software platform that works with students, universities, and hospitals to facilitate the clinical rotations process. Recently, the Defendant learned that an unauthorized third-party gained access to its IT Network on or about December 2, 2024, to on or about January 22, 2025. In response, the Defendant launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the Data Breach. The investigation determined that on or about June 3, 2025, certain files were accessed and/or acquired by the unauthorized third-party. The Plaintiff and Class Members provided their Private Information to Defendant with the reasonable expectation and on the mutual understanding that Defendant would comply with its obligations to keep such information confidential and secure from unauthorized access. As a result of collecting and storing the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members for its own financial benefit, Defendant had a continuous duty to adopt and employ reasonable measures to protect Plaintiff's and the Class Members' Private Information from disclosure to third parties, says the suit. The Defendant is a clinical experience software platform that works with students, universities, and hospitals to facilitate the clinical rotations process.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Wilkerson, Esq. WILKERSON JUSTUS PLLC P.O. Box 54 Telephone: (828) 316-6902 E-mail: dwilkerson@wilkersonjustus.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com CANVAS ENERGY: Amended Bid to Certify Settlement Class Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WAKE ENERGY, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. CANVAS ENERGY LLC, formerly known as CHAPARRAL ENERGY, L.L.C., Case No. 5:22-cv-00822-G (W.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Charles Goodwin entered an order denying the amended motion to certify settlement class for settlement purposes. The Court determines that, absent such modifications and amendments, the proposed procedure for notice to class members would fall short of the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(1) and that the proposed procedures for objections by class members and a hearing to determine if the proposed settlement should be approved would not permit the Court to make the findings required by the remainder of Rule 23(e) for approval of the settlement. As mentioned, the Court is advising the Plaintiff that a request conforming with the modifications and amendments described above would be approved; however, the Plaintiff is not foreclosed from presenting any other request that it believes appropriate. The Court further entered an order that the Plaintiff's Motion for hearing is denied in light of the determination. Canvas is an independent oil and natural gas exploration and production company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=K4foP2 at no extra charge.[CC] CAREBRIDGE MEDICAL: Jones Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- RETONDA JONES, on behalf of herself and all Others similarly situated v. CAREBRIDGE MEDICAL GROUP P.C. and RSV QOZB LTSS, INC. d/b/a CareBridge, Case No. 3:25-cv-00744 (M.D. Tenn., July 2, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for CareBridge as an Engagement Specialist, sometimes fielding incoming calls from CareBridge beneficiaries and sometimes making outgoing calls to prospective CareBridge beneficiaries to sign them up for CareBridge benefits. In this role, CareBridge regularly required Plaintiff Jones to work more than 40 hours per week. However, in violation of the plain requirements of FLSA, CareBridge, acting knowingly and willfully, refused to pay her a time-and-half overtime premium for hours over 40 worked in a workweek, asserts the suit. CAREBRIDGE MEDICAL GROUP P.C. is a healthcare company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth M. Hyatt, Esq. Jerry E. Martin, Esq. Matthew E. McGraw, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, PLLC 200 31st Ave. N. Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 252-3797 E-mail: shyatt@barrettjohnston.com jmartin@barrettjohnston.com mmcgraw@barrettjohnston.com CARVANA LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Jennings Due Feb. 23, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANA JENNINGS, JOSEPH A. FURLONG, on their individual behalf and on behalf of other similarly situated persons, v. CARVANA, LLC, Case No. 5:21-cv-05400-MRP (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Mia Roberts Perez entered an order granting their joint motion for extension of discovery. The following deadlines shall apply in this case: 1. All fact discovery shall be completed by Oct. 30, 2025. 2. The Plaintiffs' expert report is due by Dec. 11, 2025. 3. The deadline for the Defendants' expert report is due by Jan. 22, 2025. 4. All expert discovery shall be completed on or before Feb. 16, 2026. 5. Motions for class certification are due by Feb. 23, 2026. 6. Briefs in opposition to motions for class certification are due by March 2, 2026. 7. Any remaining deadlines, including dispositive motions, pre- trial filings, and trial dates will be scheduled following the Court's decision on the motions for class certification. Carvana offers new and used cars and vehicles. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VdIrmb at no extra charge.[CC] CARVANA LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Harvin Due Feb. 23, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SYRETTA ANGELIQUE HARVIN, DAVID WEAVER, JR., on their individual behalf and on behalf of other similarly situated persons, v. CARVANA, LLC; BRIDGECREST CREDIT COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-02068-MRP (E.D.Pa.), the Hon. Judge Mia Roberts Perez entered an order granting their joint motion for extension of discovery. The following deadlines shall apply in this case: 1. All fact discovery shall be completed by Oct. 30, 2025. 2. The Plaintiffs' expert report is due by Dec. 11, 2025. 3. The deadline for the Defendants' expert report is due by Jan. 22, 2025. 4. All expert discovery shall be completed on or before Feb. 16, 2026. 5. Motions for class certification are due by Feb. 23, 2026. 6. Briefs in opposition to motions for class certification are due by March 2, 2026. 7. Any remaining deadlines, including dispositive motions, pre- trial filings, and trial dates will be scheduled following the Court's decision on the motions for class certification. Carvana offers new and used cars and vehicles. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=69DBhO at no extra charge.[CC] CHARLES SCHWAB: Bueno Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties ---------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth L. Bueno and Abraham Atachbarian, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. CHARLES SCHWAB & CO. INC.; Case No. 25STCV18960 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 30, 2025), is brought to seek redress and remedy harms caused by Schwab's intentional breach of its fiduciary duties under California law and its own Code of Ethics, its breach of the contract entered into between Schwab and Plaintiffs, its unjust enrichment at the expense of its Plaintiffs and the Class, and for violations of Business and Prof. Codes and Elder Care Financial Abuse under California law, including Schwab's deceptive acts in relation to the cash sweep programs ("Cash Sweep Programs") at issue here. The claims asserted herein arise out of Schwab's actions with respect to its various Cash Sweeps Programs through which Schwab, admittedly acting as its customers' agent and thus fiduciary, automatically swept customers' uninvested cash in their non-advisory brokerage accounts into high interest bearing deposit accounts at its various affiliated banks ("Program Banks"), while paying Plaintiffs and Class members unduly low interest on this money. In fact, between November of 2021 and May of 2025, inclusively (the "Relevant Period"), Schwab never paid more than .45% interest to its customers in its Cash Sweeps Programs. Since December of 2024, the rate has dropped as low as .05%. By doing so, in a conflict of interest and in breach of its duty of loyalty to its customers, including Plaintiffs and Class Members, Schwab was able to earn significant undisclosed interest on the interest rate spread and fees for itself, while paying its customers, including Plaintiffs and Class members, less than the contractually required reasonable or prevailing rates of interest, depending on the type of account they maintained. Schwab did so in intentional violation of its fiduciary and agency duties under California law and its own Code of Ethics to act with the highest good faith, loyalty and integrity independent of any agreements with Plaintiffs and Class members, and in violation of the applicable agreements between it and Plaintiffs and Class members, among other violations. Schwab, by its reckless and intentional misconduct, breached its fiduciary and contractual obligations to its customers. Therefore, Plaintiffs bring this Action for compensatory damages for the harm to themselves, and for forward-looking equitable and injunctive relief benefitting the public at large by enjoining Schwab from further engaging in its illegal and misleading conduct, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were subject to cash sweeps. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Westlake, Texas and is a broker dealer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy J. Burke, Esq. THE BURKE LAW FIRM 1001 Wilshire Blvd., #2187 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 310-984-7199 Fax: 310-602-6589 Email: tim.burke@burke-law-firm.com CIGNA HEALTH: Stewart Seeks to File Class Exhibits Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JILL STEWART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:22-cv-00769-OAW (D. Conn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to seal and permitting her to file the memorandum, declaration, and all exhibits under seal. On June 26, 2025, Ms. Stewart's counsel advised Cigna's counsel that Ms. Stewart planned to file a Memorandum appending documents that Cigna had produced with confidentiality designations as well as excerpts of Cigna's Rule 30(b)(6) deposition transcripts. On June 27, 2025, Cigna advised Ms. Stewart's counsel that most of the documents identified by Ms. Stewart would need to be filed under seal initially and that Cigna would provide a supporting response and declaration(s) regarding the basis for sealing and whether the documents can be filed publicly. On June 28, 2025, Ms. Stewart's counsel advised Cigna that, upon further reflection and out of an abundance of caution, Ms. Stewart would file the Memorandum and all exhibits thereto under seal because the Memorandum discusses at length Cigna internal programs and conduct, as well as Cigna's financial information, that Cigna has represented to be highly confidential. Cigna offers health insurance plans. A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xNz7Sm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth K. Acee, Esq. BARCLAY DAMON LLP 545 Long Wharf Drive, Ninth Floor New Haven, CT 06511 Telephone: (203) 672-2659 Facsimile: (203) 654-3260 E-mail: eacee@barclaydamon.com - and - Andrew N. Goldfarb, Esq. R. Miles Clark, Esq. Alyssa Howard Card, Esq. Jason S. Cowart, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 2100 L Street, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (202) 778-1800 Facsimile: (202) 822-8106 E-mail: agoldfarb@zuckerman.com mclark@zuckerman.com acard@zuckerman.com jcowart@zuckerman.com - and - Leslie Howard, Esq. Michael Fried, Esq. COHEN HOWARD, LLP 331 Newman Springs Road Building 2, Suite 236 Red Bank, NJ 07701 Telephone: (732) 747-5202 E-mail: lhoward@cohenhoward.com mfried@cohenhoward.com CITIBANK NA: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Holyoak v. Citibank, N.A. et al., Case No. 6:25-cv-01175 (M.D. Fla., Filed June 30, 2025), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an endorsed order directing the parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report. The deadlines should include a deadline for (1) disclosure of expert reports - class action, plaintiff and defendant; (2) discovery - class action; (3) motion for class certification; (4) response to motion for class certification; and (5) reply to motion for class certification. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act. Citibank is the primary U.S. banking subsidiary of Citigroup, a financial services multinational corporation.[CC] CMRE FINANCIAL: Bartlett Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against CMRE Financial Services Inc. The case is styled as Laurie Bartlett, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals v. CMRE Financial Services Inc, Case No. 8:25-cv-01412 (C.D. Cal., June 30, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. CMRE Financial Services, Inc. has been providing collection and A/R management services exclusively for the healthcare industry for over four decades.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander James Adducci Taylor, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD - LOMBARD IL 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 575-8181 Fax: (630) 575-8188 Email: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Reaches $9MM Prelim Deal in Rankings Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Walter Hudson, writing for Diverse, reports that Columbia University has reached a $9 million settlement agreement with undergraduate students who alleged the institution deliberately submitted false information to U.S. News & World Report to artificially boost its college rankings position. The preliminary settlement, filed last Monday in Manhattan federal court and pending judicial approval, resolves claims that Columbia misrepresented key data points to enhance its standing in the influential annual rankings. The university reached as high as No. 2 in the undergraduate rankings in 2022 before the alleged misconduct came to light. Students alleged that Columbia consistently provided inaccurate data to U.S. News, including the false claim that 83% of its classes contained fewer than 20 students. The lawsuit argued these misrepresentations were designed to improve the university's ranking position and, consequently, attract more students willing to pay premium tuition rates. The settlement covers approximately 22,000 undergraduate students who attended Columbia College, the Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science, and the School of General Studies between fall 2016 and spring 2022. The controversy began in July 2022 when Columbia mathematics professor Dr. Michael Thaddeus published a detailed analysis questioning the accuracy of data underlying the university's No. 2 ranking. His report alleged that much of the information Columbia provided to U.S. News was either inaccurate or misleading. Following the publication of Thaddeus's findings, Columbia's ranking plummeted to No. 18 in September 2022. The dramatic drop highlighted the significant impact that data accuracy has on institutional rankings and reputation. In response to the allegations, Columbia announced in June 2023 that its undergraduate programs would withdraw from participating in U.S. News rankings altogether. The university cited concerns about the "outsized influence" these rankings have on prospective students' decision-making processes. "Much is lost when we attempt to distill the quality and nuance of an education from a series of data points," Columbia stated in explaining its decision to withdraw from the rankings process. While denying wrongdoing in the settlement agreement, Columbia acknowledged past deficiencies in its reporting practices. The university stated it "deeply regrets deficiencies in prior reporting" and has implemented new measures to ensure data accuracy. Columbia now provides prospective students with information that has been reviewed by an independent advisory firm, demonstrating the institution's commitment to transparency and accurate representation of its educational offerings. Columbia's decision to withdraw from U.S. News rankings reflects a growing skepticism among elite institutions about the value and impact of college ranking systems. Harvard and Yale have also stopped submitting data to U.S. News for various programs, signaling a potential shift in how prestigious universities approach rankings participation. Under the terms of the agreement, student attorneys plan to seek up to one-third of the settlement amount for legal fees, which would leave approximately $6 million available for distribution among affected students. The settlement requires approval from a federal judge before taking effect. Student lawyers characterized the accord as "fair, reasonable and adequate" given the circumstances of the case and the challenges inherent in proving damages from ranking manipulation. [GN] CORA TEXAS: Bid to File Class Cert Reply Granted in Gonzalez ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jimenez-Gonzalez, et al., v. Cora Texas Growers and Harvesters Agricultural Association, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00820 (M.D. La., Filed Oct. 2, 2024), the Hon. Judge Shelly D. Dick entered an order granting Request to File Reply and Supplemental Exhibit to motion for Rule 23 Class Certification. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Cora is a sugar mill that produces raw sugar.[CC] COSTA DEL MAR: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GERALD E. REED, IV, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. COSTA DEL MAR, INC., a Florida corporation, Case No. 6:19-cv-01751-RBD-LHP (M.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting a 30-day extension of time for the Defendant to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification by Aug. 18, 2025. Costa's counsel in this action will be travelling and out-of-town for two weeks and will be in a time zone nearly half a workday behind during the response period, which also coincides with the July 4th holiday. The Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by this extension. Even with the extension, Costa's opposition to class certification will be filed by Aug. 18, 2024. This extension will not impact any other deadline in the case schedule; indeed, discovery does not close until Oct. 27, 2025, and motions for summary judgment are not due until Nov. 26, 2025. On Aug. 13, 2024, the parties filed a case management report requesting that the Plaintiff's deadline to move for class certification coincide with the deadline for filing any dispositive or Daubert motions. On June 27, 2025, the Plaintiff filed his motion for class certification. Costa offers high-quality polarized sunglasses. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OnWbIH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter P. Hargitai, Esq. Joshua H. Roberts, Esq. Laura B. Renstrom, Esq. Michael M. Gropper, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 50 North Laura Street, Suite 3900 Jacksonville, FL 32202 E-mail: peter.hargitai@hklaw.com joshua.roberts@hklaw.com laura.renstrom@hklaw.com michael.gropper@hklaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Sara F. Holladay, Esq. Emily Y. Rottmann, Esq. Sean P. Walsh, Esq. Justin R. Opitz, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 50 N. Laura Street, Suite 3300 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Telephone: (904) 798-3200 Facsimile: (904) 798-3207 E-mail: sholladay@mcguirewoods.com erottmann@mcguirewoods.com swalsh@mcguirewoods.com jopitz@mcguirewoods.com COWBOY LOGIC: Kern Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as APRIL KERN v. COWBOY LOGIC, LLC t/a and/or d/b/a HOME INSTEAD NORTHAMPTON, and MATTHEW SORRIA, Case No. 5:25-cv-00612-JMG (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying case as a collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and providing for the mailing of the proposed notice and consent form to all potential Plaintiffs. Home provides companionship-led home care services for people who require extra support. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=l6EFq9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam D. Meshkov, Esq. MESHKOV & BRESLIN 830 Lehigh Street Easton, PA 18042 Telephone: (610) 438-6300 CURIUM US LLC: Doe Sues Over Recent Cyberattack and Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Jane Doe, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CURIUM US LLC D/B/A CURIUM PHARMA, Case No. 4:25-cv-00964 (E.D. Mo., June 30, 2025), is brought arising from a recent cyberattack discovered by Defendant on October 17, 2024, resulting in a data breach of sensitive information in the possession and custody and/or control of Defendant (the "Data Breach"). The Breach occurred between October 15, 2024, and October 19, 2024, but was not discovered by Defendant until October 17, 2024, two days after the breach had first begun and at least two days before the breach stopped. The Data Breach resulted in unauthorized disclosure, exfiltration, and theft of current and former employees' highly personal information, including names, Social Security Numbers, driver's license, ("personally identifying information" or "PII"), and medical information ("protected health information" or "PHI"). Plaintiff refers to both PII and PHI collectively as "Sensitive Information." On June 20, 2025--a month after the Data Breach was discovered--Curium Pharma finally began notifying Plaintiff and the Class of the Breach through breach notices ("Breach Notice"). Defendant's failure to timely detect and report the Data Breach made its employees vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their Sensitive Information. The Defendant knew or should have known that each victim of the Data Breach deserved prompt and efficient notice of the Data Breach and assistance in mitigating the effects of PII and PHI misuse. In failing to adequately protect Plaintiff's and the Class's Sensitive Information, failing to adequately notify them about the breach, and by obfuscating the nature of the breach, Defendant violated state and federal law and harmed thousands of its current and former employees. Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class are victims of Defendant's negligence and inadequate cyber security measures. Specifically, Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class trusted Defendant with their Sensitive Information. But Defendant betrayed that trust. Defendant failed to properly use up-to-date security practices to prevent the Data Breach, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a former employee and Data Breach victim. Curium Pharma touts that its purpose is to "develop, manufacture, and supply world-class radiopharmaceutical products around the globe."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: raina@straussborrelli.com DONALD TRUMP: Plaintiffs Seek To Re-Note Class Certification Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as State of Washington, et al., v. Donald Trump, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00127-JCC (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting emergency motion to lift the court's stay and re-note motion for class certification on expedited briefing schedule. The Supreme Court's stay order thus demonstrates that immediate and expedited briefing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is warranted. Given that the Defendants have urged the court of appeals and the Supreme Court that this case should proceed through class certification, they are well-placed to proceed with expedited briefing as to the motion that was filed more than five months ago. Accordingly, expedited consideration of the motion for class certification is appropriate to ensure that, prior to the Executive Order taking effect, a properly certified class exists in this case. At the same time, if the Court certifies the class, the Court should modify its injunction to explicitly clarify that the injunction is provided to all class members. Donald Trump is an American politician, media personality, and businessman. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NChDlq at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matt Adams, Esq. Glenda M. Aldana Madrid, Esq. Aaron Korthuis, Esq. Leila Kang, Esq. NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 957-8611 E-mail: matt@nwirp.org glenda@nwirp.org leila@nwirp.org aaron@nwirp.org DYCK O'NEAL: Class Cert Opposition Due July 16 ---------------------------------------------- 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 Hon. Judge Robert J. Jonker entered 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. On June 4, 2025, Plaintiff filed her Motion for Class Certification (ECF No. 313) and her Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(c), Defendant has 28 days from the date of filing to respond to Plaintiff’s motions, meaning the responses are currently due July 2, 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. Dyck O'Neal operates as a debt collection law firm. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=G6vSF7 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 ELEVANCE HEALTH: Settles Mental Health Coverage Suit for $12.9MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jakob Emerson, writing for Becker's Payer Issues, reports that Elevance Health has agreed to a $12.9 million settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that accused the company of improperly denying coverage for residential treatment of mental health and substance use disorders. The lawsuit was originally filed in April 2020 by plaintiffs who alleged that the company, then Anthem, used medical necessity guidelines as a third-party administrator that were overly restrictive when evaluating requests for residential treatment for children. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York certified the class action in March 2024. Under the terms of the settlement agreement filed June 30, Anthem will place $12.9 million into a common fund, with class members who paid out of pocket for denied residential treatment services being eligible to apply for reimbursement. Nearly 19,000 class members will receive at least $100 from the settlement, while the lead plaintiffs will receive $10,000 each as incentive awards. Anthem also agreed to cover the plaintiffs' legal fees, capped at one-third of the settlement, or $4.3 million. The settlement resolves claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act, and Anthem did not admit to any wrongdoing. [GN] ENOVIX CORP: Class Cert Opposition Extended to 35 Days ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit RE ENOVIX CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 3:23-cv-00071-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order regarding class certification deadlines as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' opposition to the Defendants' Rule 12(c) motion is due no later than July 28, 2025. 2. The Defendants' reply in further support of its Rule 12(c) motion is due no later than Aug. 18, 2025. 3. The deadline for the Defendants' opposition to class certification is extended to 35 days from the earlier of: (1) a Court determination that discovery and case deadlines will proceed notwithstanding the Rule 12(c) Motion; or (2) a decision on the Rule 12(c) Motion. 4. The Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Class Certification is due 37 days after the due date for Defendants’ Opposition to Class Certification. 5. The Sept. 19, 2025, hearing is adjourned and will be rescheduled at the Court's discretion. Enovix designs, develops, and manufactures lithium-ion battery cells in the United States and internationally. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=il7461 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua Baker, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. Joshua Baker, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com jbaker@rosenlegal.com - and - Lawrence M. Rolnick, Esq. Marc B. Kramer, Esq. ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 597-2800 E-mail: lrolnick@rksllp.com mkramer@rksllp.com bfierro@rksllp.com The Defendants are represented by: Emily C. Kapur, Esq. Michael Ethan Liftik, Esq. Andrew J. Rossman, Esq. Courtney C. Whang, Esq. Brenna D. Nelinson, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: (650) 801-5000 Facsimile: (650) 801-5100 E-mail: emilykapur@quinnemanuel.com michaelliftik@quinnemanuel.com andrewrossman@quinnemanuel.com courtneywhang@quinnemanuel.com brennanelinson@quinnemanuel.com ENOVIX CORP: Plaintiffs' Must File Rule 12 Opposition by July 28 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE ENOVIX CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 3:23-cv-00071-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Susan Illston entered an order re: Rule 12(c) and class certification deadlines and discovery stay. The Plaintiffs' opposition to the Defendants' Rule 12(c) motion is due no later than July 28, 2025. The Defendants' reply in further support of its Rule 12(c) motion is due no later than Aug. 18, 2025. The Court will hold a hearing on the Rule 12(c) Motion on Sept. 5, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. over Zoom videoconference. Further briefing on the class certification motion is suspended until the Court has ruled on the Rule 12(c) motion. The parties may propose a briefing schedule at an appropriate time. The Plaintiffs shall file a response (in the form of a letter, not to exceed two pages) to the defendants' discovery stay letter no later than July 7, 2025. Enovix designs, develops, and manufactures lithium-ion battery cells. A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=c6MZnK at no extra charge.[CC] ENVIOS ESPINOZA: Zambrano Loses Summary Judgment Bid on OT Claim ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA ZAMBRANO and YISELA JARAMILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ENVIOS ESPINOZA, INC.; ENVIOS ESPINOZA TELEFONICA MULTISERVICES CORP. D/B/A ENVIOS ESPINOZA; JOHN DOE CORPORATION #1 D/B/A ENVIOS ESPINOZA ENTERPRISES; JOHN DOE CORPORATION #2 D/B/A ENVIOS ESPINOZA & CO., JULIO ESPINOZA, FAUSTO CANDO, and DORIS CANDO, Case No. 2:22-cv-03031-OEM-SIL (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Orelia E. Merchant entered an order the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is: -- denied as to Plaintiffs' Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime claim (claim one), and -- granted as to Plaintiffs' New York Labor Law (NYLL) minimum wage (claim three) and overtime violation (claim two) claims, spread-of-hours claim (claim four), and Plaintiffs' NYLL wage notice (claim five) and wage statement claims (claim six). Accordingly, judgment shall be entered in favor of Plaintiffs on their NYLL minimum wage and overtime violation claims, spread of hours claim, and NYLL wage notice and wage statement claims, and the parties shall procced to trial on Plaintiffs' FLSA overtime claim. The Court finds that Plaintiffs Zambrano and Jaramillo have met their initial burden by showing they were improperly compensated under the NYLL. Moreover, the Court finds that Defendants have not provided sufficient evidence to overcome the NYLL's stringent burden to "negative the reasonableness of the inference" drawn from Plaintiff's testimony. Because Plaintiffs have not carried their initial burden of showing that Defendants are subject to the FLSA's overtime wage provisions under either enterprise coverage or individual coverage, the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment as to their FLSA overtime claim is denied. Because the Plaintiffs satisfied their initial burden, and Defendants failed to rebut it, Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment on their NYLL overtime and minimum wage claims. Because there is no dispute that Defendants failed to comply with the law and the parties agree that Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law, Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment on their NYLL spread-of-hours and failure to provide payroll notices claims. Envios provides money transfer, package mailing, and bill pay services. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated July 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=W6lDjo at no extra charge.[CC] EPISOURCE LLC: Gantt Files Suit in C.D. California -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Episource LLC. The case is styled as Chonita Gantt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Episource LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-05918 (C.D. Cal., June 30, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Episource -- https://www.episource.com/ -- provides risk adjustment services, software, and solutions for health plans and medical groups.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Dr. Beverly Hills, CA 92102 Phone: (858) 209-6941 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: jnelson@milberg.com ERIE INDEMNITY: Eberhardt Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Erie Indemnity Company, et al. The case is styled as Shana Eberhardt, Jill Vetter, individually and on behalf of herself, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Erie Indemnity Company, Erie Insurance Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-00180-CB (W.D. Pa., June 30, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Erie Indemnity Company -- https://www.erieinsurance.com/ -- operates as a managing attorney-in-fact for the subscribers at the Erie Insurance Exchange in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street, Ste. 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Phone: (215) 592-1500 Fax: (215) 592-4663 Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com ERIE INDEMNITY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Crowley Says ----------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW CROWLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ERIE INDEMNITY COMPANY and ERIE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:25-cv-00188 (W.D. Pa., July 2, 2025) alleges that the Erie failed to properly secure and safeguard highly valuable, protected, personally identifiable information and failed to comply with industry standards to protect information systems that contain PII. According to the complaint, Erie has more than 7 million active policies covering vehicle insurance, life insurance, and property insurance, among others. In order to obtain an insurance policy through Erie Insurance, customers are required to directly or indirectly entrust Erie with their PII, which Erie Insurance uses in order to perform their regular business practices. Despite their duties to safeguard their customers' PII, on June 7, 2025, Erie Insurance became aware of a cybersecurity incident as an unauthorized third party broke into Erie Insurance's computer servers and caused a network outage, says the suit. Erie Insurance did not regain control of their computer systems until June 17, 2025 (the Data Breach). As a direct and proximate result of Erie Insurance's negligent failure to implement and follow basic security procedures, upon information and belief, Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII is now in the hands of cybercriminals, asserts the suit. Erie is a property/casualty insurer. They have more than 7 million policies in force and operate in twelve states and the District of Columbia. As part of their routine business practices, Erie Insurance is entrusted with their customers' PII.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Patrick D. Donathen, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Ave., 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: gary@lcllp.com patrick@lcllp.com FANDUEL INC: Operates Illegal Gambling Websites, Beltran Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARTIN BELTRAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. FANDUEL, INC., FANDUEL LIMITED, FLUTTER ENTERTAINMENT PLC, AND DOES 1-10, Case No. 3:25-cv-05586 (N.D. Cal., July 2, 2025) alleges that the Defendants had been operating mobile gambling applications and websites within California, misrepresenting to customers and the public that its daily fantasy sports contests, often branded as "FanDuel Fantasy," are legal forms of gambling in California. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the proposed class of similarly situated Californians, brings this lawsuit to stop the unlawful gambling that occurs on FanDuel's Gambling Websites in California and to recover the money that FanDuel has unlawfully taken from them. FanDuel is a mobile sports betting operator in the U.S. FanDuel regularly conducts business within California and this District, including by running the Gambling Websites that are the subject of this litigation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Wesley M. Griffith, Esq. Christopher Nienhaus, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 111 W. Ocean Blvd, Suite 426 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (310) 896-5813 E-mail: wes@almeidalawgroup.com chris@almeidalawgroup.com - and - Margot P. Cutter, Esq. CUTTER LAW P.C. 401 Watt Avenue Sacramento, CA 95864 Telephone: (916) 290-9400 E-mail: mcutter@cutterlaw.com - and - F. Peter Silva II, Esq. Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq. Robert M. Devling, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1010 Washington, District of Columbia 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 E-mail: psilva@tzlegal.com kaizpuru@tzlegal.com rdevling@tzlegal.com - and - James Bilsborrow, Esq. Aaron Freedman, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG PC 700 Broadway New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 558-5500 E-mail: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com afreedman@weitzlux.com FARMERS INSURANCE: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due July 31 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as James Ruffulo, et al. v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-01796-FMO-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order: 1. All pending deadlines and proceedings are vacated. The pending motion (Document No. 89) is denied as moot. 2. The Plaintiffs shall file a motion for class certification and preliminary approval of class action settlement agreement no later than July 31, 2025. The Defendants may also file a brief in support of the motion for preliminary approval by the same deadline. 3. The Motion shall include appropriate evidentiary support and a thorough discussion of the requirements set forth in Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including the following issues: (A) All class certification and FLSA collective action requirements, including (i) declarations from proposed class representatives as to the adequacy of their representation of the class; and (ii) any differences between the settlement class and the class proposed in the operative complaint (if the class has already been certified, the difference between the settlement class and the previously certified class), and an explanation as to why the differences are appropriate 4. With respect to any settlement involving claims pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), Cal. Labor Code sections 2698, et seq., the parties shall address whether the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency received notice of the settlement, and any response to such notice. 5. Failure to file the motion for preliminary approval by the deadline set by the court may result in dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute and/or to comply with a court order. Farmers is a property and casualty insurer. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mFY3PY at no extra charge.[CC] FLYING WINGS: Court Resets Time for Oral Argument ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAYLA PENDER, v. FLYING S. WINGS, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-04292-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Algenon Marbley entered an order resetting time for oral argument on motions for summary judgment. Accordingly, Counsel should be prepared to argue for 20 minutes. The movant will argue first and will have the option of reserving up to five (5) minutes for rebuttal. Counsel should prepare for oral argument with the knowledge that this Court has already studied the memoranda related to summary judgment. Reading from briefs, decisions or the record is not recommended except in unusual circumstances. Counsel should be prepared to answer questions raised by the Court. A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BOS0wg at no extra charge.[CC] FORESTERS LIFE: Case Management Statement Entered in Velez Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Magda Velez, v. Foresters Life Insurance and Annuity Company, Case No. 2:22-cv-08932-ODW-MBK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright II entered an order lifting stay and directing joint case management statement: The parties agree that, as the deadline for filing of a motion for class certification has passed, this case will proceed as an individual case. Plaintiff wishes to amend her complaint in light of the Ninth Circuit's decision in Siino. Defendant opposes. Foresters offers terms, permanent, universal life, and critical illness insurance products. A copy of the Court's order dated June 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4hXeVe at no extra charge.[CC] GC MANUFACTURING: Day Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------------ Delila Day, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. GC MANUFACTURING AMERICA LLC, an Illinois limited liability company, Case No. 1:25-cv-07342 (N.D. Ill., June 30, 2025), is brought against the Defendant to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA"). The Defendant knew or could have easily determined how long it took Plaintiff to complete their donning and doffing, and Defendant could have properly compensated Plaintiff for this pre- and post-shift work but deliberately chose not to pay for this time. The Defendant's practice of failing to compensate Plaintiff for all hours worked violated the Hourly Employees' rights under the FLSA. The Defendant is liable for its failure to pay its hourly employee for all work performed, and as non-exempt employees, Defendant's hourly employees were entitled to full compensation for all overtime hours worked, i.e., greater than 40 per week, at a rate of 1.5 times their "regular rate" of pay, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from March 2022 through January 2025. GC America Inc. is the managing entity for Defendant and is also headquartered in Alsip, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew L. Turner, Esq. Kathryn E. Milz, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, Michigan 48076 Phone: 248-355-0300 Email: mturner@sommerspc.com kmilz@sommerspc.com HALLKEEN MANAGEMENT: Class Settlement in Cassamas Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL CASSAMAS, MICHAEL FORBES, and JOHN MACMASTER, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated persons, v. HALLKEEN MANAGEMENT, INC.; HALLKEEN ASSISTED LIVING COMMUNITIES LLC; PROSPECT HOUSE GROUP LLC; HALLKEEN ASSISTED LIVING LLC; and PROSPECT HOUSE ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Case No. 1:24-cv-12574-ADB (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Allison D. Burroughs entered an order that: 1. The motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement is granted. 2. The Court appoints the following law firms as Class Counsel, having determined that the requirements of Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are satisfied by this appointment: a. Greater Boston Legal Services, Inc. b. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP 3. The Plaintiffs Michael Cassamas and Michael Forbes are appointed as Representatives of the Settlement Class. 4. A Fairness Hearing will be held on Oct. 30, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. HallKeen provides real estate services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Jgbq7m at no extra charge.[CC] HANLEY CENTER: Colbert Seeks Conditional Cert of Specialists Class ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLA COLBERT, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, v. Hanley Center Foundation, Inc., a Florida Not for Profit Corporation, Case No. 9:24-cv-81569-WM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. Conditionally certifying a class of: "All current and former Prevention Specialists, Senior Program Coordinators, Prevention Assistants, and other similarly situated prevention and education employees who were classified as exempt and who worked for the Defendant within the last three (3) years prior to the filing of this Motion;" 2. Directing the Defendant to produce (in electronic format) to undersigned counsel within fourteen (14) days of the Order granting this Motion a list containing the names, the last known addresses, phone numbers, social security numbers, and e-mail addresses of putative class members who worked for the Defendant from three years prior to the filing of the Complaint through the present; 3. Authorizing undersigned counsel to send notice, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit N, to all individuals whose names appear on the list produced by the Defendant's counsel by first-class mail, e-mail, and text-message; 4. Authorizing undersigned counsel to send a reminder notice to putative class members at the half-way point of the 60 day notice period; 5. Providing all individuals whose names appear on the list produced by Defendant's counsel with 60 days from the date the notices are initially mailed to file a Consent to Become Opt-In Plaintiff, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit O; 6. Allowing class members to execute their consent forms electronically; and 7. Any other relief that is just and appropriate. The Plaintiff Colbert was hired as a Prevention Specialist to work for Hanley from October 2022 to April 2024. Hanley is a nonprofit organization dedicated to fighting substance use disorders. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8rMGxt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noah E. Storch, Esq. RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A. 7951 SW 6th Street, Suite 316 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone No.: (866) 344-9243 Facsimile No.: (954) 337-2771 E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com HARPER WOODS, MI: Wayne County Dismissed from Carlock Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES CARLOCK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. CITY OF HARPER WOODS, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-11122-RJW-CI (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Robert J. White entered an order granting Wayne County's motion to partially dismiss the complaint. The Court further entered an order that the Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate Wayne County from the docket as a party defendant to this action. Because Carlock's injuries are neither imminent nor traceable to Wayne County's policies, practices or customs, he lacks the necessary standing to obtain prospective injunctive relief against the County. James Carlock commenced this putative 42 U.S.C. section 1983 class action against Wayne County after the county sheriff detained him, before trial, pursuant to a state district court order imposing unlawful bond conditions. Carlock filed this 42 U.S.C. section 1983 lawsuit alleging both individual and putative classwide causes of action. The individual claims are asserted solely against the City of Harper Woods and the police officers who arrested Carlock and investigated the charged offenses. Harper Woods detectives arrested Carlock in July 2021 after he allegedly doused his then-girlfriend with gasoline and lit her arm on fire. The Wayne County Prosecutor's Office charged him with, among other things, assault with intent to murder. Harper Woods is a city in Wayne County in the U.S. state of Michigan. An inner-ring suburb of Detroit, Harper Woods borders Detroit to the north and east, roughly 9 miles northeast of downtown Detroit. A copy of the Court's order dated July 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yGIhKR at no extra charge.[CC] HYUNDAI MOTOR: Class Cert Bid Filing in Hageman Suit Due Oct. 10 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brenda Hageman, Richard Price, Timothy Sage, Lisa Page, David Kostka, Mark Schofield, Louella Wilson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Hyundai Motor America, Case No. 8:23-cv-01045-HDV-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Hernan D. Vera entered an order granting the Parties' joint stipulation to further continue deadlines for parties to complete discovery and for the Plaintiffs to file motion for class certification, and to continue trial date: -- Parties to complete fact discovery Oct. 3, 2025 shall be up to and including: -- Parties to complete initial expert Aug. 22, 2025 disclosures shall be up to and including: -- Parties to complete rebuttal expert Sept. 19, 2025 disclosures shall be up to and including: -- Parties to complete expert discovery Oct. 3, 2025 shall be up to and including: -- Plaintiffs to file a motion for Oct. 10, 2025 class certification shall be up to and including: -- Date for trial to begin shall be: Aug. 11, 2026 -- Final pretrial conference is set to: July 21, 2026 Hyundai is the operating subsidiary that oversees all operations of Hyundai Motor Company in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=j4YFfW at no extra charge.[CC] INTEL CORP: Judge Certifies Suit Over Married Retirees' Penalties ----------------------------------------------------------------- A federal judge certified a class of participants and beneficiaries in the Intel Minimum Pension Plan in a nationwide lawsuit against Intel Corporation for violating the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). The plaintiff alleges that the Intel Minimum Pension Plan penalized him and other married retirees when calculating their joint and survivor annuities. As a result, Intel deprived them of accrued, vested pension benefits when they receive their pension benefit in the default form of benefit for married participants. This error allegedly has cost these retirees millions in pension funds. "We are pleased the judge granted class certification in this hard-fought lawsuit against Intel for violating ERISA," said Daniel R. Sutter, partner of Cohen Milstein's Employee Benefits/ERISA practice. "Intel's retirees should not be shortchanged because of their marital status. We look forward to advancing claims on behalf of the class of joint and survivor annuity recipients to ensure they receive all the retirement benefits they earned through their years of work." Under ERISA, a joint and survivor annuity for married retirees must be "actuarily equivalent" to single life annuities for single retirees. To accomplish this, pension plan administrators use mortality rates and interest rates published by the U.S. Department of Treasury to convert single life annuity payments to joint and survivor annuity payments. However, the plaintiff in this case has argued that Intel used an outdated mortality table -- dating back to 1983 -- and therefore the plan participants and beneficiaries received less than the actuarial equivalent of their vested accrued benefit, in violation of ERISA. This lawsuit is brought on behalf of nearly 1,850 Intel retirees and their surviving spouses who are receiving a joint and survivor annuity Intel Minimum Pension Plan. The case, Berkeley v. Intel Corporation, et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-00343 was first filed on January 23, 2023 before the United States District Court of the Northern District of California. This is one of six such cases the firm has filed against many the largest companies in the U.S. addressing similar claims, including against AT&T, IBM, Luxottica, and Southern Company. A certified marriage penalty class action against Citgo Petroleum was settled this past January. Press Contact: cohenmilstein@berlinrosen.com About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a premier U.S. plaintiffs' law firm, with over 100 attorneys across eight offices, champions the causes of real people -- workers, consumers, small business owners, investors, and whistleblowers -- working to deliver corporate reforms and fair markets for the common good. For more information visit https://www.cohenmilstein.com [GN] INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Cunningham Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Intercontinental Hotels Group Resources, LLC. The case is styled as Makayla Cunningham, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Intercontinental Hotels Group Resources, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-03351 (C.D. Cal., June 30, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Intercontinental Hotels Group Resources, LLC -- https://www.ihgplc.com/ -- are one of the world's leading hotel companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: (310) 474-9111 Fax: (310) 474-8585 Email: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com J&T HARVESTING: Flores Seeks Conditional Cert of Collective ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARMANDO RUBIO FLORES, ALFONSO ANGELES HERNANDEZ, ISRAIN HERNANDEZ JACOBO, URIEL CRUZ BAUTISTA, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. J & T HARVESTING LLC, MARIA DIANA OLIVAREZ MILLS (aka DIANA OLIVAREZ RAMON, DIANA OLIVARES, DIANA RAMON), Individually, JOHN JEFFREY RAMON, Individually, TATIANA BRAVO Individually, MOUNTAINKING POTATOES, INC., FARMING TECHNOLOGY, INC. d/b/a MOUNTAINKING POTATOES, INC., FARMING TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION d/b/a MOUNTAINKING POTATOES, INC., and SMOKIN-SPUDS, INC. d/b/a MOUNTAINKING POTATOES, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-02853-DDD-NRN (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for conditional certification of collective action and court authorized notice. The Plaintiffs request the Court to order the following: 1. Conditionally certifying this action as Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective Action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) defining the collective as: "All individuals recruited by J&T Defendants and brought to Colorado to work at the facilities owned and operated by Smokin-Spuds Defendants at any time between Sept. 1, 2022, and the present, including those who were lawfully admitted to the U.S. on an H-2A visa to perform agricultural labor acquired by J&T Defendants as well as those who were recruited by J&T Defendants from within the U.S." The two-year statute of limitations for FLSA actions has already expired for those who had claims prior to July 1, 2022, but all similarly situated individuals who have claims that arose in October 2022 or after, remain within the three- year statute of limitations and are potentially eligible to join the collective action. 2. Approving the Notice and the Opt-In Consent form, for distribution (upon translation into Spanish); 3. Directing the Defendants to provide the Plaintiffs' counsel with a full list of the full names, last known addresses, permanent addresses, and telephone numbers of all individuals identified in the collective action. The action arises from the Defendants' employment of the named Plaintiffs and numerous others in Colorado's San Luis Valley. The Plaintiffs' claims include forced labor, discrimination, exploitation, and wage theft as part of an illegal scheme for cheap labor. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated the FLSA by paying them and others similarly situated below the minimum wage. J & T is a farm labor contractor. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wgtnk3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jenifer Rodriguez, Esq. Deanna Tamborelli, Esq. David Valleau, Esq. COLORADO LEGAL SERVICES FARM WORKER RIGHTS DIVISION 1905 Sherman Street, Suite 400 Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 866-9366 E-mail: jrodriguez@colegalserv.org dtamborelli@colegalserv.org dvalleau@colegalserv.org J-CO CONCRETE: Class Cert Bid Filing in Jackson Suit Due Oct. 6 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY W JACKSON, v. J-CO CONCRETE, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00476-JLG-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Kimberly A. Jolson entered an order vacating the pretrial conference set for July 8, 2025, and adopting the following schedule: The parties shall exchange initial disclosures by July 15, 2025. Any motion to amend the pleadings or to join additional parties shall be filed by July 22, 2025. Any motion for class certification shall be filed by Oct. 6, 2025. All discovery shall be completed by May 22, 2026. Dispositive motions shall be filed by June 26, 2026. Primary expert reports shall be produced by Jan. 23, 2026. Rebuttal expert reports must be produced by Mar. 31, 2026. The Plaintiff will make a settlement demand by July 25, 2025. The Defendant will respond by Aug. 22, 2025. The lawsuit involves allegations of misclassification of workers as independent contractors, unpaid overtime, and failure to pay wages on a semi-monthly basis. There are collective action allegations based on the same. There is a jury demand. J-Co is a construction company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2JZHsY at no extra charge.[CC] LARSON MOTORS: Agrees to Settle Wage-and-Hour Suit for $1.8MM ------------------------------------------------------------- William C. Gendron of ClaimDepot reports that employees who worked for Larson Motors Inc. in Washington state in a position paid on a piece work, commission or other productivity basis between June 23, 2020, and May 15, 2025, or in an hourly position between June 20, 2021, and May 15, 2025, may qualify to claim a cash payment from a class action settlement. Larson Motors Inc. agreed to pay $1.8 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging violations of Washington wage and hour laws, specifically regarding the accrual and use of paid sick leave and provision of meal and rest periods. Who can file a Larson Motors claim? Class members must meet the following criteria: -- They were employed by Larson Motors Inc. in Washington state in a position paid on a piece work, commission or other productivity basis at any time from June 23, 2020, through May 15, 2025 (Class A). -- They were employed by Larson Motors Inc. in Washington state in a position paid on an hourly basis at any time from June 20, 2021, through May 15, 2025 (Class B). How much can class members get? The total settlement fund is $1,800,000. Of this, approximately $1,105,000 is allocated for payments to class members who submit valid claims. Each eligible class member will receive at least $100 as a minimum settlement award. The remainder of the class fund will be distributed pro rata based on each class member’s total W2 wages during the class period. Payments will be split for tax purposes: -- 50% as wages (subject to withholding and reported on IRS Form W-2) -- 50% as non-wages (penalties, interest, etc. and reported on IRS Form 1099-MISC) How to claim a class action rebate Class members can file a claim online using the online claim form or download, print and complete the PDF claim form (Page 21) and mail it to the settlement administrator. The claim deadline is Aug. 29, 2025. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Jones v. Larson Motors Inc. c/o CPT Group Inc., 50 Corporate Park, Irvine, CA 92606 Is proof and documentation required to submit a claim? To file an online claim, class members must provide their CPT ID and passcode located on the upper right-hand corner of the settlement notice mailed or emailed to them. The settlement administrator may request supplemental information if needed, but no proactive documentation is required with the initial claim form. Payout options Payments will be issued by paper check. $1.8 million wage and hour settlement fund breakdown The $1,800,000 settlement fund includes: -- Settlement administration costs: Up to $35,000 -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $540,000 -- Attorneys' expenses: Up to $20,000 -- Service awards to class representatives: $10,000 each for four representatives ($40,000 total) -- Employer-side payroll taxes: Up to $60,000 -- Payments to eligible class members: Up to $1,105,000 Important dates -- Claim deadline: Aug. 29, 2025 -- Opt-out deadline: Aug. 29, 2025 -- Final fairness approval hearing: Sept. 26, 2025 When is the Jones v. Larson Motors Inc. payout date? Payments are expected to be mailed within approximately 15-20 days after the court grants final approval and any appeals are resolved. Why is there a class action settlement? The class action lawsuit alleges Larson Motors Inc. failed to properly accrue and allow the use of paid sick leave and did not provide meal and rest periods in compliance with Washington law. Larson Motors Inc. denies any wrongdoing. The parties agreed to settle to avoid the risks and costs of further litigation and to provide compensation to affected employees. [GN] LVNV FUNDING: Seeks to File Class Cert Opposition by July 16 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BETSY SHAW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LVNV FUNDING, LLC a foreign limited liability co., and LLOYD & MCDANIEL, PLLC d/b/a LLOYD & MCDANIEL, PLC a foreign limited liability co., Case No. 4:24-cv-00205-MW-MAF (N.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension up to and including Wednesday, July 16, 2025 (14 days) to file memorandum in opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Defendants have shown good cause for the requested extension. Additionally, the Plaintiff will not incur any prejudice if Defendants are afforded the requested relief, as the Plaintiff does not oppose the request. The Plaintiff filed her motion for class certification on June 18, 2025. As such, the Defendants' memorandum in opposition is due on or before July 2, 2025. LVNV is a U.S.-based debt buyer that acquires charged-off consumer debts. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7Bg7p6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: John M. Marees II, Esq. Lauren M. Burnette, Esq. Maureen B. Walsh, Esq. MESSER STRICKLER BURNETTE, LTD. 1200 Riverplace Blvd. Suite 105, #1558 Jacksonville, FL 32207 Telephone: (904) 901-6369 Facsimile: (904) 298-8350 E-mail: lburnette@messerstrickler.com jmarees@messerstrickler.com mwalsh@messerstrickler.com MARKETSOURCE INC: Brum Seeks to Certify Class and Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER BRUM and MICHAEL CAMERO, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, v. MARKETSOURCE, INC. WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS MARYLAND MARKETSOURCE, INC., a Maryland corporation; ALLEGIS GROUP, INC., a Maryland corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:17-cv-00241-DAD-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. Certifying the following Class and Subclasses: Class: All individuals employed by Defendants in California as non- exempt, hourly paid employees who worked for Marketsource in a retail capacity at any time from Jan. 3, 2013 through the date of class certification ("Class Period") and did not execute an arbitration agreement: Regular Rate Subclass: "All Class Members employed from Jan. 3, 2013, to April 1, 2015 who earned a non-discretionary bonus and/or incentive payment during the same week they earned overtime wages." Off-the-Clock Subclass: "All Class Members required to attend off-the-clock meetings and/or conference calls from Jan. 3, 2013, to the date of certification." Rest Break and Rest Break Premium Subclass: "All Class Members who worked at least one shift of three and one-half hours or more during the Class Period." Meal Break Premium Subclass: "All Class Members who worked at least one shift of more than five hours during the Class Period and recorded their time through Natural Insight." Business Expense Subclass: "All Class Members, excluding Field Service Representatives, employed by the Defendants from Jan. 3, 2014, though the date of class certification." Final Pay Subclass: "All Class Members who ended their employment with the Defendants at any time from Jan. 3, 2014, through the date of class certification." Wage Statement Subclass: "All Class Members who received at least one wage statement from Jan. 3, 2016, though the date of class certification." 2. Appointing the Plaintiff Jennifer Brum and Michael Camero as representatives for the proposed Class and Subclasses; and 3. Appointing Capstone Law APC and Lebe Law as Class Counsel for the proposed Class and Subclasses. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FKqwkQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Melissa Grant, Esq. Bevin Allen Pike, Esq. Daniel S. Jonathan, Esq. Trisha K. Monesi, Esq. Shealene P. Mancuso, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Melissa.Grant@capstonelawyers.com Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com Daniel.Jonathan@capstonelawyers.com Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com Shealene.Mancuso@capstonelawyers.com - and - Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq. LEBE LAW 777 S. Alameda Street, Floor 2 Los Angeles, CA 90021-1657 Telephone: (213) 358-7046 E-mail: Jon@lebelaw.com - and - Rodney Mesriani, Esq. MESRIANI LAW GROUP 5723 Melrose Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90038 Telephone: (310) 826-6300 Facsimile: (310) 820-1258 E-mail: Rodney@mesriani.com MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Bid to Seal Class Docs OK'd ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEYYED JAVAD MAADANIAN, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00665-RSL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Robert S. Lasnik entered an order granting motion to seal. The seal is provisional, however: if the sealed materials are so germane to the class certification issues that they are quoted or their substance is otherwise disclosed in the Court's order, the seal will be lifted as to those portions of the documents. Mercedes-Benz is the distributor for Mercedes-Benz passenger cars. A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gcbGpH at no extra charge.[CC] MERCY LIFE: Partial Bid to Dismiss with Prejudice Tossed -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIN CANTON, v. MERCY LIFE CENTER CORPORATION, d/b/a PITTSBURGH MERCY FAMILY HEALTH CENTER, Case No. 2:25-cv-00700-NBF (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Nora Barry Fischer entered an order denying the Defendant's partial motion to dismiss with prejudice. The Court further entered an order that: -- The Plaintiff's motion to strike is DENIED as moot. -- Initial Case Management Conference will be held via video on the July 14, 2025, at 9:30 am. The Plaintiff brings this action through her three-count Complaint, filed in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on April 11, 2025, removed to this Court by the Defendant on May 22nd, and alleging that the Defendant violated the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments of 2008, 42 U.S.C. section 12101, et seq. ("ADA") and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act 43 P.S. section 951, et seq. ("PHRA"). Mercy provides comprehensive medical, health and social services. A copy of the Court's memorandum order dated June 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NRCtpA at no extra charge.[CC] MI RINCONCITO: Gacia Suit Seeks Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- ARIANNA GARCIA, on behalf of herself, individually, and all other persons similarly situated v. MI RINCONCITO COLOMBIANO CORPORATION and ROCIO SUAREZ, Case No. 2:25-cv-12557 (D.N.J., July 1, 2025) seeks to recover overtime pay, minimum wage, and full payment pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law (NJWHL), and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law (NJWPL). Accordingly, the Defendants often failed to provide the Plaintiff with an uninterrupted meal break. Also, the Defendants required Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff did work, more than 40 hours during many of her workweeks. The Defendants employed the Plaintiff as a non-exempt server and later bartender from on Jan. 6, 2024, until Nov. 25, 2024. In these positions, Plaintiff was responsible for serving food to customers, taking orders from customers, answering calls from customers, performing work at Defendants' bar, making drinks for customers, cleaning the bar, and cleaning and rolling silverware. MI RINCONCITO COLOMBIANO CORPORATION is a restaurant, located in West New York, New Jersey that serves Latin American cuisine.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Farnworth, Esq. David D. Barnhorn, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 E-mail: mfarnworth@romerolawny.com MOUNTAIRE FARMS: Faces Haff Class Suit Over No-Poach Agreement -------------------------------------------------------------- HAFF POULTRY, INC.; NANCY BUTLER; JAMES MICHAEL MERCER; JONATHAN WALTERS; MARC MCENTIRE; KAREN MCENTIRE; and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MOUNTAIRE FARMS, INC.; MOUNTAIRE FARMS OF DELAWARE, INC.; PECO FOODS, INC.; HOUSE OF RAEFORD FARMS INC.; HOUSE OF RAEFORD FARMS OF LOUISIANA, LLC; GEORGE'S INC.; GEORGE'S CHICKEN, LLC; OZARK MOUNTAIN POULTRY, INC.; GEORGE'S FOODS, LLC; GEORGE'S PROCESSING, INC.; (FOSTER FARMS LLC; AMICK FARMS, LLC; CASE FOODS, INC.; CASE FARMS PROCESSING, INC.; FIELDDALE FARMS CORP.; MAR-JAC POULTRY, INC.; MAR-JAC POULTRY MS, LLC; MAR-JAC POULTRY AL, LLC; MAR-JAC POULTRY, LLC; MAR-JAC HOLDINGS, INC.; O.K. FOODS, INC.; SIMMONS FOODS, INC.; ALLEN HARIM FOODS LLC; HARRISON POULTRY, INC.; CLAXTON POULTRY FARMS D/B/A FRIES FARMS; and NORMAN W. FRIES, INC., D/B/A CLAXTON POULTRY FARMS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 6:25-cv-00217-GLJ (E.D. Okla., July 1, 2025) is an antitrust and unfair competition action on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated broiler chicken growers, seeking treble damages under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and Section 202 of the Packers and Stockyards Act. The case is a class action brought on behalf of a proposed class of broiler chicken (Broiler) growers, also known as poultry growers, against vertically-integrated poultry company defendants, which operate Broiler processing plants, concerning the Integrators' anticompetitive, collusive, predatory, unfair, and bad faith conduct in the domestic market for Broiler growing services. The case involves agreements by the Major Integrators and their Co-Conspirators to reduce competition for Broiler Grow-Out Services by agreeing to limit or eliminate efforts to solicit, recruit, or hire one another's Growers, with the purpose and effect of fixing, maintaining, and/or stabilizing Grower compensation below competitive levels (the "No-Poach Agreement"). By agreeing not to compete for the services of one another's Growers, the Cartel members attempted to insulate themselves from normal competitive pressures. The No-Poach Agreement inoculated the Cartel against competition for Grower pay and "wars" for Grower labor, which would have a market wide ripple effect on Grower compensation because of standardization in Grower contracts and pay rates (for example, Grower pay was not individually negotiated but offered on a take it or leave it basis to all similarly situated Growers). The No-Poach Agreement was designed to keep Growers, as author Christopher Leonard noted in The Meat Racket: The Secret Takeover of America's Food Business, "in a state of indebted servitude, living like modern-day sharecroppers on the ragged edge of bankruptcy." Plaintiff Haff Poultry, Inc. is owned by Steve Haff, his wife, and his father-in-law. Haff began providing Broiler Grow-Out Services for Hudson, a major poultry producer, in Oklahoma in 1996. Mountaire Farms is a privately owned poultry processor founded in 1914 and headquartered in Millsboro, Delaware. Peco Foods is a privately owned poultry processor founded in 1937 and is headquartered in Tuscaloosa, Alabama.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary I. Smith, Jr., Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 580 California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 633-1908 Facsimile: (415) 633-4980 E-mail: gsmith@hausfeld.com - and - Daniel J. Walker, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 2001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 559-9745 E-mail: dwalker@bm.net - and - Cramer, Esq. Patrick F. Madden, Esq. Michaela L. Wallin, Esq. Sarah R. Zimmerman, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: ecramer@bm.net pmadden@bm.net mwallin@bm.net szimmerman@bm.net - and - Larry D. Lahman, Esq. Roger L. Ediger, Esq. Benjamin J. Barker, Esq. Tim E. DeClerck, Esq. MITCHELL DECLERK, PLLC 202 West Broadway Avenue Enid, OK 73701 Telephone: (580) 234-5144 Facsimile: (580) 234-8890 E-mail: ldl@mdpllc.com rle@mdpllc.com ted@mdpllc.com bjb@mdpllc.com - and - Charles D. Gabriel, Esq. CHALMERS, BURCH & ADAMS, LLC North Fulton Satellite Office 5755 North Point Parkway, Suite 251 Alpharetta, GA 30022 Telephone: (678) 735-5903 Facsimile: (678) 735-5905 E-mail: cdgabriel@cpblawgroup.com - and - J. Dudley Butler, Esq. BUTLER FARM & RANCH LAW GROUP, PLLC 499-A Breakwater Drive Benton, MS 39039 Telephone: (662) 673-0091 Facsimile: (662) 673-0091 E-mail: jdb@farmandranchlaw.com - and - Michael L. Silverman, Esq. ROACH LANGSTON BRUNO LLP 205 North Michigan Ave., Suite 810 Chicago, IL 60601 E-mail: msilverman@rlbfirm.com MULTI MEDIA LLC: J.M. Files Suit in S.D. California --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Multi Media, LLC. The case is styled as J.M., M.M., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Multi Media, LLC doing business as: Chaturbate, Case No. 3:25-cv-01672-BEN-SBC (S.D. Cal., June 30, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Multi Media LLC is a tech company specializing in live streaming video platforms and online community forums.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael P. Connett, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 700 South Flower Street, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 974-1740 Email: mconnett@sirillp.com NUNA BABY: Baig Sues Over Defective Convertible Car Seat -------------------------------------------------------- Mirza Baig, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NUNA BABY ESSENTIALS, INC., Case No. 5:25-cv-03327 (E.D. Pa., June 30, 2025), is brought against Defendant for developing, marketing, and distributing the defective "RAVA" Convertible Car Seat ("RAVA" or "RAVA Car Seat") throughout the United States based upon personal knowledge of the allegations pertaining to himself, and upon information, belief, and the investigation of counsel as to all other allegations. The RAVA Car Seats do not meet minimum standards of operating with the necessary level of safety. Defendant designed over 600,000 RAVA Car Seats manufactured between July 16, 2016 and October 25, 2023 without a cover over the front harness adjuster button, which controls the tightness of the Car Seat straps (the "Defect"). As a result of this dangerous Defect, toddlers and children can—and indeed have--loosen the straps of the RAVA Car Seat and even get out of the RAVA Car Seat while their parent is driving. In the worst-case scenario, a child could be insecurely fastened during a car accident, leading to injury or even death. This is a dangerous Defect which Defendant knew of or should have known and warned customers about, and which has been experienced and reported by disappointed consumers firsthand after the point of sale. No reasonable consumer would purchase a premium, expensive car seat to transport babies and children that has or could develop a serious safety defect that could harm or even kill their child. Unfortunately, all consumers who purchased a RAVA Car Seat received a defective and unsafe car seat. The RAVA Car Seats suffer from a significant product safety Defect and as of December 20, 2024, are subject to a major national recall. While some consumers can no longer use their RAVA Car Seats because of the Defect, others, whose RAVA's do not show damage at this time or who simply cannot afford to replace their $550 RAVA, now fear for their children's safety because the Defect can manifest while in ordinary use—indeed, the Defect's manifestation is caused by perfectly ordinary use. Some consumers have resorted to purchasing substitute car seats, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs has purchased a total of three RAVA Car Seats. Nuna develops, manufactures, markets, and sells car seats, including all variations of the RAVA Car Seat.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. Nicholas J. Elia, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Phone: (215) 592-1500 Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com nelia@lfsblaw.com - and - Laurence D. King, Esq. Matthew B. George, Esq. Blair E. Reed, Esq. Clarissa R. Olivares, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: 415-772-4700 Facsimile: 415-772-4707 Email: mgeorge@kaplanfox.com breed@kaplanfox.com colivares@kaplanfox.com OMNEX GROUP: Arias Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing ------------------------------------------------------ Rene Arias, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OMNEX GROUP, INC. D/B/A SHAREMONEY, Case No. 2:25-cv-12335-BRM-LDW (D.N.J., June 30, 2025), is brought against the Defendant's violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA") as a result of the Defendant's unsolicited telemarketing text messages. To promote its goods and services, Defendant engages in telemarketing text messages at unlawful times. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct which has resulted in intrusion into the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal to Plaintiff and the Class members. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of themselves and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person entitled to bring this action under the TCPA. The Defendant is a California Corporation with its headquarters located in Bergen County, New Jersey.[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 OPENAI INC: Denial Sues Over Unlawfully Acquired Copyrighted Works ------------------------------------------------------------------ Catherine Denial, Ian McDowell, and Steven Schwartz, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. OPENAI, INC. OPENAI, L.P., OPENAI OPCO, L.L.C., OPENAI GP, L.L.C.; OPENAI STARTUP FUND I, L.P., OPENAI STARTUP FUND GP I, L.L.C., OPENAI STARTUP FUND MANAGEMENT, LLC., and MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Case No. 3:25-cv-05495-EMC (N.D. Cal., June 30, 2025), is brought representing a class of copyright owners whose works have been unlawfully acquired and exploited, seek not only to hold OpenAI and Microsoft accountable for their actions, but also to deter similar conduct in the future by other GenAI companies and bad actors who seek to exploit their works. In the race to dominate the emerging field of generative artificial intelligence ("GenAI"), OpenAI engaged in a systematic campaign of IP theft and data piracy. In carrying out this scheme, OpenAI engaged in unlawful conduct by copying tens of millions of copyrighted works including articles, essays, and other written works—without the consent of the authors and content creators. OpenAI copied these works from so-called "shadow libraries" or pirated databases that have themselves been the target of numerous legal actions brought by government enforcers for criminal copyright infringement, money laundering, and other claims. In addition to directly downloading massive amounts of pirated data, OpenAI also obtained copies of this data via peer-to-peer file-sharing networks used to facilitate data piracy. This activity violated the rights of countless authors and content creators throughout the United States and undermined foundational principles of innovation through fair competition. OpenAI's disregard of creators' rights was no oversight. OpenAI sought out and torrented, for its commercial use, tens of millions of pirated copyrighted works. OpenAI copied those works without consent, credit, or compensation, and as part of this effort, pirated authors' content through shadow libraries like Library Genesis (aka "libgen" or "LibGen"). OpenAI's disregard for copyright, data piracy laws, and ethical standards was not merely a case of corporate negligence. It was part of a strategy to amass a competitive advantage as fast as possible while knowingly flouting existing laws and rights that protect this country's authors and creators, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are writers owns a registered copyright in multiple works. OpenAI creates, markets and sells artificial intelligence ("AI") software product.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1505 San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: (415) 500-6800 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 Email: jsaveri@saverilawfirrn.com - and - Bryan L. Clobes, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 135 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3210 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 782-4880 Email: bclobes@caffenyclobes.com - and - David Boies, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Phone: (914) 749-8200 Email: dboies@bsfllp.com PAYCHEX NORTH AMERICA: Cudney Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paychex North America, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Matthew Cudney, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Paychex North America, Inc., Paychex Inc., Case No. 25STCV18978 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 30, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Paychex, Inc. -- https://www.paychex.com/ -- is an American company that provides human resources, payroll, and employee benefits outsourcing services for small- to medium-sized businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq. LEBE LAW, APLC 3900 W Alameda, 15th Floor Burbank, CA 91505 Phone: (213) 444-1973 Email: Jon@lebelaw.com - and - Brielle Daniele Edborg, Esq. 1226 Havenhurst Dr., Apt. 1, West Hollywood, CA 90046-4905 Email: bedborg@yahoo.com PESERICO USA: Ariza Sues Over Unlawful Disability Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------------------- Victor Ariza, and others similarly situated v. PESERICO USA, INC., a foreign for-profit corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-22918-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 30, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant owns, controls, maintains, and/or operates an adjunct website, https://us.peserico.com (the "Website"). One of the functions of the Website is to provide the public information on the locations of Defendant's physical stores. Beginning in March 2025, the Plaintiff attempted on a number of occasions to utilize the Website to browse through the merchandise offerings and online offers to educate himself as to the merchandise, sales, services, discounts, and promotions being offered, learn about the brick-and-mortar locations, check store hours, and check merchandise pricing with the intent to make a purchase through the Website or in, from, and through the physical store located in the Sawgrass Mills Mall. The Plaintiff utilizes available screen reader software that allows individuals who are blind and visually disabled to communicate with websites. However, the Defendant's Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by blind and visually disabled individuals using keyboards and available screen reader software. The Defendant has not created and instituted on the Website a useful and effective page for individuals with disabilities, nor displayed a proper link and information hotline, nor created a proper information portal explaining when and how the Defendant will have the Website, applications, and digital assets accessible to the visually disabled and/or blind communities. Thus, the Defendant has not provided full and equal access to, and enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations provided by and through the Website and the physical stores in contravention of the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and at all relevant times has been blind and visually disabled in that he suffers from optical nerve atrophy. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls a chain of stores selling men and women's designer clothing, shoes, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roderick V. Hannah, Esq. RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A. Counsel for Plaintiff 4800 N. Hiatus Road Sunrise, FL 33351 Phone: 954/362-3800 Facsimile: 954/3623779 - and - Pelavo M. Duran, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO DURAN, P.A. 6355 NW. 36th Street, Suite 307 Virginia Gardens, FL 33166 Phone: 305/266-9780 Facsimile: 305/269-8311 Email: duranandassociates@gmail.com PETCO HEALTH: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set August 29 ------------------------------------------------------------ Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is investigating potential claims against Petco Health and Wellness Company, Inc. ("Petco" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: WOOF) and reminds investors of the August 29, 2025 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed against the Company. Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading national securities law firm with offices in New York, Pennsylvania, California and Georgia. The firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors since its founding in 1995. See www.faruqilaw.com. As detailed below, the complaint alleges that the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by making false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1) Petco's pandemic-related tailwinds were unsustainable, as was its business model of selling primarily premium and/or high-grade pet food; (2) accordingly, the strength of Petco's differentiated product strategy was overstated; (3) Defendants downplayed the true scope and severity of the foregoing issues, the magnitude of changes needed to rectify those issues, and the likely negative impacts of their mitigation strategy on Petco's comparable sales metric; (4) accordingly, Defendants overstated Petco's ability to deliver sustainable, profitable growth; and (5) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On June 5, 2025, Petco issued a press release reporting its financial results for the first quarter of 2025. Among other items, Petco reported net sales of $1.5 billion, representing a 2.3% year-over-year decline. On this news, Petco's stock price fell $0.85 per share, or 23.34%, to close at $2.78 per share on June 6, 2025. The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead plaintiff or not. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding Petco's conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. [GN] PRECISION TAX: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Devito Says --------------------------------------------------------- JOHN DEVITO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. PRECISION TAX RELIEF, L.L.C., Case No. 2:25-cv-00347-DKG (D. Idaho, July 2, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard personal identifiable information of its current and former customers and other individuals, including names and Social Security numbers. On May 30, 2025, the Defendant learned of a data breach on its network that occurred on or around April 1, 2025 (the Data Breach). The Defendant determined that, during the Data Breach, an unknown actor viewed or copied the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members. On May 15, 2025, reports began surfacing on the Internet that Defendant had been attacked by the Akira ransomware group and that 123 gigabytes of data had been acquired during the Data Breach. According to its website, the Defendant provides assistance with tax problems, including filing back tax returns and negotiating offers in compromise. Prior to and through April 1, 2025, the Defendant obtained the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members, including by collecting it directly from Plaintiff and Class Members. The Defendant provides personalized and ethical tax relief services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jaren Wieland, Esq. MOONEY WIELAND WARREN 512 W. Idaho St., Suite 103 Boise, ID 83702 Telephone: (208) 401-9219 Facsimile: (888) 234-8543 E-mail: jaren.wieland.service@mooneywieland.com - and - Patrick A. Barthle, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP Florida Bar No. 99286 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 229-4023 Facsimile: (813) 222-4708 E-mail: pbarthle@ForThePeople.com - and - Ryan D. Maxey, Esq. MAXEY LAW FIRM, P.A. 107 N. 11th St. No. 402 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 448-1125 E-mail: ryan@maxeyfirm.com QUALITY CLEANERS: Jenkins Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Quality Cleaners LLC. The case is styled as Howard Jenkins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Quality Cleaners LLC doing business as: Royal Hive Cleaning, Case No. 9:25-cv-80819-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 30, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Quality Cleaners LLC doing business as Royal Hive Cleaning -- https://www.royalhivecleaning.com/ -- offers premium cleaning services in Palm Beach County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com RED LOBSTER: Baker Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Winston Baker, Jr., on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. RED LOBSTER RESTAURANTS LLC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV14064 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 30, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-05951. The Plaintiff's Complaint pleads causes of action for: failure to pay minimum wages in violation of California Labor Code Sections 1194, 1194.2, and 1197 and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 5, codified at California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 11050; failure to authorize or permit meal periods in violation of California Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512; failure to authorize or permit rest periods in violation of California Labor Code Section 226.7; failure to provide complete and accurate itemized wage statements in violation of California Labor Code Section 226; failure to pay all wages timely upon separation of employment in violation of California Labor Code Sections 201, 202, and 203; and unfair business practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Shareef S. Farag, Esq. Nicholas D. Poper, Esq. Matthew P. Eaton, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310.820.8800 Facsimile: 310.820.8859 Email: sfarag@bakerlaw.com npoper@bakerlaw.com meaton@bakerlaw.com ROBLOX CORP: Class Cert Reply Brief Extension Sought ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARACELY SOUCEK, et al., v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-04146-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the: -- Plaintiffs' deadline to oppose Roblox's MTD from July 7, 2025, to July 14, 2025, and -- Roblox's reply brief from July 14, 2025 to July 24, 2025. The Plaintiffs previously filed the first amended complaint on Sept. 30, 2024. Roblox answered the FAC on October 30, 2024. Roblox subsequently filed an amended answer and cross-claims on November 20, 2024 The Plaintiffs filed the SAC on June 2, 2025. On June 12, 2025, the parties filed a joint stipulation and proposed order to enlarge Roblox's deadline to respond to the Plaintiffs' SAC from June 16 to June 23, 2025. The Court signed the proposed order on June 16, 2025. Roblox is an American video game developer. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rLpeIK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Aaron Freedman, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF AARON N. FREEDMAN 700 Broadway, New York, NY 1000 Telephone: (212) 558-5500 Facsimile: (212) 344-5461 - and - Tiana Demas, Esq. BIO COOLEY GLOBAL LAW FIRM E-mail: tdemas@cooley.com Telephone (212) 479 6560 RRH VICTORY INC: Aguilar Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against RRH Victory Inc. The case is styled as Edwin G. Sanchez Aguilar, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. RRH Victory Inc., Case No. 25STCV18947 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 30, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com RV DEPOT LLC: George Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Texas -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against RV Depot LLC. The case is styled as Adam George, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RV Depot LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-01692-L (N.D. Tex., June 30, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. RV Depot LLC -- https://www.rv-depot.com/ -- are dedicated in offering high-quality, pre-owned vehicles to our customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com SAN DIEGO, CA: Eulitt Suit Seeks to Stay All Proceedings -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANDY A. EULITT, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO, CA, Case No. 3:18-cv-02721-RBM-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order staying all proceedings, including the deadline to respond to the Defendant's motion to dismiss and motion to strike, until the Court has ruled on the Plaintiff's forthcoming motions for (1) appointment of counsel and (2) class certification. The action arises from systemic constitutional and statutory violations committed by the City of San Diego. San Diego is a city on the Pacific coast of California known for its beaches, parks and warm climate. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=svTotu at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff appears pro se. Sandy Eulitt 49 El Prado Lane Oceanside, CA 92058 Telephone: (949) 295-9152 E-mail: thebubblyone@gmail.co SANFORD ELECTRIC: Herrick Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- PENNY HERRICK and DANIEL SANCHEZ, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. SANFORD ELECTRIC COMPANY II, INC. and ROBIN NEILEN, Individually, Case No. 8:25-cv-01700-JSM-AAS (M.D. July 1, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs regularly and routinely worked in excess of 40 hours in a work week but were not paid time and a half for all hours worked over 40 in the workweek. The Plaintiffs' were electricians working on a project at the Sarasota International Airport. Mr. Herrick began her employment on October 9, 2024, until January 20, 2025. Mr. Sanchez began his employment on October 28, 2024, until January 17, 2025. The Defendants provide full-service electrical repairs, maintenance and installation.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Miguel Bouzas, Esq. Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq. FLORIN|GRAY 16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100 Lutz, FL 33558 Telephone (727) 220-4000 Facsimile (727) 483-7942 E-mail: wflorin@fgbolaw.com MBouzas@floringray.com angela@floringray.com SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Aug. 25 ------------------------------------------------------------------ If you suffered a loss on your Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:SRPT) investment and want to learn about a potential recovery under the federal securities laws, follow the link below for more information: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/sarepta-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=155150&wire=1&utm_campaign=27 or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or call (212) 363-7500 to speak to our team of experienced shareholder advocates. THE LAWSUIT: A class action securities lawsuit was filed against Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. that seeks to recover losses of shareholders who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between June 22, 2023 and June 24, 2025. CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made false statements and/or concealed that: (i) ELEVIDYS, a prescription gene therapy for Duchenne, posed significant safety risks to patients; (ii) ELEVIDYS trial regimes and protocols failed to detect severe side effects; (iii) the severity of adverse events from ELEVIDYS treatment would cause the Company to halt recruitment and dosing in ELEVIDYS trials, attract regulatory scrutiny, and create greater risk around the therapy's present and expanded approvals; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, defendants materially misled with, and/or lacked a reasonable basis for, their positive statements. WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Sarepta stock during the relevant time frame -- even if you still hold your shares -- go to https://zlk.com/pslra-1/sarepta-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=155150&wire=1&utm_campaign=27 to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or obligation to participate. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 https://zlk.com/ [GN] SHENZHEN SMOORE: B.Z. Sues Over Cannabis Vaporizers' Price Fixing ----------------------------------------------------------------- B.Z., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHENZHEN SMOORE TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, LTD. SMOORE INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LIMITED JUPITER RESEARCH, LLC 3WIN CORPORATION, CB SOLUTIONS, LLC d/b/a CANNA BRAND SOLUTIONS GREENLANE HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-07482 (N.D. Ill., July 2, 2025) alleges that the Defendants' anticompetitive agreements not to compete and maintain artificially high prices of closed cannabis vaporization systems resulting in substantial foreclosure of competition throughout the wholesale distribution market. According to the complaint, Cannabis oil producers and other consumers of the Products are almost entirely dependent on the Defendants for their supply of the closed cannabis vaporization systems. The Defendants' agreements not to compete, pricing restrictions, and allocation of customers constitute a horizontal price fixing and market allocation scheme. Smoore's anticompetitive distribution agreements and restrictions on the Distributor Defendants prevent price competition in the wholesale distribution market by depriving distributors of alternate sources of supply, preventing potential entrants or competitors in the manufacturing market from accessing wholesale distribution channels, locking Distributor Defendants into exclusively selling only Smoore's products, preventing Distributor Defendants from competing directly with Smoore in the manufacture of the Products, preventing Distributor Defendants from competing for Smoore's customers, and preventing Distributor Defendants from competing with one another or with Smoore on prices, says the suit. The Defendants' actions and omissions, including the investigation of their counsel, and seeking actual damages, treble damages, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, and reasonable costs and attorneys' fees. Vaporization involves the heating of hash oil or cannabis plant material to release aerosolized cannabinoids, including tetrahydra cannabinol ("THC") and cannabidiol, which is often combined with water vapor and inhaled. Cannabis users typically use one of two similar devices for vaporizing cannabis: (1) closed cannabis oil vaporizing systems that employ a reusable electronic pen that combines with a cartridge and mouth piece that is filled with cannabis oil or extract; or (2) "all-in-one" devices, which include both parts in one device. As much as 85-90% of all cannabis oil vaporization systems are of the first type— systems that contain a reusable electronic pen, where additional cannabis filled cartridges can be purchased separately by the end-consumer. The vape cartridge and the remainder of the vape system or “battery” can be sold together or separately to end consumers. Manufacturers of closed cannabis oil vaporization devices do not produce cannabis oil. Manufacturers sell the devices or just the unfilled cannabis vape cartridges to wholesale distributors or directly to cannabis oil producers that fill the cartridges with cannabis oil and then sell the devices with cannabis oil to retailers and consumers. Smoore is a Chinese company that manufactures and distributes empty cannabis vape cartridges, mouth pieces, trays of deformable material with voids for holding cartridge bodies, trays of deformable material with voids for holding mouthpieces, and coverings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Russell Busch, Esq. Nick Suciu III, Esq. Trenton Kashima, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 227 W. Monroe St., Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (630) 796-0903 E-mail: rbusch@milberg.com nsuciu@milberg.com tkashima@milberg.com SHIMANO NORTH: Proposed Deal Hearing in Crankset Suit Set Aug. 4 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dean Yobbi, writing for Bicycle Retailer, reports that retailers would get more tools and training to process Shimano's Hollowtech II crank recall, and consumers would get an extra two years of warranty coverage under a proposed settlement reached between a group of plaintiffs and Shimano North America. A judge must still approve the agreement. Less than two weeks after Shimano announced the recall in September 2023, three Shimano crank owners sued, naming Shimano, Trek Bicycle, Specialized Bicycle and Giant in California Central District Court in Santa Ana. Eleven more plaintiffs were later added as the case became a consolidated class action suit. None of the plaintiffs was physically injured from a crank failure but said they were harmed and endangered because they said Shimano was aware of the crank failures for 10 years before the recall and the recall action was inconvenient and inadequate. BRAIN reached out to Shimano on Tuesday, July 1, for comment but a representative was not immediately available. The parties have been negotiating a settlement since early in the proceedings. As one of the final steps toward asking the court for approval of their settlement, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in June, repeating their claim that Shimano's recall remedy is "a nightmare for riders and bike shops." They continued: "Owners are left without usable bicycles while they get in line with hundreds of thousands of other impacted cyclists to schedule and await an inspection," the amended complaint reads. "When the inspection finally happens, a local bicycle mechanic is tasked with making a complex engineering judgment to determine whether the crankset shows sufficient deterioration to merit replacement. Worse, those consumers whose Defective Cranksets are judged not to warrant immediate replacement -- i.e., those consumers whose cranksets do not 'show signs of bonding separation or delamination during the inspection' -- are left in the frightening position of having to continue riding a dangerous bicycle, waiting on their cranksets to separate and potentially cause a crash before Shimano will give them a new one." The second amended complaint removed some claims and one plaintiff from the earlier complaint. Shimano denied the claims in a motion to dismiss the case in February 2024. "There is a fundamental problem with this class action: it seeks to punish a company that has responded correctly to consumers' concerns -- standing by its products, its customers, and its warranty," Shimano said in the motion. It continued: "According to Plaintiffs' own complaint, 99.4% of those cranksets functioned exactly as intended. However, in September 2023, Shimano voluntarily recalled Hollowtech II cranksets manufactured before July 2019, based on a small number of reports of "bonding separation" -- that is, separation or delamination of metal components. Shimano acted responsibly and with integrity in response to these reports. It offered, and continues to offer, free inspections and (if there is any sign of separation) free replacements with free installation to owners of the cranksets Plaintiffs claim are "defective" ("Designated Cranksets"). Shimano worked cooperatively with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission to develop this voluntary recall, and the agency approved Shimano's plan. Shimano has gone beyond what the law requires . . ." Under the proposed settlement Shimano must overhaul its voluntary recall inspection process, mandate enhanced training and equipment for retailers handling the recall, and guarantee a free replacement crankset for any units showing signs of bonding separation or delamination, among other remedies. A settlement hearing is set for July 28 before Judge James V. Selna, and the sides submitted a proposed approval order dated Aug. 4. If the order is approved, the settlement asks for a final approval hearing on Feb. 2. Under the settlement terms, Shimano will provide retailers with an "approved enhanced manual" developed in consultation with "an expert who reviewed the defendants documents and analyzed the root causes of bonding separation and breakage." The brand also has to make a "retail assistance agent" available to support retailers who have questions about how to perform the inspections. In addition, Shimano: -- reviewed and understands the training materials, use a magnifying device provided during all inspections, and contact the retail assistance agent with any questions regarding inspection protocols. Court documents indicate Shimano will provide a magnifier similar to this $33 Carson device. Previous Shimano dealer recall materials recommended that retailers inspect with an 11x magnifier but did not provide the device. -- Must extend its express warranty's coverage of bonding separation and delamination by two years from the date of the settlement's preliminary approval. -- Will reimburse settlement class members who previously replaced a defective crankset for out-of-pocket costs associated with those replacements. -- Pay each of the 14 plaintiffs, as Class Representatives, a $500 Service Award. -- Hire a firm that communicates class action notices, Epiq Legal Noticing, to promote the settlement to potential members of the class, via targeted digital advertising and other media, starting Aug. 25. In addition to a jury trial, the plaintiffs were asking for among other remedies the purchase price of the crankset and/or the bike it came on reimbursed with interest, expenses for damages and attorney fees, and for Shimano to disclose the safety risks of the cranksets and the bikes they were spec'd on to anyone who could be at risk of using them in the future. Shimano and the Consumer Product Safety Commission jointly announced in September 2023 that 760,000 cranks in the U.S. needed to be examined for signs of delamination with consumers being told to visit an authorized retailer for inspection. Shimano submitted the proposed settlement agreement to the CPSC in May this year; the commission approved the settlement. According to Shimano's recall notice, the cranks requiring inspection -- Dura-Ace and Ultegra Hollowtech II models manufactured before July 2019 -- can separate and break. Shimano received reports of 4,519 incidents of separation, and six reported injuries, including bone fractures, joint displacement, and lacerations. The suit's lead plaintiff is Jarett Hawkins, a Solana Beach, California, man who bought a Specialized Tarmac SL 6 Comp Edition with a Shimano Ultegra crank in July 2020. In 2022, more than a year before the recall, Hawkins broke a crank, which Shimano replaced under warranty. However, the complaint reads, the replacement was still "defective and substantially certain to fail." "Thus, Mr. Hawkins is left with a dangerous Defective Crankset and he is forced to either continue riding a dangerous bicycle equipped with a Defective Cranks -- risking a crash or personal injury -- or choose to pay, out of pocket, to replace the Defective Crankset," the amended complaint read. A retailer's perspective was provided by Roderick Russell, owner of BG Bicycle-Pro Bicycle Shop in Houma, Louisiana, who filed a declaration that the plaintiffs submitted to the court in June. Russell declared that the visual inspection Shimano instructed mechanics to perform was inadequate to identify bonding separation or delamination that could lead to crank failure. He said he had inspected about a dozen cranks that were subject to the recall and "failed" all of them because he lacked the tools to determine if a crank was safe. "I will not send cyclists back out onto the road with a crankset that may spontaneously fail in the future," he wrote in part. He also said he stopped selling some Shimano cranksets and returned his inventory to the company. In its 2024 full-year financial highlights report, Shimano said it had set aside 17.6 billion yen (about $123 million at current exchange rates) to pay for its global "free inspection" Hollowtech II program, accounting for costs incurred and predicted. The company hasn't itemized the program's costs since that report. Bicycle Retailer reported on the recall and retailer reaction to it in a March 2024 article. [GN] TEAM HEALTH: Class Cert Bid Filing in Buncombe Due May 15, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, et al., v. TEAM HEALTH HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Case No. 3:22-CV-00420-DCLC-DCP (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Clifton L. Corker entered an order class certification scheduling order: Deadline to serve all written discovery in Aug. 1, 2025 Phase 1: Deadline for Plaintiffs to serve expert Jan. 5, 2026 Reports: Deadline for the Defendants to serve expert Feb. 13, 2026 Reports: Deadline for the Plaintiffs to serve March 13, 2026 rebuttal expert reports: Deadline to file class certification motion May 15, 2026 and Daubert motions: Deadline to file opposition to class June 18, 2026 certification motion and responses to Daubert motions: Deadline to file reply in support of class July 10, 2026 certification motion and replies to Daubert motions: TeamHealth is a physician practice in the US. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pwkxdU at no extra charge.[CC] TEAM HEALTH: Class Cert Bid Filing in Plaquemine Due May 15, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CITY OF PLAQUEMINE AND RISK MANAGEMENT, v. TEAM HEALTH HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00111-DCLC-DCP (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Clifton L. Corker entered an order class certification scheduling order: Deadline to serve all written discovery in Aug. 1, 2025 Phase 1: Deadline for Plaintiffs to serve expert Jan. 5, 2026 Reports: Deadline for the Defendants to serve expert Feb. 13, 2026 Reports: Deadline for the Plaintiffs to serve March 13, 2026 rebuttal expert reports: Deadline to file class certification motion May 15, 2026 and Daubert motions: Deadline to file opposition to class June 18, 2026 certification motion and responses to Daubert motions: Deadline to file reply in support of class July 10, 2026 certification motion and replies to Daubert motions: TeamHealth is a physician practice in the US. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=muT4wR at no extra charge.[CC] TOYOTA MOTOR: Class Cert Hearing in Mixon Suit Due July 22, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEM MIXON, ET AL., v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, ET AL., Case No. 4:24-cv-01018-ALM (E.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Amos Mazzant entered an order as follows: July 3, 2025 Deadlines for motions to transfer. July 24, 2025 Deadline to add parties Dec. 19, 2025 Close of fact discovery. April 2, 2026 Close of expert discovery. May 15, 2026 Date by which Plaintiffs Must File Motion for Class Certification. June 15, 2026 Date by which Defendants Must File Response in Opposition to Motion for Class Certification. June 29, 2026 Reply in Further Support of Motion for Class Certification. July 15, 2026 Sur-Reply in Further Support of Opposition to Motion for Class Certification July 22, 2026 Hearing on Class Certification at 9:00 a.m. Sept. 3, 2026 Final Pretrial Conference at 9:00 a.m. at the Paul Brown United States Courthouse Toyota is a Japanese multinational automotive manufacturer. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Edcki1 at no extra charge.[CC] TRUE BLUE: Faces Connors Over Illegal Automatic Renewal Scheme -------------------------------------------------------------- Monte Connors, Dominique Dean, Melissa Millsaps, and Raja Bellani, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. True Blue Car Wash LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, d/b/a Rainstorm Car Wash and Clean Freak Car Wash, Case No. 2:25-cv-02318-ROS (D. Ariz., July 2, 2025) is a class action lawsuit against True Blue for allegedly engaging in an illegal "automatic renewal" scheme with respect to its membership plans and in doing so, violating the Illinois Automatic Contract Renewal Act, the Illinois Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and unjustly enriching itself at the expense of Plaintiffs and the Classes. Accordingly, the Defendant offers individual car washes and car washes under a membership or subscription model. Customers who visit the Defendant's physical car wash locations are regularly signed up for automatically renewing car wash memberships without their knowledge or consent. Specifically, customers that fall prey to the Defendant's scheme believe they are only purchasing a single car wash but are instead enrolled in a car wash membership by Defendant, says the suit. The Defendant is a car wash operator that owns and operates physical car wash locations across the United States, including in Illinois, Indiana, Arizona, and Texas.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan J. Ellersick, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 14648 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 130 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Telephone: (480) 348-6400 Facsimile: (480) 348-6415 E-mail: ryan.ellersick@zimmreed.com - and - Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. Tyler B. Ewigleben, Esq. Winston S. Hudson, Esq. JENNINGS & EARLEY PLLC 500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 110 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (601) 270-0197 E-mail: chris@jefirm.com tyler@jefirm.com winston@jefirm.com UNDERDOG SPORTS: Operates Illegal Gambling Websites, Head Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- O'SEAN HEAD, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. UNDERDOG SPORTS, LLC d/b/a UNDERDOG FANTASY, AND DOES 1- 10, Case No. 3:25-cv-05542 (July 1, 2025) alleges that Underdog has been operating mobile gambling applications and websites within California (Gambling Websites), representing to customers and the public that its daily fantasy sports contests, such as "Drafts" and "Pick'em," are legal forms of gambling in California, though in reality they are not. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the proposed class of similarly situated Californians, brings this lawsuit to stop the unlawful gambling that occurs on Underdog's Gambling Websites in California and to recover the money that Underdog has unlawfully taken from him and the proposed class. The Plaintiff was over the age of 18 and was a resident of Contra Costa County, California. Underdog regularly conducts business within California by running the alleged illegal Gambling Websites.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Wesley M. Griffith, Esq. Christopher Nienhaus, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 111 W. Ocean Blvd, Suite 426 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: 310-896-5813 E-mail: wes@almeidalawgroup.com chris@almeidalawgroup.com - and - Margot P. Cutter, Esq. CUTTER LAW P.C. 401 Watt Avenue Sacramento, CA 95864 Telephone: 916-290-9400 E-mail: mcutter@cutterlaw.com - and - F. Peter Silva II, Esq. Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq. Robert M. Devling, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1010 Washington, District of Columbia 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 E-mail: psilva@tzlegal.com kaizpuru@tzlegal.com rdevling@tzlegal.com - and - James Bilsborrow, Esq. Aaron Freedman, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG PC 700 Broadway New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 558-5500 E-mail: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com afreedman@weitzlux.com UNITED STATES: Fired Scientists Sue Over Privacy Act Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Colin Kalmbacher, writing for Law&Crime, reports that a group of scientists is suing the Trump administration after they lost their jobs at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in a firing spree led by the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) earlier this year, according to a lawsuit filed Monday, June 30. In a 42-page complaint, ecologist Arianna Goodman -- along with three other former NOAA employees -- says the federal government, led by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), acting on DOGE guidance, fired hundreds of workers "for cause based on performance issues that were entirely inconsistent with their personnel records." The lawsuit, at essence, alleges formalistic subterfuge in service of President Donald Trump's widely-publicized plans "to slash the size of the federal bureaucracy." In early February, "DOGE representatives visited NOAA offices and gained access to the agency's IT systems," the filing notes. Then, in late February, some 100 NOAA employees -- including researchers, biologists, ecologists, meteorologists, researchers, and computer engineers -- "were terminated." "That afternoon, affected employees received a boilerplate memorandum via email, notifying them that they were being terminated for cause during their probationary period," the lawsuit reads. "On information and belief, the email used the exact same justification for every employee who was fired." Goodman offers her own experience as typical. The complaint relays a portion of an email that told her she was "not fit for continued employment" based on OPM guidance to "assess employee performance and manage staffing levels." "But that just cannot be right," the lawsuit reads. "Ms. Goodman had received uniformly positive feedback about her work, and her records contained no indication that she had ever done anything other than meet or exceed expectations. In fact, Ms. Goodman had recently received a performance-based pay increase, and one of her supervisors described her as 'an outstanding performer' and 'a tremendous employee' who was 'integral' to her team's work." The plaintiffs juxtapose the government's justifications with how at least some of the fired employees were recently reviewed. "Hundreds of probationary employees at NOAA faced the same situation: permanent marks on their employment history stating they had been fired for cause based on performance issues that were entirely inconsistent with their personnel records," the lawsuit goes on. To hear the plaintiffs tell it, the firings have nothing to do with performance at all. Rather, they argue, the form letter-provided excuses are just thin papering over the Trump administration's widely-telegraphed disdain for federal workers. "For months, the Trump Administration has engaged in extensive purges of the federal workforce," the lawsuit goes on. "A central justification offered by Administration officials, especially early on, was that the federal government was filled with poor performers. These officials implied or outright stated that federal employees were lazy and inefficient." The lawsuit offers several examples, at length: Defendants' decision to fire probationary employees for performance reasons -- without a shred of support -- was intentional, and appeared to be motivated in part by the Trump Administration's deep-seated animus toward federal workers. President Trump has likened federal workers to "cancer" and referred to the federal workforce as "crooked" and "dishonest." Elon Musk -- the leader of DOGE, which instigated the probationary purge through OPM -- compared federal workers to those who worked for Stalin, Mao, and Hitler. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick implied that those who complain about DOGE's cuts to government capacity are being dishonest: "A fraudster always makes the loudest noise, screaming, yelling and complaining." And Russell Vought, now a senior administration official, previously said that his goal in reforming the government was for federal workers to be "traumatically affected." This campaign of layoffs, undergirded not by the actual performance of NOAA employees, but instead a desire to simply fire people, the plaintiffs argue, has resulted in their "unlawful termination." While many similarly situated lawsuits filed by fired or to-be-fired federal workers have used the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), to try and regain their jobs, the NOAA workers are trying a different route. Rather than suing for reinstatement, these workers are looking for actual damages -- in an amount to be determined at trial. The complaint also instead relies on the Privacy Act -- alleging the federal government, with various degrees of liability, inadequately managed databases and then promoted intentionally false records. "Defendants' maintenance of inaccurate, irrelevant, untimely, and/or incomplete personnel records caused them to terminate Plaintiffs' employment, supposedly based on poor job performance, which was an adverse determination," one count explains. "Following Plaintiffs' terminations, Defendants have further maintained inaccurate, irrelevant, untimely, and/or incomplete personnel records related to the unlawful terminations." Another count explains, at length: When NOAA, on behalf of Commerce, disseminated termination notices stating that Plaintiffs' terminations were based on performance, those were inaccurate records about individuals. When NOAA, on behalf of Commerce, disseminated [form letters] stating that Plaintiffs' terminations were based on performance, those were inaccurate records about individuals. On information and belief, Commerce and NOAA knew that these records were inaccurate--or otherwise had not undertaken reasonable efforts to verify their accuracy -- and disseminated them anyway. Commerce and NOAA acted intentionally and/or willfully. The plaintiffs are also seeking class certification -- an effort that, if successful, could result in a large price tag should the lawsuit succeed. [GN] UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER: Class Settlement Hearing Set November 13 ----------------------------------------------------------------- George Gandy, writing for Rochester First, reports that The University of Rochester is looking to settle a lawsuit regarding remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. In a statement, a spokesperson for UR said they agreed to a settlement in the lawsuit, but do not admit to any wrongdoing. They say faculty successfully adapted their course formats and ensured students continued their work without interruption. The lawsuit alleges that many of the university's in-person classes could not be taught properly in an online format, arguing that the plaintiffs paid for a robust education and a full experience of academic life. They sought compensatory relief. The university is ordered to put a notice about the settlement on an available website, allowing any affected parties to opt out of or object to the settlement. A hearing is scheduled for November 13, 2025, to determine the final approval of this settlement. This comes as UR is proposing a settlement in another lawsuit regarding its URMC website and MyChart. That lawsuit accused the university of violating privacy laws regarding the website. URMC denies the claims, but agreed to the settlement to avoid further litigation. The final hearing regarding the URMC and MyChart lawsuit is scheduled for August 21, 2025. You can read the full statement from UR below: The University of Rochester provided excellent education to its students throughout the period of remote instruction, helping ensure they were able to continue working toward their degrees without academic interruption. During this time, University faculty successfully adapted their course formats to the extraordinary public health circumstances, in effort to help protect the health and safety of Rochester students, faculty and staff. Despite this and with no admission of wrongdoing, the University of Rochester has agreed to a settlement in this class action lawsuit in order to avoid the prolonged time and expense of continued litigation. [GN] UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA: Appeal Filed in Student Refund Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- WUSF reports that ValerieMarie Moore filed a notice of appealing a June 3 ruling to the 2nd District Court of Appeal. The case is one of numerous similar lawsuits filed in Florida and other states seeking refunds for students. The named plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit has appealed after a Hillsborough County circuit judge rejected arguments that the University of South Florida should refund money to students because services were not available during a COVID-19 campus shutdown in 2020. Attorneys for plaintiff ValerieMarie Moore filed a notice Saturday, June 28, of appealing Judge Darren Farfante's June 3 ruling to the 2nd District Court of Appeal. The case is one of numerous similar lawsuits filed in Florida and other states seeking refunds for students. The Florida lawsuits have centered on fees that students paid for services such as transportation and athletics, not tuition. Farfante ruled that the USF Board of Trustees, the defendant in the case, was entitled to sovereign immunity, a concept that generally shields government agencies from liability. He wrote that it had not been shown that USF policies and regulations "contain any language obligating USF to provide any specific in-person or on-campus services at any specific time." The Florida Supreme Court is considering a similar case involving the University of Florida. [GN] VIKI INC: Settles Data Privacy Class Action Lawsuit for $8MM ------------------------------------------------------------ ClaimDepot reports that Consumers who had a Viki account and accessed videos on Viki.com while also having a Facebook account between Jan. 12, 2016, and July 30, 2024, may be eligible to submit a claim for an estimated $30 to $150 cash payment from a class action settlement. Viki Inc. agreed to pay $8,000,000 to settle a class action lawsuit that alleged the company disclosed users' identities and video-viewing preferences to Facebook without their consent in violation of federal law. Who is eligible for a VPPA settlement payout? Class members must meet the following criteria: -- They had both a Viki account and a Facebook account any time between Jan. 12, 2016, and July 30, 2024. -- They requested or obtained video content on the Viki website (viki.com) one or more times during the class period. -- They were physically located in the United States at the time they accessed the content. How much is the class action payment? Pro rata cash payment: Eligible claimants will receive a cash payment estimated between $30 and $150. Final payment amount will be determined by the number of valid claims filed. How to claim a class action rebate To receive a streaming privacy settlement payment, class members must submit a claim form by the deadline of Sept. 22, 2025. Eligible class members must file a claim online. Consumers who believe they are a class member but did not receive a settlement notice with a unique ID and PIN can contact the settlement administrator to request one: info@VikiVPPASettlement.com. Required proof and information -- Unique ID and PIN from official settlement notice required to submit a claim -- Claimants with an active Facebook account must provide proof of their Facebook account by including a link to their Facebook profile page. The online claim form and FAQs on the settlement website provide instruction. -- Claimants who cannot access their Facebook account must provide a specific link. The online claim form and FAQs on the settlement website provide instruction. Claim payment options -- PayPal -- Zelle -- Venmo $8 Million Viki streaming privacy settlement fund The $8,000,000 settlement fund includes: -- Settlement administration costs: At least $200,000 -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $2,400,000 -- Attorneys' litigation costs: Amount to be presented to the court for approval -- Service awards to class representatives: $2,500 each ($7,500 total) -- Payments to valid claimants: Remaining settlement funds Important dates -- Deadline to file a claim: Sept. 22, 2025 -- Opt-out deadline: Sept. 22, 2025 -- Final approval hearing: Oct. 21, 2025 When is the Viki VPPA settlement payout date? Payments will be issued to eligible claimants after the court grants final approval of the settlement and claim processing is complete. Why is there a class action lawsuit and settlement? The class action lawsuit alleged that Viki Inc. violated the Video Privacy Protection Act by sharing users' identities and video-viewing preferences with Meta Platforms Inc. without proper consent. Viki denied any wrongdoing, but agreed to settle to avoid the expense and risk of continued litigation. [GN] VITAC CORPORATION: Anderson Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATELYN ANDERSON, on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees, v. VITAC CORPORATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-00329-NRN (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting conditional certification of collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The case arises from the Defendant's failure to compensate Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees for all hours worked, including mandatory pre-shift preparation time, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Colorado Wage Act. The Plaintiff seeks conditional certification of a collective and class consisting of: All current and former closed captioners who worked for Defendant for its Colorado locations, at any time within the past three years, and were paid on a piece-rate basis without separate compensation for pre-shift preparation work. VITAC is an American audio transcription company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1bqLy6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sara A. Green, Esq. Hardin Thompson, P.C. 2301 Blake Street, Denver, CO 80205 Telephone: (813) 940-8118 E-mail: sgreen@hardinlawpc.net WALGREENS BOOTS: Continues to Defend Klein Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending May 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 26, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Klein securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On January 30, 2025, a purported shareholder filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Klein v. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., 25-cv-01058) against the Company and certain of its executives and directors (together, for the purposes hereof, "Defendants") alleging that Defendants violated securities laws by disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the Company's compliance with laws governing the dispensing of controlled substances. The complaint seeks damages for alleged losses caused by the drop in the Company's share price following the DOJ's January 16, 2025 lawsuit relating to the Company’s dispensing of controlled substances. Defendants intend to vigorously defend against the lawsuit. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. is a global retail pharmacy operator. WALGREENS BOOTS: Continues to Defend VillageMD Class Suit in Ill. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending May 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 26, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the consolidated VillageMD class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In July and September 2024, purported shareholders filed two putative class action lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Bhaila v. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., 24-cv-05907; Westchester Putnam Counties Heavy & Highway Laborers Local 60 Benefits Fund v Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., 24-cv-08559) against the Company and certain of its executives (together, for the purposes hereof, "Defendants") alleging that Defendants violated securities laws by disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the Company's U.S. Retail Pharmacy and U.S. Healthcare segments. The two cases have been consolidated into a single action. On December 20, 2024, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint focusing their claims on alleged material misstatements or omissions regarding the performance of the Company's investment in VillageMD. The amended complaint seeks monetary damages for alleged losses caused by decreases in the Company's share price following certain disclosures about VillageMD's performance and the Company’s intention to reduce its stake in VillageMD. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit and intend to vigorously defend against it. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. is a global retail pharmacy operator. WESTECH SECURITY: Plaintiff Must File Class Cert Bid by July 14 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rodriguez et al., v. Westech Security and Investigation Inc. et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00123-AT (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Analisa Torres entered an order that the deadline for Plaintiff to move for a default judgment is adjourned sine die. -- By July 14, 2025, the Plaintiff shall move for class certification. Westech provides expert security risk and threat consulting services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NOeCem at no extra charge.[CC] WESTGATE RESORTS: Bid to Exclude Fahey's Opinions Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARILYN MOORE, et al., v. WESTGATE RESORTS LTD., L.P., a/k/a Westgate Resorts, LTD., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00410-DCLC-JEM (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Jill E. McCook entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to exclude opinions of Alec Fahey. The Court finds Mr. Fahey is qualified to render his opinions. The Court will exclude his legal conclusions, but the Court finds that his remaining opinions are admissible under Rule 702. The Court finds the Defendants' objections well taken in part. Mr. Fahey cannot testify that Defendants are alter egos. On Sept. 25, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed their Complaint, and later, on July 17, 2020, they filed the Third Amended Class Action Complaint. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, they also seek to bring this action on behalf of others, defining their proposed class as: "All residents of the United States and its territories who purchased from [Defendant] a "floating use plan" vacation timeshare property at the Westgate Smoky Mountain Resort at Gatlinburg from Sept. 25, 2008[,] through the date of class certification." On May 1, 2020, Plaintiffs moved to certify the class and to appoint class counsel. The Plaintiffs bring claims against Defendants for violations of the Tennessee Time-Share Act of 1981 (Counts I and II), unjust enrichment (Count III), fraudulent misrepresentation by omission (Count IV), fraud in the inducement (Count V), negligent misrepresentation by omission (Count VI), breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count VII), breach of contract (Count VIII), and civil conspiracy (Count IX). Westgate operates as a resort development company. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated June 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cGncSq at no extra charge.[CC] WESTGATE RESORTS: Bid to Exclude Free's Opinions Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARILYN MOORE, et al., v. WESTGATE RESORTS LTD., L.P., a/k/a Westgate Resorts, LTD., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00410-DCLC-JEM (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Jill E. McCook entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to exclude opinions of Ken Free. After considering the parties' arguments and evidence in this case, the Court finds Mr. Free is qualified to render his opinions. Even so, the Court finds Mr. Free's opinion on limited or stressed availability at the Resort not reliable, his opinion on the Defendants' alleged misrepresentations and omissions are not helpful to the jury, and his opinion on timeshare prices is not reliable. The Court excludes these opinions. The Court finds Mr. Free's opinion on reselling a timeshare relevant and reliable, and the Court declines to exclude this opinion. But Plaintiffs have not shown that Mr. Free's opinions about the Defendants' sales practices are admissible, and therefore these opinions are excluded. Finally, to the extent the Court has not excluded Mr. Free’s opinions, the Court declines to exclude his remaining extrapolation opinions. On Sept. 25, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed their Complaint, and later, on July 17, 2020, they filed the Third Amended Class Action Complaint. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, they also seek to bring this action on behalf of others, defining their proposed class as: "All residents of the United States and its territories who purchased from [Defendant] a "floating use plan" vacation timeshare property at the Westgate Smoky Mountain Resort at Gatlinburg from Sept. 25, 2008[,] through the date of class certification." On May 1, 2020, Plaintiffs moved to certify the class and to appoint class counsel. The Plaintiffs bring claims against Defendants for violations of the Tennessee Time-Share Act of 1981 (Counts I and II), unjust enrichment (Count III), fraudulent misrepresentation by omission (Count IV), fraud in the inducement (Count V), negligent misrepresentation by omission (Count VI), breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count VII), breach of contract (Count VIII), and civil conspiracy (Count IX). The Plaintiffs are purchasers of timeshares at Westgate Smoky Mountain Resort. Westgate operates as a resort development company. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated June 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pUWFTF at no extra charge.[CC] WM WHOLESALE: Hernandez Suit Seeks to Certify Classes ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSUE HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WM WHOLESALE, LLC d/b/a CAKE BRAND, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 8:24-cv-02553-RGK-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Aug. 4, 2025, will move the Court for an order granting his motion to certify the classes, appoint Mr. Hernandez as class representative, and appoint Smith Krivoshey, PC and Kazerouni Law Group APC as class counsel. The Plaintiff seeks certify the following classes: Multi-State Consumer Protection Class: "All persons in California and Florida who purchased the Products for personal or household use since Nov. 21, 2021 through the date of class notice." This class asserts violations of California's Unfair Competition Law. Florida Subclass Class: "All persons in Florida who purchased the Products for personal or household use since Nov. 21, 2021, through the date of class notice. This class asserts express warranty, implied warranty, and unjust enrichment claims. This class also asserts a claim under Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. sections 501.201 et seq. (FDUTPA) in the alternative if the Court declines to certify the Multi-State Consumer Protection Class. WM is a distributor and wholesaler of premium US-made baking supplies. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7RJp0R at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. Brittany S. Scott, Esq. Joel D. Smith, Esq. Aleksandr "Sasha" Litvinov, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 166 Geary Street, Ste. 1500-1507 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 839-7000 E-mail: yeremey@skclassactions.com brittany@skclassactions.com joel@skclassactions.com sasha@skclassactions.com - and - Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Pamela Prescott, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue Suite D1, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (949) 612-9999 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com pamela@kazlg.com ZR CONSULTING: Mott Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM MOTT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. ZR CONSULTING LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00081-SCJ (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion for extension of time to file his motion for class certification. The Plaintiff contacted Defendant's counsel, David Milian, Esq., to seek the Defendant's concurrence in this motion on June 9, 2025 and June 30, 2025. On April 3, 2025, the Plaintiff commenced this action by filing his Class Action Complaint. ZR is a professional consulting firm. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=T1cM4A at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Love, Esq. LOVE CONSUMER LAW 2500 Northwinds Parkway, Suite 330 Alpharetta, GA 30009 Telephone: (404) 855-3600 E-mail: tlove@loveconsumerlaw.com - and - Max S. Morgan, Esq. THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC 1515 Market Street, #1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (267) 587-6240 Facsimile: (215) 689-0875 E-mail: max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Rules Atlas Turner in Default of Case ------------------------------------------------------------ Travis Rodgers, writing for Asbestos.com, reports that the South Carolina Supreme Court has taken a major step in protecting the rights of people with mesothelioma as a result of legacy asbestos. On May 21, 2025, the court ruled against Atlas Turner, which has a long history of producing asbestos-containing products. Donna Welch filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Atlas Turner that alleged the company's products caused her husband's mesothelioma and death in 2023. Welch's husband, Melvin, worked at a Greenwood, South Carolina plant in the 1960s and 1970s. Atlas Turner's asbestos insulation was used at the plant where Welch worked. Atlas Turner, a Quebec-based Canadian company dating back to 1907, initially moved to have Welch's mesothelioma lawsuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Then it argued laws in Canada prevented it from sending a company witness or sharing important documents. The court rejected the company's argument and called Atlas Turner's actions "willful and intentional." The justices ruled the laws in other nations don't allow companies to ignore U.S. courts. As a result, the court placed Atlas Turner in default, meaning the company lost the case automatically. Trey Branham, an attorney for Melvin Welch's family, said in an official statement the firm released: "The ruling sends a clear message: companies cannot profit from doing business in the U.S. and then evade responsibility when they hurt Americans by refusing to obey court orders." "Companies like Atlas and its sister company, Asbestos Corporation Limited, have, for decades, thumbed their noses at U.S. court orders, after profiting from selling poisons in South Carolina and nearly every other state," Branham added. "We are grateful that the South Carolina Supreme Court understood this and is holding them to the rule of law." ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Defends Exposure Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------ H.B. Fuller Company has been named as a defendant in lawsuits in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to products containing asbestos manufactured more than 35 years ago, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "The plaintiffs generally bring these lawsuits against multiple defendants and seek damages (both actual and punitive) in very large amounts. In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable injuries or that the injuries suffered were the result of exposure to products manufactured by us. We are typically dismissed as a defendant in such cases without payment. If the plaintiff presents evidence indicating that compensable injury occurred as a result of exposure to our products, the case is generally settled for an amount that reflects the seriousness of the injury, the length, intensity and character of exposure to products containing asbestos, the number and solvency of other defendants in the case, and the jurisdiction in which the case has been brought. "In February 2024, the named plaintiffs in Rouse et al. v. H.B. Fuller Company et al. filed a third amended complaint in their lawsuit against the Company and one of its subsidiaries, which was initiated in September 2022. The suit is pending in the federal District of Minnesota and seeks damages arising from property damage attributed to alleged defects in grout sold by the Company or its affiliates. The named plaintiffs seek to represent a class but have not yet moved for class certification. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against the claims outlined in this lawsuit. As of May 31, 2025, we are unable to estimate any possible loss or range of possible losses and have not recorded a loss contingency for this matter." full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9xWOkx ********* 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 ***