250714.mbx

250714.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, July 14, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 139 Headlines ACADIANA MANAGEMENT: Class Suit over US Trustee Fees Tossed ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS: Faces Hodges Wage-and-Hour Suit in Miss. AFLAC INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Scott Says AFLAC INC: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Mittelstaed Alleges ALLDECOR LLC: Williams Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store ALLIANCE LIMOUSINE: Ruiz Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under Labor Code ALPHATIME ACQUISITION: M&A Investigates Merger With HCYC Holding AMAZON INC: May Face Class Action Lawsuit Over Alexa User Privacy AMERICAN MATTRESS: Underpays Store Managers, Hayes Suit Alleges AMOREPACIFIC US: Zuno Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York APPLE INC: Artificially Inflated Stock Price, Tucker Suit Alleges APPLE INC: Kempf Sues Over Devices' Misleading Storage Capacity Ads ARCADIA CARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Stufflebeam Alleges ASPIRUS INC: Seeks to Exclude Expert Leitzinger's Opinions ASPIRUS INC: Team Schierl Suit Seeks Class Certification ASSURANCE IQ: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Steele Suit Alleges ATP TOUR: Consolidated Opposition in Pospisil Suit Du August 28 AVOCADO MATTRESS: Islas Sues Over Mattress' False Discount Prices BARRETT FINANCIAL: Blair Bid to Certify Class Tossed as Moot BELVEDERE NRDE: Rios Sues Over Improper Tenant Fees BETTER HOME: Gillean Sues Over Data Privacy Violations BEVERLY TEACHERS: Donahue et al. Sue Over Illegal Strike BLACKWELL 3D: Sanchez Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida BLUESKY HEALTHCARE: Parties Must File Class Cert. Sched by July 31 BUTEN INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Davis Due Feb. 27, 2026 CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE: Ends Deal With Simplilearn After Settlement CEMENTATION USA: Knight Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages CERNER CORPORATION: Skinner Files Suit in W.D. Missouri CHARISMA THERAPEUTICS: M&A Investigates Sale to OrthoCellix CIGNA CORP: Must File Class Cert Response in Stewart by Oct. 3 CNO FINANCIAL: Policyholders Win Jury Trial in "LifeTrend" Suit COCA-COLA CO: Faces Class Suit Over Powerade Deceptive Labeling COEPTIS THERAPEUTICS: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Z Squared COLUMBIA BANKING: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Pacific Premier COMMUNICATIONS DATA: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Bennett Says COMMUNITY HEALTH: Appeals Remand Ruling in Fazenbaker Suit COMPASS DIVERSIFIED: Tan Sues Over Misleading Business Statements CONNEXION POINT: Seeks to Modify Class Cert. Briefing Schedule CONOPCO INC: Candelaria Bid for Class Certification Tossed CORSAIR GAMING: Class Settlement in McKinney Suit Gets Initial Nod CRITERION COLLECTION: Agrees to Settle Subscription Suit for $4.5MM DAVE'S TOWING: O'Loughlin Appeals Ruling to Ky. Ct. of Appeals DECISELY INSURANCE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Smith Claims DECISELY INSURANCE: Morris Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info DELECT FOODS: Hardwick Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Managers DELOITTE CONSULTING: Goldstone Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts DENTOLOGIE PC: Discloses Patients' Info to Google, Kite Suit Claims DOYON LIMITED: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, David Jr. Says DREAMLAND HOLDING: Faris Loses Bid for Conditional Status of Action EFFORTLESS OFFICE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Smith Says EFFORTLESS OFFICE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Waudby Says EMCENTRIX INC: Laney Files Suit in C.D. California EMCENTRIX INC: O'Conner Files Suit in C.D. California EPISOURCE LLC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Thomas Alleges EPISOURCE LLC: McFall Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info EPISOURCE LLC: Peck Files Suit in C.D. California EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Must File Joint Class Status Report by Aug. 8 ERIE INDEMNITY: Atta Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania ETSY INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Use of Pixel Trackers EXPRESSVPN: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Auto-Renewal Fees FABCO ENTERPRISES: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Pittman Says FANDUEL INC: Daily Fantasy Sports Constitute Illegal Gambling FINANCIAL CRIMES: Valuta Suit Seeks Class Certification FRANKLIN COUNTY, OH: Plantiff Seeks More Time to File Class Reply FUBOTV INC: Final Settlement Hearing in Privacy Suit Set Oct. 6 FULLBEAUTY BRANDS: Appeals Remand Order in Broomes Suit to 9th Cir. FURNITURE.COM AMERICA: Dalton Sues Over Website Inaccessibility GEICO GENERAL: Loses Bid to Seal Documents GOODRX INC: OneroRx Suit Transferred to D. Rhode Island GREEN SOLUTIONS: Weaver Wins Class Certification Bid GRYPHON DIGITAL: M&A Probes Reverse Merger With American Bitcoin HANWHA PHILLY: Rivera Class Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under PMWA HARCROS CHEMICALS: Faces Class Suit Over Plant Toxic Emission HENRY FORD: Final $12.2M-Settlement Approval Hearing Set October 7 HERITAGE VILLAGE: Refuses to Provide Info to Homeowners, Suit Says HERMES OF PARIS: Faces Class Action Over Labor Laws Violations HILL'S PET: Nevius Appeals Class Decertification Order to 7th Cir. HOME DEPOT INC: Carranza Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. HYUNDAI MOTOR: Agrees to Settle Airbag Defects Class Suit for $62MM IMMERSIVE GROUP: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Zhang Claims JOHNSON CITY, TN: $4.2M Deal in Assault Suit Gets Court Formal OK JOHNSON HEALTH: Ahearn Sues Over Defective Dumbbell Products JOHNSON HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Defective Dumbbells KISWIRE INC: Bedenbaugh Seeks Conditional Cert of Action KRISPY KREME: Faces Dosreis Suit Over Private Data Breach KROGER CO: Basmati Rice Contains Heavy Metals, Tomassian Suit Says LAUNCH WISE LLC: Ortiz Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida LEFT COAST: Weedman Suit Seeks Unpaid Tips for Restaurant Workers LINEAGE LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Alford Alleges LVNV FUNDING: Must File Class Cert Response by July 16 MACY'S RETAIL: Nelson Suit Removed to N.D. California MAINLINE HEALTH: Beck Files Suit in E.D. Arkansas MATTRESS FIRM: Agrees to Settle False Discount Class Suit for $6.4M META PLATFORMS: Bouck Sues Over Stock Manipulation Scheme META PLATFORMS: Harris and Paul Sue Over Tracking of Web Browsing MIKE BLOOMBERG: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sipp-Alpers Says NAVAJO TRANSITIONAL: Rosales Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA NEW ONE NAIL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Han Suit Alleges NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Suit Says ONE CAPITAL SOLUTIONS: Hicks Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida OPENAI INC: Miller Files Suit in N.D. Georgia OUTSET GROUP: Faces Pittman Suit Over Website's Access Barriers PALMETTO SOLAR: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Bronstin Claims PELTIER ENTERPRISES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Vidrine Claims PENN STATE: Breaches Fiduciary Duties, Muldoon Class Suit Says PENTEGRA BOD: Class Action Settlement in Khan Suit Gets Initial Nod PFIZER INC: Agrees to Settle Lipitor Pricing Class Suit for $8.25M PICANHA GROUP: Soares Files Suit in Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas PNC BANK: Seeks Denial of Melian Class Cert Bid PROCTER & GAMBLE: Noguchi Suit Removed to E.D. California PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Appeals Ruling in Franco Suit to 4th Circuit PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Class Cert Bid Filing in Angulo Due August 15 PUBLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL: Phillips Files Suit in S.D. New York QUOTEWIZARD INC: Final Settlement Hearing in TCPA Suit Set Sept 29 R.R.K. INC: Coiro Files TCPA Suit in E.D. New York RAC ACCEPTANCE: Appeals Class Certification Order in McBurnie Suit RENKIM CORP: Faces Griffin Suit Over Data Security Failures RESTAURANT DEPOT: DePina Sues For Unlawful Use of Lie Detector Test RETSEL CORP: Lawsuit vs Native Americans Tossed ROSS STORES: Gevorgyan Sues Over Unlawful Employment Practices SALVATION ARMY: Varcoe Sues Over Failure to Secure Employees' Info SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Joins Class Suit Against EPA Over Grant Program SANDRIDGE EXPLORATION: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due August 3, 2026 SAZERAC COMPANY: Court Certifies Class in Andrews Lawsuit SHAMAN BOTANICALS: Jennings Sues Over Deceptive Ads of Kratom Shot SHENZHEN SMOORE: M.M. Alleges Vaporizers System's Price Fixing SKOPOS FINANCIAL: Philipson Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Bid SO. CAL. SANDBAGS INC: Linton Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT: McKever Seeks More Time to File Class Reply SOUTHEASTERN SYNOD: Finney Sues Over Senate Bill 392's Legality STRATEGY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Bitcoin Investment SYSCO CORP: Final $2.3M-Settlement Approval Hearing Set October 9 TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR: Faces Suit Over Plant's Unsafe Conditions TARTE INC: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Senior Says TORRID LLC: Agrees to Settle False Discount Class Suit for $10MM TRAEGER PELLET: Agrees to Settle Wood Pellet Class Suit for $1.5MM TRIDENT MARITIME: Class Settlement in Jefferson Gets Initial Nod TRINITY HEALTH: Dombal Sues Over Alleged Labor Law Violations UNILEVER MANUFACTURING: Dotson False Ads Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. UNILEVER US: Bid for Summary Judgment in Hossain Due August 1 UNITED HEALTHCARE: Tamburrino Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification UNITED STATES: UC Irvine Joins Coalition in Immigration Class Suit UOVO MANAGEMENT: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. USC: Appeals Court Order in Favell Class Suit to 9th Circuit USC: Petitions Court Ruling in Favell Class Suit to 9th Circuit VENTURE LOGISTICS: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $933,000 VERA BRADLEY: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims VERADIGM INC: Goodrum and Mixon Sue Over Unprotected Private Data VIATOR INC: Andersen Sues Over Installation of Website Trackers VITAC CORP: Anderson Seeks Conditional Cert of Collective Action WEST SHORE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bohr Suit Alleges WESTERN ASSET: Faces Securities Class Action Suit in W.D. Pa. YESCA LLC: Markgraf Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Budtenders ********* ACADIANA MANAGEMENT: Class Suit over US Trustee Fees Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Stephen S. Schwartz of the United States Court of Federal Claims granted the United States government's motion to dismiss the consolidated case captioned as ACADIANA MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, Case No. 19-496C (Fed. Cl.). Plaintiff Acadiana Management Group, LLC and its co-plaintiffs in No. 19-496C are a group of debtors who seek reimbursement of quarterly fees paid as part of the Chapter 11 bankruptcy process. They assert that their bankruptcy fees were set in a way that violated the uniformity requirement of the Bankruptcy Clause. Acadiana Management Group and its co-plaintiffs also moved for certification of a class comprising similarly situated individuals and entities. Johns Manville Corp., Plaintiff in No. 24-402C, has raised an identical claim. The government has likewise moved to dismiss. The parties' arguments for and against dismissal are identical to those in the Acadiana Management Group case. The two cases were consolidated for argument. The two cases are consolidated for further proceedings, with Acadiana Management Group, LLC v. United States (No. 19-496C) designated as the lead case. The Chapter 11 bankruptcy process requires debtors to pay quarterly fees. For a few years, though, debtors in U.S. Trustee districts paid more than debtors in Bankruptcy Administrator districts. The Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 2017, Pub. L. No. 115-72, Div. B, 131 Stat. 1229, led to a fee increase in the U.S. Trustee districts starting in 2018. The Supreme Court unanimously held in Siegel v. Fitzgerald, 596 U.S. 464 (2022), that the temporary collection of nonuniform fees violated the Bankruptcy Clause of the United States Constitution, which requires that laws governing bankruptcy be "uniform." But the Siegel Court expressly reserved the question of remedy. In Office of United States Trustee v. John Q. Hammons Fall 2006, LLC -- brought by debtors who paid higher fees in a U.S. Trustee district -- the Supreme Court addressed the appropriate remedy. The Supreme Court identified three options reserved in Siegel: (1) refund fees for those charged more in U. S. Trustee districts, (2) retroactively extract higher fees from those charged less in Bankruptcy Administrator districts, or (3) require only prospective parity The Supreme Court concluded that the third option -- which was already in place at the time of Siegel after Congress's equalization of fees in 2021 -- was most appropriate. It observed that a complete monetary refund would be impossible because many debtors that paid higher fees had ceased to exist. It concluded that prospective parity cures the constitutional violation, and due process does not require another result. Unlike the Hammons plaintiffs, who pursued their refund claims through the bankruptcy process, the Plaintiffs in the present cases sought a refund in this Court under a Tucker Act illegal exaction theory. The government argues that although Hammons does not mention the Tucker Act, its reasoning implicitly forecloses that avenue of monetary recovery as well. The Federal Claims Court says its jurisdiction under the Tucker Act extends to claims seeking refunds of illegal exactions. The premise of an illegal exaction claim is that when the government has the citizen's money in its pocket, the Tucker Act permits suit to recover the money exacted. The obvious problem for Plaintiffs is the Supreme Court's holding in Hammons that the constitutional wrong of nonuniformity was fully remedied by prospective equality. The Court finds although Plaintiffs aim to distinguish that holding in various ways, it forecloses their claims. Plaintiffs' main argument is that although Hammons precludes monetary recovery directly from bankruptcy proceedings, it does not apply to recovery in this Court under an illegal exaction theory. But although Hammons does not mention this Court, illegal exactions, or the Tucker Act, it covers Plaintiffs' exaction claim by negating one of its elements. According to Judge Schwartz, "Hammons conclusively established that no further relief beyond prospective parity was warranted for violation of the uniformity requirement of the Bankruptcy Clause. No refund was needed for debtors who paid higher fees. That holding rules out a remedy under the Tucker Act too. Thus, Plaintiffs' complaints should be dismissed because the facts asserted do not entitle them to a legal remedy." Because Plaintiffs' claim is foreclosed by binding precedent, the government's motions to dismiss, are granted. Acadiana Management Group's motion to certify a class, is denied as moot. A copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated July 9, 2025, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dYwpxV Counsel for Plaintiffs Acadiana Management Group, LLC, et al.: Bradley L. Drell, Esq. Heather M. Matthews, Esq. GOLD, WEEMS, BRUSER, SUES & RUNDELL, APLC 2001 MacArthur Dr. Alexandria, LA 71307-6118 Tel: (318) 445-6471 E-mail: bdrell@goldweems.com hmathews@goldweems.com Counsel for Plaintiff Johns Manville Corporation: Shane Ramsey, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP 1222 Demonbreun Street, Suite 1700 Nashville, TN 37203 Tel: (615) 664-5355 E-mail: shane.ramsey@nelsonmullins.com Acadiana Management and several affiliates sought Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection (Bankr. W.D. La. Lead Case No. 17-50799) on June 23, 2017. ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS: Faces Hodges Wage-and-Hour Suit in Miss. ---------------------------------------------------------------- LACUNYA HODGES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS, INC.; MEDICO, LLC; CARE GIVERS, LLC; COMMUNITY CARE CENTER OF THIBODAUX, LLC; RANKIN COMMUNITY CARE CENTER, LLC; PIKE COMMUNITY CARE CENTER, LLC; COMMUNITY CARE CENTER OF LAUREL, LLC; COPIAH COMMUNITY CARE CENTER, LLC; CARE CENTER OF COVINGTON, LLC; KENTER, LLC; GULFPORT HEALTHCARE, LLC; COMMUNITY CARE CENTER OF VICKSBURG, LLC; COMMUNITY CARE CENTER OF HERITAGE HOUSE, LLC; COMMUNITY CARE OF HOUMA, LLC; COMMUNITY CARE CENTER OF MANDEVILLE, LLC; HERITAGE MANOR STRATMORE NURSING & REHABILITATION, LLC; OPELOUSAS HEALTHCARE PROPERTIES, LLC; HERITAGE MANOR OF SLIDELL, LLC; COMMUNITY CARE CENTER OF SHREVEPORT SOUTH, LLC; COMMUNITY CARE CENTER OF VILLE PLATTE, LLC; HERITAGE MANOR WEST, LLC; MADISON COMMUNITY CARE CENTER, LLC; MAGEE COMMUNITY CARE CENTER, LLC; COMMUNITY CARE CENTER OF ST. MARTINVILLE, LLC; LANDMARK HERITAGE, LLC; COLLINS COMMUNITY CARE CENTER, LLC; DESOTO COMMUNITY CARE CENTER, LLC; COMMUNITY CARE CENTER OF HAMMOND, LLC; LAKE CHARLES HEALTHCARE, LLC; LANDMARK OF PLAQUEMINE, LLC; LANDMARK OF RAYNE, LLC; COMMUNITY CARE CENTER OF BATON ROUGE, LLC; MONTICELLO COMMUNITY CARE CENTER, LLC; AMERICAN LEGACY PROPERTIES, LLC; LEXINGTON HOUSE, LLC; VERSAILLES HEALTHCARE, LLC; OAKS OF HOUMA COMMUNITY CARE CENTER, LLC; COMMUNITY CARE CENTER OF DESTREHAN, LLC; PERRY COMMUNITY CARE CENTER, LLC; COMMUNITY CARE CENTER OF OPELOUSAS, LLC; SOUTHERN HILLS, LLC; COLUMBIA COMMUNITY CARE CENTER, LLC; ALEXANDRIA HEALTHCARE, LLC; MINDEN COMMUNITY CARE CENTER, LLC; and LAMAR COMMUNITY CARE CENTER, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-00092-DMB-JMV (N.D. Miss., June 23, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked as a certified nursing assistant at one of the facilities operated by the Defendants in Coahoma County, Mississippi, until approximately June of 2023. Administrative Systems, Inc. is a company that provides administrative and record-keeping solutions, doing business in Mississippi. Medico, LLC is a healthcare services provider doing business in Mississippi. Care Givers, LLC is a healthcare services provider doing business in Mississippi. Community Care Center of Thibodaux, LLC is a healthcare services provider doing business in Mississippi. Rankin Community Care Center, LLC is a healthcare services provider doing business in Mississippi. Pike Community Care Center, LLC is a healthcare services provider doing business in Mississippi. Community Care Center of Laurel, LLC is a healthcare services provider doing business in Mississippi. Copiah Community Care Center, LLC is a healthcare services provider doing business in Mississippi. Care Center of Covington, LLC is a healthcare services provider doing business in Mississippi. Kenter, LLC is a healthcare services provider doing business in Mississippi. Gulfport Healthcare, LLC is a healthcare services provider doing business in Mississippi. Community Care Center of Vicksburg, LLC is a healthcare services provider doing business in Mississippi. Community Care Center of Heritage House, LLC is a healthcare services provider doing business in Mississippi. Community Care Center of Houma, LLC is a healthcare services provider doing business in Mississippi. Community Care Center of Mandeville, LLC is a healthcare services provider doing business in Mississippi. Heritage Manor Stratmore Nursing & Rehabilitation, LLC is a healthcare services provider doing business in Mississippi. Opelousas Healthcare Properties, LLC is a healthcare services provider doing business in Mississippi. Heritage Manor of Slidell, LLC is a healthcare services provider doing business in Mississippi. Community Care Center of Shreveport South, LLC is a healthcare services provider doing business in Mississippi. Community Care Center of Ville Platte, LLC is a healthcare services provider doing business in Mississippi. Heritage Manor West, LLC is a healthcare services provider doing business in Mississippi. Madison Community Care Center, LLC is a healthcare services provider doing business in Mississippi. Magee Community Care Center, LLC is a healthcare services provider doing business in Mississippi. Community Care Center of St. Martinville, LLC is a healthcare services provider doing business in Mississippi. Landmark Heritage, LLC is a healthcare services provider doing business in Mississippi. Collins Community Care Center, LLC is a healthcare services provider doing business in Mississippi. Desoto Community Care Center, LLC is a healthcare services provider doing business in Mississippi. Community Care Center of Hammond, LLC is a healthcare services provider doing business in Mississippi. Lake Charles Healthcare, LLC is a healthcare services provider doing business in Mississippi. Landmark of Plaquemine, LLC is a healthcare services provider doing business in Mississippi. Landmark of Rayne, LLC is a healthcare services provider doing business in Mississippi. Community Care Center of Baton Rouge, LLC is a healthcare services provider doing business in Mississippi. Monticello Community Care Center, LLC is a healthcare services provider doing business in Mississippi. American Legacy Properties, LLC is a healthcare services provider doing business in Mississippi. Lexington House, LLC is a healthcare services provider doing business in Mississippi. Versailles Healthcare, LLC is a healthcare services provider doing business in Mississippi. Oaks of Houma Community Care Center, LLC is a healthcare services provider doing business in Mississippi. Community Care Center of Destrehan, LLC is a healthcare services provider doing business in Mississippi. Perry Community Care Center, LLC is a healthcare services provider doing business in Mississippi. Community Care Center of Opelousas, LLC is a healthcare services provider doing business in Mississippi. Southern Hills, LLC is a healthcare services provider doing business in Mississippi. Columbia Community Care Center, LLC is a healthcare services provider doing business in Mississippi. Alexandria Healthcare, LLC is a healthcare services provider doing business in Mississippi. Minden Community Care Center, LLC is a healthcare services provider doing business in Mississippi. Lamar Community Care Center, LLC is a healthcare services provider doing business in Mississippi. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William "Jack" Simpson, Esq. SIMPSON, PLLC 100 South Main Street Booneville, MS 38829 Telephone: (662) 913-7811 Facsimile: (662) 728-1992 Email: jack@simpson-pllc.com AFLAC INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Scott Says --------------------------------------------------- LARRY SCOTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, AFLAC INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-00196-CDL (M.D. Ga., June 23, 2025) is a class action arising out of the data security incident and data breach on June 12, 2025 that was perpetrated against the Defendant, which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information and protected health information (collectively, the "Private Information") of Plaintiff and other current and former patients and/or employees of Defendant, the putative class members ("Class"). According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Data Breach resulted from the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' Private Information with which they were entrusted for either treatment or employment or both. The Defendant maintained the Private Information in a reckless manner. In particular, the Private Information was maintained on the Defendant's computer network in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks. Aflac, Inc. is a general business holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides supplemental insurance to individuals in the United States and Japan. Aflac's products include accident and disability, cancer expense, short-term disability, sickness and hospital indemnity, hospital intensive care, and fixed-benefit dental plans. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. McGlamry, Esq. N. Kirkland Pope, Esq. Caroline G. McGlamry, Esq. POPE, McGLAMRY, KILPATRICK, MORRISON & NORWOOD, P.C. 3391 Peachtree Road, N.E., Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30326 Telephone: (404) 523-7706 Facsimile: (404) 524-1648 Email: efile@pmkm.com AFLAC INC: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Mittelstaed Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- ELISA MITTELSTAED, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AFLAC INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-00194-CDL (M.D. Ga., June 23, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on or about June 12, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Aflac Incorporated is a financial protection provider, with its headquarters in Columbus, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com ALLDECOR LLC: Williams Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store ---------------------------------------------------------------- DARNELL WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLDECOR, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06842 (N.D. Ill., June 20, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://decoratorsbest.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inaccurate heading hierarchy, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, inaccessible drop-down menus, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Alldecor, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (630) 478-0856 Email: achan@ealg.law ALLIANCE LIMOUSINE: Ruiz Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under Labor Code ------------------------------------------------------------------ MARIO RUIZ, individually and in his capacity as a Private Attorneys General Representative v. ALLIANCE LIMOUSINE, INC., IGOR SHNEIR, and DOES 1-20, Case No. 25STCV18762 (Cal. Super., June 27, 2025) alleges that Alliance has unlawfully required employees to pay business expenses, failed to pay required minimum wage and overtime for all hours worked, and failed to provide proper itemized wage statements in violation of California Labor Code. The Plaintiff brings his claims on behalf of himself and pursuant to 3 the Private Attorney General Act, on behalf of the state of California and all other similarly situated aggrieved employees whose wages have been unlawfully withheld by Alliance in California. The Plaintiff worked as a driver for ALLIANCE. ALLIANCE provides limousine and bus charter services throughout California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21031 Ventura Blvd., Suite 340 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com ALPHATIME ACQUISITION: M&A Investigates Merger With HCYC Holding ---------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC, headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating -- AlphaTime Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ: ATMCR) related to its merger with HCYC Holding Co., in which AlphaTime shares will be cancelled in exchange for the right to receive a Class A share of HCYC Holding Company. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/alphatime-acquisition-corp/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Cartica Acquisition Corp. (OTCMKTS: CRTAF) related to its merger with Nidar Infrastructure Ltd., in which the pre-transaction equity value of Nidar implied by the proposed transaction's terms is approximately $2.75 billion. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/cartica-acquisition-corp/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Launch One Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ: LPAA) related to its merger with Minovia Therapeutics Ltd., in which Launch One shareholders will be eligible for a one-to-one exchange of shares in the new company, Mito US One Ltd. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/launch-one-acquisition-corp/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Aimei Health Technology Co., Ltd (NASDAQ: AFJKU) related to its merger with United Hydrogen Global, Inc., in which Aimei shareholders will be eligible for either (i) a redemption of their shares for $10.00; or (ii) becoming Class A shareholders in the combined company with minimal voting influence. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/aimei-health-technology-co-ltd. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Monteverde & Associates PC Logo NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com [GN] AMAZON INC: May Face Class Action Lawsuit Over Alexa User Privacy ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Scarcella, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge in Seattle on Monday, July 7, said tens of millions of users of Amazon.com's cloud-based voice service Alexa can band together in a class action accusing the tech giant of deceptively recording and collecting their private conservations. The Alexa users met the legal threshold to sue in a nationwide class action for monetary damages and a court order to stop the alleged privacy violations, U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik said in his ruling. The lawsuit, brought on behalf of users who registered one or more Alexa devices, alleges Amazon violated Washington's consumer protection law by failing to disclose the retention and use of recordings for commercial gain. Amazon declined to comment. Lead attorneys for the consumers did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Class-action status will allow the plaintiffs to pursue large-scale claims against Amazon as a group, as opposed to filing individual claims. "The fact that millions of people were allegedly injured by the same conduct suggests that representative litigation is the only way to both adjudicate related claims and avoid overwhelming the courts," Lasnik wrote. Lasnik declined the plaintiffs' request to certify additional classes, including for people in California and other states who lived with someone who had a registered Alexa device. Amazon launched Alexa in 2014 as a virtual assistant that responds to a command prompt, or "wake" word, such as "hi, Alexa." The plaintiffs alleged Amazon designed the technology "to illegally and surreptitiously intercept billions of private conversations" that extended beyond commands aimed at Alexa. Amazon has denied any wrongdoing in the lawsuit, which was filed in 2021. The company argued there was no evidence that Alexa "ever captured any plaintiff's 'conversation' or other communication." It said it built Alexa with safeguards to prevent accidental activations. The plaintiffs are also seeking a court order that would force Amazon to destroy any existing recordings and related data. The case is Kaeli Garner v. Amazon.com, U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, No. 2:21-cv-00750-RSL. For plaintiffs: Michael Canty of Labaton Keller Sucharow and Paul Geller of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd. [GN] AMERICAN MATTRESS: Underpays Store Managers, Hayes Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- TRYSTAN R. HAYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN MATTRESS, INC., FRANK DEMAIO, and MICHAEL KENNA, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-06908 (N.D. Ill., June 23, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the One Day Rest in Seven Act, and the Illinois Paid Leave for All Workers Act including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide lunch breaks, and failure to provide sick leave. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a store manager from on or about October 3, 2022, until the present. American Mattress, Inc. is an operator of retail mattress stores in the U.S., including Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Fletcher, Esq. THE GARFINKEL GROUP, LLC 701 N. Milwaukee Ave. Chicago, IL 60642 Telephone: (312) 736-7991 Email: matthew@garfinkelgroup.com AMOREPACIFIC US: Zuno Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amorepacific US, Inc. The case is styled as Yesenia Zuno, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Amorepacific US, Inc. doing business as: Innisfree, Case No. 1:25-cv-05476 (S.D.N.Y., July 1, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Amorepacific Corporation -- https://us.amorepacific.com/ -- is a South Korean beauty and cosmetics chaebol, operating more than 30 beauty, personal care, and health brands including Sulwhasoo, Laneige, Mamonde, Etude House, AMOREPACIFIC and Innisfree.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zane Charles Hedaya, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: zane@jibraellaw.com APPLE INC: Artificially Inflated Stock Price, Tucker Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- ERIC TUCKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APPLE INC., TIMOTHY D. COOK, LUCA MAESTRI, and KEVAN PAREKH, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-05197 (N.D. Cal., June 20, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Apple's business, operations, and prospects in order to trade Apple securities at artificially inflated prices between June 10, 2024, and June 9, 2025. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Apple misstated the time it would take to integrate the advanced AI-based Siri features into its devices; (ii) accordingly, it was highly unlikely that these features would be available for the iPhone 16; (iii) the lack of such advanced artificial intelligence (AI) based features would hurt iPhone 16 sales; (iv) as a result, Apple's business and/or financial prospects were overstated; and (v) as a result, the company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the truth emerged, Apple's stock price fell $11.59 per share, or 4.85 percent, to close at $227.48 per share on March 10, 2025. Apple's stock price continuously dropped until it close at $201.45 per share on June 9, 2025. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the company's securities, the Plaintiff and Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Apple Inc. is a multinational technology company, headquartered in Cupertino, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 405-7190 Email: jpafiti@pomlaw.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com APPLE INC: Kempf Sues Over Devices' Misleading Storage Capacity Ads ------------------------------------------------------------------- KIM KEMPF, GAIL WALLISER, JEREMY MORGAN, DELETTRA RANSOM, XAVIER BENNETT, CASSAUNDRA MAXWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. APPLE INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-05244 (N.D. Cal., June 23, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, Michigan Consumer Protection Act, and Washington Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of certain iPhones and iPad devices with iOS 8 operating system. According to the complaint, iOS 8 used an unexpectedly large percentage of the storage capacity of the devices and consumed more space than subsequent iterations of iOS. The Defendant made no disclosure of and otherwise omitted this material fact to consumers. As a result of the Defendant's misrepresentations and omissions, the Plaintiffs and the Class suffered damages. Apple Inc. is a multinational technology company, headquartered in Cupertino, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael McShane, Esq. Thom E. Smith, Esq. AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP 711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 568-2555 Facsimile: (415) 576-1776 Email: mmcshane@audetlaw.com tsmith@audetlaw.com - and - William Anderson, Esq. HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC 1434 Spruce Street, Suite 301 Boulder, CO 80302 Telephone: (303) 800-9109 Facsimile: (844) 300-1852 Email: wanderson@hfajustice.com - and - Rebecca P. Chang, Esq. Nicholas J. Jackson, Esq. HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC 33 Irving Pl. New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (303) 800-9109 Email: rchang@hfajustice.com - and - Charles J. Laduca, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP 2445 M. Street, N.W., Suite 740 Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 789-1813 Email: charlesl@cuneolaw.com - and - Robert Shelquist, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LaDUCA, LLP 5775 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 620 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Telephone: (612) 254-7288 Email: rshelquist@cuneolaw.com - and - Jon M. Herskowitz, Esq. BARON & HERSKOWITZ 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1704 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 670-0101 Facsimile: (305) 670-2393 Email: jon@bhfloridalaw.com ARCADIA CARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Stufflebeam Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ KRISTINE STUFFLEBEAM and YOLANDA JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ARCADIA CARE, INC. f/k/a ARCADIA CARE MANAGEMENT, INC.; and ARCADIA CARE MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-06935 (N.D. Ill., June 23, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as certified nurse assistants. Arcadia Care, Inc. f/k/a Arcadia Care Management, Inc. is an Illinois-based care company providing a full range of nursing services therapy or specialized care needed. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 8241 La Mesa Blvd., Suite A La Mesa, CA 91942 Telephone: (619) 489-0300 Email: apiazza@bergermontague.com - and - Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq. Olivia Lanctot, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4620 Email: crodriguez@bergermontague.com olanctot@bergermontague.com ASPIRUS INC: Seeks to Exclude Expert Leitzinger's Opinions ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TEAM SCHIERL COMPANIES and HEARTLAND FARMS, INC., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. ASPIRUS, INC. and ASPIRUS NETWORK, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00580-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order excluding Dr. Leitzinger's (1) opinions and testimony based on his yardstick overcharge model, including his opinions on aggregate damages; (2) opinions and testimony with respect to classwide impact; and (3) calculation of damages based on his improper extrapolation. Aspirus is a non-profit, community-directed health system. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pi7m9a at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Daniel Conley, Esq. Nathan Oesch, Esq. Matthew Splitek, Esq. QUARLES & BRADY LLP 411 East Wisconsin Avenue Milwaukee, WI 53202 Telephone: (414) 277-5000 E-mail: daniel.conley@quarles.com nathan.oesch@quarles.com matthew.splitek@quarles.com - and - Steven A. Reed, Esq. R. Brendan Fee, Esq. Zachary M. Johns, Esq. Vincent C. Papa, Esq. Kenneth M. Kliebard, Esq. Ryan Kantor, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 2222 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 Telephone: (215) 963-5000 Facsimile: (215) 963-5001 E-mail: steven.reed@morganlewis.com brendan.fee@morganlewis.com zachary.johns@morganlewis.com vincent.papa@morganlewis.com kenneth.kliebard@morganlewis.com ryan.kantor@morganlewis.com ASPIRUS INC: Team Schierl Suit Seeks Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TEAM SCHIERL COMPANIES and HEARTLAND FARMS, INC., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. ASPIRUS, INC. and ASPIRUS NETWORK, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00580-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (1) certifying a plaintiff class for litigation purposes, as proposed in the Plaintiffs' accompanying memorandum of law, (2) appointing Plaintiffs as class representatives, (3) appointing Berger Montague PC and Fairmark Partners LLP as class counsel, and (4) providing such other related relief as is necessary and proper. Aspirus is a non-profit, community-directed health system. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4JgKer at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Timothy W. Burns, Esq. Nathan M. Kuenzi, Esq. BURNS BAIR LLP 10 E. Doty Street, Suite 600 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 286-2808 E-mail: tburns@burnsbair.com nkuenzi@burnsbair.com - and - Daniel J. Walker, Esq. Robert E. Litan, Esq. Eric L. Cramer, Esq. Zachary D. Caplan, Esq. Grace Ann Brew, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1001 G Street, NW, Suite 400E Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 559-9745 E-mail: dwalker@bm.net rlitan@bm.net ecramer@bm.net zcaplan@bm.net gbrew@bm.net - and - Jamie Crooks, Esq. Michael Lieberman, Esq. Amanda R. Vaughn, Esq. FAIRMARK PARTNERS LLP 400 7th Street NW, Suite 304 Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (619) 507-4182 E-mail: jamie@fairmarklaw.com michael@fairmarklaw.com amanda@fairmarklaw.com ASSURANCE IQ: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Steele Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ MARK STEELE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASSURANCE IQ, LLC; PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL, INC.; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-01614-BEN-AHG (S.D. Cal., June 24, 2025) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. Plaintiff Steele was employed by the Defendants as an insurance sales agent. Assurance IQ, Inc. provides software solutions. The Company offers insurance platform for protecting and improving the personal and financial health of all consumers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Davidson, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BENJAMIN DAVIDSON, P.C. 116 S. Catalina Ave., Suite 101 Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Telephone: (323) 713-0010 Facsimile: (323) 488-688 E-mail: bdavidson@bendavidsonlaw.com ATP TOUR: Consolidated Opposition in Pospisil Suit Du August 28 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pospisil et al., v. ATP Tour, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-02207-MMG (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Margaret M. Garnett entered an order as follows: -- Moving Papers due: July 31, 2025 -- Consolidated opposition due: Aug. 28, 2025 -- Replies due: Sept. 18, 2025 ATP is the sole worldwide top-tier tennis tour for men organized by the Association of Tennis Professionals. A copy of the Court's order dated July 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QRJUMH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew S. Tulumello, Esq. WEIL, GOTSHAL AND MANGES LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153 The Defendants are represented by: Bradley Ruskin, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 - and - Lawrence Buterman, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 355 S Grand Ave Suite 100 Los Angeles, CA 90071 AVOCADO MATTRESS: Islas Sues Over Mattress' False Discount Prices ----------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY ISLAS and ELIZABETH AMILL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AVOCADO MATTRESS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-05698 (C.D. Cal., June 23, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of California's False Advertising Law, California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and California's Unfair Competition Law, breach of contract, breach of express warranty, quasi-contract/unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and intentional misrepresentation. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading price and purported discount advertising. According to the complaint, the Defendant lists purported regular prices and advertises purported limited-time sales offering discounts from those listed regular prices on its website and promise customers they can save big by purchasing during the sale. In reality, the discounts on the Defendant's products are almost always available. The list prices the Defendant advertises are not actually its regular prices, because its products are nearly always available for less than that. Had the Plaintiffs and the Class known the truth, they would not have purchased the products or would have paid less for them. Avocado Mattress LLC is a mattress manufacturer, headquartered in Hoboken, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonas Jacobson, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. Martin Brenner, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 Email: jonas@dovel.com simon@dovel.com martin@dovel.com BARRETT FINANCIAL: Blair Bid to Certify Class Tossed as Moot ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jennifer Blair, v. Barrett Financial Group, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-03157-DJH (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Diane J. Humetewa entered an order granting the Defendant's motions to compel arbitration. The Court further entered an order that: -- The parties shall file a joint status report as to the arbitrability of the Plaintiff's claims within five (5) days of the arbitrator rendering a decision on its jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims. -- The parties shall file a joint status report as to the status of arbitration on or before Oct. 1, 2025, and thereafter every three (3) months while arbitration is pending. -- The Plaintiff Blair's motion to strike and the Plaintiff Rake's motion to strike are denied. -- The Plaintiffs' motion to certify class is denied as moot. The Plaintiff alleges that, during her employment, she worked in excess of 40 hours in a given work week without being paid overtime. Due to this failure, she has brought a single claim of Failure to Pay Overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant offers home loan.s A copy of the Court's order dated July 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VIJfvR at no extra charge.[CC] BELVEDERE NRDE: Rios Sues Over Improper Tenant Fees --------------------------------------------------- MARIA CAMILA VALENCIA RIOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BELVEDERE NRDE, LLC; and PEGASUS RESIDENTIAL, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00474 (E.D. Va., June 23, 2025) alleges violation of the Virginia Residential Landlord Tenant Act and the Virginia Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants are engaged in a fraudulent and unlawful conduct in imposing and collecting a $9-per-month Pest Fee and a $34-per-month Community Fee that Defendants represent as necessary for each tenant to receive pest-control services and properly maintained common spaces in the Defendants' multi-unit apartment complexes. The Defendants engaged in and continue to engage in and profit from a scheme that induces their tenants into a residential lease that misrepresents their rights to certain services related to the warrant of habitability—guaranteed under Virginia Law—and forces them to waive such rights, says the suit. Belvedere NRDE, LLC offers apartments in North Chesterfield, VA near Johnston-Willis Hospital with excellent amenities. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristi C. Kelly, Esq. Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq. Casey S. Nash, Esq. J. Patrick McNichol, Esq. Matthew G. Rosendahl, Esq. KELLY GUZZO, PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7572 Facsimile: (703) 591-0167 E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com casey@kellyguzzo.com pat@kellyguzzo.com matt@kellyguzzo.com BETTER HOME: Gillean Sues Over Data Privacy Violations ------------------------------------------------------ WESLEY GILLEAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BETTER HOME & FINANCE HOLDING COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-01573 (C.D. Cal., June 24, 2025) alleges violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and the California Invasion of Privacy Act, by disclosing the Plaintiff's and Class Members' private and confidential information without consent. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the accessed and applied for a financial product on www.better.com (the "Website"), a website owned and operated by Defendant. Despite reasonable expectations of privacy, and the Defendant's legal and ethical duties to prevent the disclosure of such private information, the Defendant discloses information related to consumers' financial applications to LinkedIn Corporation and Google, LLC. These disclosures include communications that contain sensitive and confidential information -- i.e., "nonpublic personal information," says the suit. Better Home & Finance Holding Company operates as a digital native homeownership company. The Company offers residential mortgage, insurance, and real estate solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com BEVERLY TEACHERS: Donahue et al. Sue Over Illegal Strike -------------------------------------------------------- JANELLE DONAHUE, individually and as mother and next friend of her minor children, L.C.D., B.C.D., and K.D.; ERICA KOSTRO, individually and as mother and next friend of her minor child, C.K.; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BEVERLY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, ANDREA SHERMAN, herself and as a representative of a defendant class, MASSACHUSETTS TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, MALDEN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, BROOKLINE EDUCATORS UNION, NEWTON TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, Defendants, Case No. 2577CV00678D (Mass. Sup., Essex Cty., June 25, 2025) seeks to recover compensation for the injuries inflicted on them by Beverly Teachers Association's illegal strike that shut down Beverly public schools for 12 school days. Through their illegal acts, the Union Defendants damaged thousands of students in Beverly public schools by interrupting their educational progress. The Union Defendants also cost parents and caretakers, who were forced to skip work, use vacation and sick days, or hire babysitters to ensure their children's care while school was shut down, says the suit. The Beverly Teachers Association is a nonprofit organization and the local union for teachers and other employees in the Beverly public schools. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ilya I. Feoktistov, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ILYA FEOKTISTOV 292 Newbury Street, No. 544 Boston, MA 02115 (617) 462-7938 E-mail: if@ilyafeoktistov.com - and - Daniel R. Suhr, Esq. HUGHES & SUHR LLC 1341 W. Fullerton Ave., Suite 171 Chicago, IL 60614 E-mail: Dsuhr@hughesandsuhr.com BLACKWELL 3D: Sanchez Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blackwell 3D Construction Corp. The case is styled as Michelle Sanchez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Blackwell 3D Construction Corp., Case No. 1:25-cv-22920-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. Blackwell 3D Construction Corp. -- https://www.blackwell3d.com/ -- is a team of experts in technology, finance, design, with over 100 years of combined experience.[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 BLUESKY HEALTHCARE: Parties Must File Class Cert. Sched by July 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Garcia v. Bluesky Healthcare, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01617 (N.D. Ohio, Filed Aug. 20, 2023), the Hon. Judge Charles Esque Fleming entered an order granting the parties' stipulated motion to extend deadline for plaintiff's class certification motion. The current deadline for filing a Rule 23 motion for class certification is cancelled. The parties shall file a joint proposed scheduling order for the class certification briefing by July 31, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). BlueSky is a Clinical Informatics and Healthcare IT consulting firm.[CC] BUTEN INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Davis Due Feb. 27, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KYLE DAVIS, v. BUTEN, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00151-DRC (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Douglas Cole entered a scheduling order as follows Exchange of initial disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1): July 21, 2025 Motions to amend the pleadings and/or to add additional parties: Oct. 31, 2025 Discovery on Plaintiff's Motion for Court-Approved Written Notice to any putative collective members: Oct. 31, 2025 Motions directed to pleadings: Nov. 14, 2025 Discovery for Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, if any: Feb. 13, 2026 The Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification: Feb. 27, 2026 The Defendant's opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification: March 20, 2026 Buten is an auto repair shop. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oo8Cqa at no extra charge.[CC] CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE: Ends Deal With Simplilearn After Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jaweed Kaleem, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that Caltech said Monday, July 7, that it would end its relationship with an e-learning company after a class-action lawsuit alleged the firm and the university misrepresented a cybersecurity boot camp and misled students by suggesting the course had close ties to the Pasadena campus and instructors, even though the connection was minimal. In an email to the Caltech community, President Thomas F. Rosenbaum and Provost David A. Tirrell said the university would halt its ties to the firm Simplilearn after current courses finish in November. They also said Caltech would launch a faculty oversight committee for other learning programs under its Center for Technology and Management Education, which offers dozens of courses for professionals, to "guide and inform future initiatives" and "advise on strategy, curriculum, and education programming." Caltech and Simplilearn, as a part of a court settlement, did not "admit or concede" to allegations in the lawsuit or violating laws. Still, the move by one of the nation's most prestigious universities was a significant win for students and advocates who have made complaints nationwide over colleges lending their names to online courses that have few ties to campus faculty or typical university oversight. Online university programs have grown by the hundreds since 2011, when the Education Department released guidelines that allowed revenue sharing among universities and third-party course providers to proliferate, prompting backlash and scrutiny. Last year, the California state auditor cited UC, saying it made "limited use of online program management firms" yet should have "increased oversight" of them. Two states, Ohio and Minnesota, have passed laws regulating "online program managers" that partner with universities. New America, a liberal think tank that has tracked the growth of such courses, wrote in a recent report that the quality of online program managers "can be questionable. Students have complained of low-quality instruction and programs that do not fulfill the promises made by recruiters." Students often earn certificates issued by the course providers and "graduate deep in debt, only to find their credential carries little or no weight in the job market, or that they lack the skills needed for their chosen career," the New America analysis, published last month, said. The Caltech Cybersecurity Bootcamp, which each year enrolled roughly 500 people across eight classes, became the center of a lawsuit in 2023 after a student who had signed up three years earlier said the university used its name recognition to sell classes taught by people unaffiliated or loosely affiliated with the Caltech brand. Named plaintiff and former student Elva Lopez filed the suit in state court in San Francisco before it was approved as a class-action legal proceeding. She alleged the university and Simplilearn violated consumer protection laws and that the program she enrolled in was part of Caltech "in name only." She said she took out $14,000 in loans for classes where one instructor was someone whose credentials included graduating from the same program. As part of the settlement, they signed and the court released Monday, July 7, Caltech and Simplilearn agreed to not "hire or use boot camp instructors whose only credentials for teaching cybersecurity are that they have graduated from a cybersecurity boot camp." They also said they wouldn't "represent that boot camp students have access to Caltech services that they do not have access to," would create a "directory page listing all current boot camp instructors and their affiliation," and would require Simplilearn recruiters to use Simpilearn email addresses. The settlement, which still needs judicial approval, also said Simplilearn would refund tuition to 263 people who paid a total of $2.4 million. On top of legal fees, the settlement said Simplilearn would pay $340,000 and Caltech $60,000 to be distributed to class members. A spokesperson for Simplilearn did not respond to a request for comment. Although some parts of the agreement have little practical effect after Caltech's announcement that the partnership would soon end, a lawyer who represented the plaintiffs said it was a "great playbook" for other schools with similar programs. "This settlement provides meaningful relief to Elva Lopez and other Caltech bootcamp participants. It achieves their goals of accountability and transparency for students who attended the Caltech Cybersecurity Bootcamp or will in the future," said attorney Eric Rothschild of the National Student Legal Defense Network. "The changes Caltech and Simplilearn agreed to are a great playbook for other schools offering these kinds of programs to follow." Although it is distancing itself from Simplilearn, Caltech said it still prided itself on its other professional and executive-level programs under the Center for Technology and Management Education. Each year, the center "administers more than 40 distinct extended education programs, which are available as open-enrollment courses for individuals as well as customized certification programs developed in collaboration with corporate partners," including Aramco, Boeing, John Deere, NASA, Northrop Grumman and Toshiba, Rosenbaum and Tirrell wrote. The center, they said, has "a strong reputation for delivering certification programs and training that enhance professional skill-sets and prepare the workforce to meet the increasingly complex technological demands of modern industry." [GN] CEMENTATION USA: Knight Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL KNIGHT, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. CEMENTATION USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00512 (D. Utah, June 25, 2025), seeks to recover unpaid wages and other damages from Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant employed Plaintiff Knight as an electrician in the Eagle Mine from approximately November 2020 through July 2023. Plaintiff Knight and the other employees regularly work more than 40 hours a workweek. However, Defendant does not pay them for all their hours worked, including overtime hours. In addition, the Defendant fails to include non-discretionary bonuses in its employees' regular rates of pay for the purpose of calculating their overtime rates of pay. Headquartered in Sandy, Salt Lake County, Utah, Cementation USA, Inc. is an underground mine contracting and engineering company that provides development and production services for clients. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented: April L. Hollingsworth, Esq. HOLLINGSWORTH LAW OFFICE, LLC 40 South 600 East Salt Lake City, UT 84102 Telephone: (801) 415-9909 Facsimile: (801) 303-7324 E-mail: april@aprilhollingsworthlaw.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com CERNER CORPORATION: Skinner Files Suit in W.D. Missouri ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cerner Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Christopher Skinner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cerner Corporation d/b/a Oracle Health, Inc., Tallahassee Memorial Healthcare, Inc., Case No. 4:25-cv-00476-BP (W.D. Mo., June 25, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Cerner Corporation doing business as Oracle Health -- https://www.oracle.com/ -- is a US-based, multinational provider of health information technology platforms and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Patrick D. Donathen, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: Gary@lcllp.com patrick@lcllp.com - and - John Austin Moore, Esq. Norman Eli Siegel, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON, LLP - KCMO 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: (816) 714-7100 Fax: (816) 714-7101 Email: moore@stuevesiegel.com siegel@stuevesiegel.com CHARISMA THERAPEUTICS: M&A Investigates Sale to OrthoCellix ----------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating -- Charisma Therapeutics Inc. (NASDAQ: CARM) related to its sale to OrthoCellix, Inc. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, existing Carisma shareholders are expected to own approximately 10% of the combined company. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/carisma-therapeutics-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Guaranty Bancshares, Inc. (NYSE: GNTY) related to its sale to Glacier Bancorp, Inc. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, existing Guaranty shareholders will receive 1.0000 share of Glacier common stock for each share of Guaranty (subject to certain adjustments). Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/guaranty-bancshares-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Turnstone Biologics Corp. (NASDAQ: TSBX) related to its sale to XOMA Royalty Corporation in which existing Turnstone shareholders will receive $0.34 in cash per share and one non-transferable contingent value right. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/turnstone-biologics-corp/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Sage Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: SAGE) related to its sale to Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, current Sage shareholders will receive $8.50 per share in cash, plus one non-tradable contingent value right collectively worth up to $3.50 per share in cash payable (i) $0.50 the first commercial sale of the drug Zurzuvae in Japan to third-aprty consumers following regulatory approval on or before June 30, 2026; (ii) $1.00 when net sales of Zurzuvae reach or exceed $300 million in the U.S. on or before December 31, 2028; and (iii) $1.00 when net sales of Zurzuvae reach or exceed $375 million in the U.S. on or before December 31, 2030. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/sage-therapeutics-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] CIGNA CORP: Must File Class Cert Response in Stewart by Oct. 3 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stewart, et al., v. CIGNA Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00769 (D. Conn., Filed June 10, 2022), the Hon. Judge Omar A. Williams entered a scheduling order as follows: The Defendant's response to the pending motion for class certification shall be filed on or before Oct. 3, 2025. The Plaintiff's reply in support of the same shall be filed on or before Nov. 4, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (E.R.I.S.A.). Cigna is a global health service company based in Bloomfield, Connecticut.[CC] CNO FINANCIAL: Policyholders Win Jury Trial in "LifeTrend" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Weisbrod Matteis & Copley PLLC and DeLaney & DeLaney LLC won a precedent-setting victory in a jury trial in a nationwide class action lawsuit against CNO Financial Group, Inc. and CNO Services, LLC concerning life insurance policy overcharges. The federal court jury verdict concerns "LifeTrend" policies issued by a former CNO subsidiary, Conseco Life Insurance Company. On June 18, 2025, an Indianapolis jury awarded damages to lead plaintiffs William "Jeff" Burnett and Dr. Joe Camp on their claims for breach of contract. The jury adopted the damages model providing the most compensation to policyholders. After finding that the breaches of the policies caused the plaintiffs to surrender their policies, the jury awarded Dr. Camp $205,141 and Mr. Burnett $13,911 (not including interest). Based on the jury verdict, total damages for the class comprised of approximately 2,000 policyholders are now estimated at $83.2 million after deducting prior settlement payments. With interest added, total damages are estimated at $211.3 million. The case is Burnett, et al. v. Conseco Life Insurance Co., et al., and was filed in 2012. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The suit was certified as a nationwide class action over CNO's objection. Plaintiffs allege that CNO overcharged policyholders with massively increased premiums and "cost of insurance" charges that were not allowed under the policy terms. CNO's actuaries projected that thousands of policyholders would surrender their policies rather than pay the overcharges and, just as CNO predicted, thousands of policyholders surrendered their policies. CNO denies that it can be held liable for breaches of policies issued by former CNO subsidiary Conseco Life Insurance Company, which already has settled out of the case for $27 million. That issue will be addressed in a second trial scheduled to begin on August 25, 2025. "The jury resoundingly rejected CNO's defenses, accepted the policyholders' position that damages should be calculated using CNO's own internal coverage valuations, and chose the damages model that produces the highest damages for the policyholders," said co-lead counsel Stephen Weisbrod. "We and our clients are thrilled with this precedent-setting victory on behalf of policyholders who suffered serious harm after CNO improperly changed the rules," said co-lead counsel Kathleen DeLaney. About Weisbrod Matteis & Copley PLLC Weisbrod Matteis & Copley PLLC represents a wide array of plaintiffs in insurance recovery and other matters. The firm's clients include private equity firms, product manufacturers, property owners, technology companies, government agencies, trusts, and many others. WMC has offices in the District of Columbia, Miami, Seattle, Jackson, and San Juan. For more information, please visit us online at www.wmclaw.com. About DeLaney & DeLaney LLC DeLaney & DeLaney LLC is an Indianapolis boutique litigation firm handling a variety of civil litigation matters including class actions, in Indiana's federal and state trial and appellate courts. The firm is proud to have been recognized as an AV rated law firm by LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell, and has been honored many times by Best Lawyers and SuperLawyers. For more information, please visit us online at www.delaneylaw.net. [GN] COCA-COLA CO: Faces Class Suit Over Powerade Deceptive Labeling --------------------------------------------------------------- Alexis McDonell, writing for Yahoo News, reports that Powerade's bold blue label promises 50% more electrolytes than the competition. However, a new lawsuit says the figure is more of a marketing spin than a scientific fact. What's happening? Coca-Cola is facing a class action lawsuit over allegedly deceptive claims on its Powerade Mountain Berry Blast sports drink, Top Class Actions reported. The complaint, filed in New York by Natasha Lekwa, accuses the beverage giant of falsely marketing the drink as having "50% more electrolytes" than competing sports drinks. According to the complaint, the label implies the electrolytes will give consumers health benefits, but the actual differences in electrolytes such as sodium and potassium are too small to matter. "Such claims should be reflected in the sodium and potassium content in the labeling as required for food products, which is not the case," the lawsuit states. Lekwa is asking for a jury trial, monetary and punitive damages, and updated labeling for all affected products. Why is this lawsuit important? When major brands build their marketing around health and performance, their claims and labels need to mean something. That's especially true for sports drinks, which people reach for during illness, heat waves, and workouts. Lekwa's complaint argues that Coca-Cola is leaning on exaggerated figures to position Powerade as a better choice when the benefits are barely measurable. This isn't the first time Coca-Cola has been criticized for misleading or harmful practices. The company remains the world's top producer of branded plastic waste, contributing millions of single-use bottles to the global waste stream each year. And while Powerade's label may play up performance, the impact of the product -- from underwhelming health claims to plastic-heavy packaging -- is more damaging than it seems. What's being done about it? The Powerade case is still in its early stages. Still, the lawsuit could push Coca-Cola to rethink how it markets its sports drinks, signaling to other beverage companies that vague or inflated health claims won't go unchecked. Regulators may also take a closer look at how companies advertise electrolytes and other so-called wellness benefits or even greenwashed marketing claims. In other areas of its business, Coca-Cola has made moves in the right direction. Recently, it has invested in new production facilities with sustainability initiatives. Through recycling partnerships, Coca-Cola Consolidated, the largest Coca-Cola bottler in the nation, collected more than 974 million plastic bottles last year. Yet it's clear that the beverage giant needs to do more to limit its impact on the environment. As this class action lawsuit gains steam, so does the case for holding companies accountable -- not just for what they sell but for how they sell it. [GN] COEPTIS THERAPEUTICS: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Z Squared --------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- Coeptis Therapeutics Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: COEP), relating to the proposed merger with Z Squared Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, holders of outstanding Z Squared shares will receive equity in Coeptis in exchange for 9,000 U.S. based dogecoin mining machines. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/coeptis-therapeutics-holdings-inc-coep/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Regional Health Properties, Inc. (NYSE: RHE), relating to the proposed merger with SunLink Health Systems, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, Regional will provide one share of Regional common stock and one share of Series D Preferred Stock for each five SunLink common shares. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for July 29, 2025. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/regional-health-properties-inc-rhe/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Pacific Premier Bancorp, Inc. (NASDAQ: PPBI), relating to the proposed merger with Columbia Banking System, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, Pacific Premier stockholders will receive 0.9150 of a share of Columbia common stock for each Pacific Premier share they hold, and own approximately 30% of Columbia's outstanding shares of common stock. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for July 21, 2025. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/pacific-premier-bancorp-inc-ppbi/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Southport Acquisition Corporation (OTC: PORT), relating to its proposed merger with Angel Studios, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, Angel Studios shares will automatically be converted into the right to receive Southport shares. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/southport-acquisition-corporation/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] COLUMBIA BANKING: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Pacific Premier ----------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating -- Columbia Banking System, Inc. (NASDAQ: COLB), relating to the proposed merger with Pacific Premier Bancorp, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, Pacific Premier stockholders will be given 0.9150 of a share of Columbia common stock for each Pacific Premier share they own. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for July 21, 2025. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/columbia-banking-system-inc-colb/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com [GN] COMMUNICATIONS DATA: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Bennett Says --------------------------------------------------------------- PATTY BENNETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMMUNICATIONS DATA GROUP, INC.; DUO COUNTY TELEPHONE COOPERATIVE CORPORATION, INC.; and CUMBERLAND CELLULAR, LLC D/B/A DUO BROADBAND, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-02181 (C.D. Ill., June 18, 2025) is an action against the Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information that they collected and maintained as part of their regular business practices, including Plaintiff's and Class Members' first and last names, addresses, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint that by obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Private Information of the Plaintiff and Class Members, the Defendants assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. The Defendants failed to adequately protect the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information––and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted Private Information was compromised due to the Defendants' negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and their utter failure to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and continuing risk of identity theft and fraud to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes, says the suit. Communications Data Group, Inc. (CDG) data preparation and management services. The Company offers customer care, mediation, customer invoicing, plant records, trouble reporting, and patronage services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com COMMUNITY HEALTH: Appeals Remand Ruling in Fazenbaker Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE INC. is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to remand in the lawsuit entitled Amy Fazenbaker, legal guardian of D.F., a minor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Community Health Care Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-11170, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, is brought against the Defendant for alleged medical malpractice. On Jan. 15, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to the Superior Court of New Jersey, which Judge Edward S. Kiel granted on May 19, 2025. The appellate case is entitled Amy Fazenbaker, et al. v. Community Health Care Inc., Case No. 25-2145, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on June 20, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees AMY FAZENBAKER, legal guardian of D.F., a minor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Gary S. Graifman, Esq. KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN 135 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200 Montvale, NJ 07645 Telephone: (201) 391-7000 - and - Vicki Maniatis, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Defendant-Appellant COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE INC. is represented by: Laura D. Ruccolo, Esq. William G. Wright, Esq. CAPEHART SCATCHARD 8000 Midlantic Drive Laurel Corporate Center, Suite 300S P.O. Box 5016 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Telephone: (856) 234-6800 COMPASS DIVERSIFIED: Tan Sues Over Misleading Business Statements ----------------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN TAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMPASS DIVERSIFIED HOLDINGS, COMPASS GROUP DIVERSIFIED HOLDINGS LLC, COMPASS GROUP MANAGEMENT LLC, ELIAS J. SABO, RYAN J. FAULKINGHAM, STEPHEN KELLER, and PATRICK A. MACIARIELLO, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-05777 (C.D. Cal., June 25, 2025) arises from Defendants' failure to promptly disseminate accurate and truthful information with respect to the Company’s operations, business, and present and future business prospects. The Plaintiff brings this federal class action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission's Rule 10b-5 on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Compass securities between March 1, 2023 and May 7, 2025, inclusive against Compass and certain of the Company's officers and executive. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants failed to disclose that: (i) they knew (or recklessly disregarded) that Compass's internal control over financial reporting was patently defective, resulting in the issuance of financial statements that contained material errors; (ii) Lugano had violated applicable accounting rules and acceptable industry practices with respect to its financing, accounting, and inventory practices during the Company's 2022-2024 fiscal years; (iii) Lugano's 2022-2024 financial results had been artificially distorted by these irregularities; (iv) Compass had failed to implement effective internal controls over the Company's financial reporting; and (v) as a result, Compass's reported 2022-2024 financial results did not reflect the actual financial results of the Company and such reported results were materially misstated, says the suit. Headquartered Compass Diversified Holdings is a publicly traded Delaware statutory trust. The company's common stock is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange under ticker symbol "CODI." [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John T. Jasnoch, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-4565 Facsimile: (619) 233-0508 E-mail: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com - and - Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq. Nicholas S. Bruno, Esq. Matthew A. Peller, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 24th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 E-mail: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com nbruno@scott-scott.com mpeller@scott-scott.com CONNEXION POINT: Seeks to Modify Class Cert. Briefing Schedule -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARYANN CRUZ individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. CONNEXION POINT, LLC, a Utah Limited Liability Company, and INTEGRITY, LLC, f/k/a INTEGRITY MARKETING GROUP a Texas Corporation, Case No. 2:24-cv-00966-TC-DBP (D. Utah), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order modifying the briefing schedule for Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification. The Defendants request that the Court enter an Order modifying the existing briefing and hearing schedule as follows: a. The Defendants' response to the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification is due on Aug. 11, 2025; b. The Plaintiff's reply in support of the motion for conditional certification is due on Sept. 10, 2025; c. The hearing on the Defendants' motion to dismiss is entered and continued; d. The Plaintiff's motion to continue is denied as moot; and e. A combined hearing on the motion to dismiss and the motion for conditional certification will be scheduled for a time convenient for the Court after Sept. 10, 2025. On June 26, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for conditional certification which is 23 pages in length. On June 27, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Continue the July 8, 2025, hearing on Defendants' motion to dismiss and consolidate hearings for both Defendants' motion to dismiss and the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification. Connexion develops and builds technology solutions. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5XiEE4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Livia M. Kiser, Esq. Thomas E. Ahlering, Esq. Andrew Cockroft, Esq. Michael D. Roth, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 110 N. Wacker Dr., Ste. 3800 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 995-6333 E-mail: lkiser@kslaw.com tahlering@kslaw.com acockroft@kslaw.com mroth@kslaw.com - and - David B. Dibble, Esq. Katherine Priest, Esq. RAY QUINNEY & NEBEKER Salt Lake City, UT 84145-0385 Telephone: (801) 532-1500 Facsimile: (801) 532-7543 E-mail: ddibble@rqn.com kpriest@rqn.com CONOPCO INC: Candelaria Bid for Class Certification Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH CANDELARIA, v. CONOPCO, INC., d/b/a UNILEVER HOME & PERSONAL CARE USA, Case No. 1:21-cv-06760-NCM-TAM (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Natasha C. Merle entered an order denying the plaintiff's motion for class certification. Any party wishing to move for summary judgment must take the first step in dispositive motion practice no later than Aug. 1, 2025. Otherwise, the parties shall file a proposed joint pretrial order by Sept. 2, 2025. Accordingly, the Court finds that the plaintiff fails to demonstrate that class treatment is the superior method for adjudicating alleged common issues for the Proposed Class, and certification is improper on this ground as well. The Plaintiff seeks to certify "certain liability issues" for the following Proposed Class: "Individuals who suffered hair loss after using TRESemmé hair care products containing DMDM, MCI and/or MI during the applicable statute of limitations and who have retained S&F as their counsel." The Plaintiff began experiencing hair loss as early as 2016. Around that same time, the plaintiff purchased and used TRESemmé hair products. On Dec. 6, 2021, the plaintiff filed the instant putative class action, bringing claims on behalf of herself and others similarly situated for product liability under theories of design defect and failure to warn, as well as a claim for negligence. Conopco manufactures, designs, markets, and distributes TRESemmé shampoos and conditioners. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated July 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=43nTXl at no extra charge.[CC] CORSAIR GAMING: Class Settlement in McKinney Suit Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTONIO MCKINNEY, et al., v. CORSAIR GAMING, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-00312-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement and approving parties’ stipulation to file amended complaint. 1. The Court preliminarily certifies the Settlement Class consisting of: "All individuals in the United States who purchased one or more Products from Jan. 14, 2018 to the date the Court grants Preliminary Approval." Excluded from the Settlement Class are (1) any Judge or Magistrate presiding over this action and members of their families, (2) the defendant, the defendant's subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the defendant or its parents have a controlling interest and their current or former officers, directors, and employees, (3) counsel of record (and their respective law firms) for the Parties; (4) persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the class, and (5) the legal representatives, successors or assigns of any such excluded persons. "'Products' means any Corsair DDR-4 (non-SODIMM/laptop) memory product with a base or default (i.e., JEDEC standard Serial Presence Detect or 'SPD') speed over 2133 megahertz (MHz) or any Corsair DDR-5 (non-SODIMM/laptop) memory product with a base or default speed over 4800 megahertz." 2. The Court preliminarily appoints the Plaintiffs Antonio McKinney, Clint Sundeen, and Joseph Alcantara as Class Representatives of the Settlement Class. 3. The Court preliminarily appoints Dovel & Luner, LLP and Kneupper Covey, PC as Class Counsel under Rule 23(g). 4. The Court sets a final approval hearing on Dec. 4, 2025, at 2:00 p.m., by Zoom video conference. The public hearing link is available on the Court's website, https://cand.uscourts.gov/judges/tigar-jon-s-jst/. Corsair is a developer and manufacturer of high-performance gear and technology for gamers, content creators, and PC enthusiasts. A copy of the Court's order dated July 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sUHMuJ at no extra charge.[CC] CRITERION COLLECTION: Agrees to Settle Subscription Suit for $4.5MM ------------------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that The Criterion Collection has agreed to pay $4.5 million to resolve claims it violated privacy laws by sharing subscriber information with third parties. The Criterion Collection settlement benefits individuals who were registered users or had a subscription to the Criterion Channel service between Sept. 27, 2022, and Dec. 27, 2024, and who watched a pre-recorded video through the service. A class action lawsuit accused The Criterion Collection of violating several privacy laws by sharing subscriber information with third parties such as Meta and Twilio. Plaintiffs in the case claimed that they did not consent to the sharing of their information when purchasing a The Criterion Collection subscription and that this sharing violated their privacy rights. The Criterion Collection is a film distribution company that offers a streaming service called Criterion Channel. The Criterion Collection hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to this $4.5 million class action settlement to resolve these allegations. Under the terms of the The Criterion Collection settlement, class members can receive a cash payment. Exact payment amounts will vary depending on the number of claims filed with the settlement. No payment estimates are available at this time. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Aug. 19, 2025. The final approval hearing for the Criterion Collection subscription settlement is scheduled for Oct. 15, 2025. In order to receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid claim form by Aug. 19, 2025. Who's Eligible Individuals who were registered users of, or had a subscription to, the Criterion Channel service and watched a pre-recorded video through the Criterion Channel service between Sept. 27, 2022, and Dec. 27, 2024. Potential Award TBD Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 08/19/2025 Case Name Lucchese-Soto, et al. v. The Criterion Collection LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-07345-VEC, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Final Hearing 10/15/2025 Settlement Website CriterionChannelSettlement.com Claims Administrator Criterion Channel Settlement c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC P.O. Box 225391 New York, NY 10150-5391 (833) 420-3829 Class Counsel Yitzchak Kopel Max S. Roberts Victoria X. Zhou BURSOR & FISHER PA Mark S. Reich Gary S. Ishimoto LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP Defense Counsel Mark S. Melodia William F. Farley Stosh M. Silivos Sophie L. Kletzien HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP [GN] DAVE'S TOWING: O'Loughlin Appeals Ruling to Ky. Ct. of Appeals -------------------------------------------------------------- SCOTT O'LOUGHLIN, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Scott O'Loughlin, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Dave's Towing Service, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 17-CI-5454, in the Jefferson Circuit Court, Louisville, Kentucky. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant improperly impounded vehicles by failing to comply with Louisville Metro's Private Towing Ordinance. The appellate case is captioned Scott O'Loughlin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et. al. vs. Dave's Towing Service, Inc., Case No. 25-0782, in the Kentucky Court of Appeals, filed on June 23, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants Scott O'Loughlin, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Robert Lawrence Astorino, Jr., Esq. STEIN WHATLEY ATTORNEYS PLLC 2525 Bardstown Rd., #101 Louisville, KY 40205 Telephone: (502) 553-4750 Email: rastorino@steinwhatley.com - and - Joseph Donald Satterley, Esq. SATTERLEY & KELLEY PLLC 8700 Westport Road, Suite 202 Louisville, KY 40242 Telephone: (855) 385-9532 Defendant-Appellee DAVE'S TOWING SERVICE, INC. is represented by: Nader George Shunnarah, Esq. Shunnarah Law Firm 916 Lily Creek Road, Suite 201 Louisville, KY 40243 Telephone: (502) 200-9000 - and - Mark B. Wallace, Esq. Wallace Law LLC 7403 St. Andrews Church Road Louisville, KY 40214 Telephone: (502) 937-1125 DECISELY INSURANCE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Smith Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- MELISSA SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DECISELY INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03461-ELR (N.D. Ga., June 20, 2025)is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's information network, including, without limitation, full names, social security number, date of birth, phone number, digital signature, and email address (these types of information, inter alia, being thereafter referred to, collectively, as "personally identifiable information" or "PII"). According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, while the Defendant claims to have discovered the breach as early as December 17, 2024, Defendant did not inform victims of the Data Breach until June 13, 2025. Indeed, Plaintiff and Class Members were wholly unaware of the Data Breach until they received letters from Defendant informing them of it. The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of data and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies, and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. As a result, Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party—an undoubtedly nefarious third party seeking to profit off this disclosure by defrauding Representative Plaintiff and Class Members in the future, says the suit. Decisely Insurance Services, LLC operates as an insurance brokerage company. The Company provides life, medical, dental, vision, and disability insurance services, as well as offers employee benefits plans. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Brandon Smith, Esq. CHILDERS, SCHLUETER & SMITH, LLC 1932 N. Druid Hills Road, Suite 100 Atlanta, GA 30319 Telephone: (404) 419-9500 Facsimile: (404) 419-9501 Email: bsmith@cssfirm.com - and - Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 468 N. Camden Drive Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 Email: daniel@slfla.com DECISELY INSURANCE: Morris Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- NOAH MORRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DECISELY INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC, and METLIFE SERVICES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-03489-ELR (N.D. Ga., June 23, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of third party beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within their network systems following a data breach in December 2024. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Decisely Insurance Services, LLC is an insurance broker headquartered in Alpharetta, Georgia. MetLife Services and Solutions, LLC is an insurance company headquartered in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (771) 772-3086 Email: cturner@milberg.com DELECT FOODS: Hardwick Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Managers -------------------------------------------------------------- COURTLAND HARDWICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DELECT FOODS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-02920 (S.D. Tex., June 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages and retaliation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a manager at its Beaumont and Port Arthur locations in Texas from approximately November 2024 to the present. Delect Foods, LLC is a global fast-food chain operator, doing business in Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl A. Fitz, Esq. FITZ LAW PLLC 3730 Kirby Drive, Ste. 1200 Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: (713) 766-4000 Email: carl@fitz.legal DELOITTE CONSULTING: Goldstone Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Sam Goldstone, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Deloitte Consulting LLP, Case No. 2584-CV-01252 was removed from the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Suffolk County, to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on July 1, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-11875-WGY. The Plaintiff alleges that, on or around August 29, 2024, while located in Massachusetts, he "applied online for a Massachusetts-based position at Deloitte as a Business Analyst," and the job application did not provide the "notice of his rights concerning lie detector tests that is required by Mass. Gen. Laws.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Reardon, Jr., Esq. REARDON SCANLON LLP 45 South Main Steet, 3rd Floor West Hartford, CT 06107 Email: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com - and - Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. ARISOHN LLC 94 Blakeslee Rd. Litchfield, CT 06759 Email: josh@arisohnllc.com The Defendants are represented by: Keri. L. Engelman, Esq. Anna K. Perocchi, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Federal Street Boston, MA 02110-1726 Phone: +1.617.341.7700 Fax: +1.617.341.7701 Email: keri.engleman@morganlewis.com anna.perocchi@morganlewis.com DENTOLOGIE PC: Discloses Patients' Info to Google, Kite Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- MELISSA KITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DENTOLOGIE, P.C. and DENTOLOGIE ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06951 (N.D. Ill., June 23, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the Illinois Eavesdropping Act, negligence, breach of confidence, unjust enrichment, and breach of implied contract. The case arises from the Defendants' practice of aiding, employing, agreeing, and conspiring with third parties, such as Google, LLC, to intercept patients' communications as they seek dental services through the Defendants' website. According to the complaint, the Defendants secretly installed complex computer code on their website which serves to track and disclose their patients' activity, in real time, to Google. As a result of the Defendants' misconduct, the protected health information (PHI) of their patients is disclosed to Google without their consent. Dentologie, PC is a dental care services provider, with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. Dentologie Enterprises, Inc. is a dental care services provider, with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alec M. Leslie, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: aleslie@bursor.com - and - Stephen A. Beck, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2100 Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 679-9006 Email: sbeck@bursor.com DOYON LIMITED: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, David Jr. Says ----------------------------------------------------------- JOHNNY A. DAVID, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DOYON, LIMITED, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00129 (D. Alaska, June 20, 2025) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its customers. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the data security incident in which unauthorized individuals breached its computer information systems and downloaded files containing this Private Information of its current and former clients, shareholders, and employees (the "Data Breach") occurred because Doyon failed to implement reasonable security protections to safeguard its information systems and databases. Moreover, before the Data Breach occurred, Doyon failed to inform the public that its data security practices were deficient and inadequate. Had Plaintiff and Class members been made aware of this fact, they would have never provided such information to Doyon. As a result of Doyon's negligent, reckless, intentional, and/or unconscionable failure to adequately satisfy its contractual, statutory, and common-law obligations, Plaintiff and Class members suffered injuries, says the suit. Doyon, Ltd. provides oil field services. The Company offers services in drilling operations, security, remote camp services, engineering, and pipeline construction. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Cooley, Esq. Katherine Elsner, Esq. EHRHARDT, ELSNER & COOLEY 215 Fidalgo Ave, Suite 201 Kenai AK 99611 Telephone: (907) 283-2876 Facsimile: (907) 283-2896 Email: josh@907legal.com katie@907legal.com DREAMLAND HOLDING: Faris Loses Bid for Conditional Status of Action ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERESA FARIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. DREAMLAND HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00381-KD-B (S.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge Kristi K. DuBose entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of FLSA Collective Action, Defendant's response, and Plaintiffs' reply. At this stage, it appears that conditional certification would be "stirring up litigation." The Plaintiffs' affidavits lack specificity and are unsubstantiated. Only one person has opted-in since the suit was filed over eight months ago. No other employees have opted-in since the motion was filed over two months ago. Therefore, the Plaintiffs have not met their burden of demonstrating that other employees desire to opt in, and notice is not justified. On Oct. 15, 2025, Faris filed a collective action lawsuit against Dreamland alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Dreamland employed Tersa Faris as a server in its Mobile, Alabama restaurant from Oct. 4, 2023, to June 19, 2024. Dreamland employed Jovan Brown as a server in its Duluth, Georgia restaurant from Sept. 18, 2024, to Nov. 10, 2024. Dreamland operates eight barbeque restaurants in Alabama and two in Georgia. A copy of the Court's order dated July 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FCaYTD at no extra charge.[CC] EFFORTLESS OFFICE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Smith Says ----------------------------------------------------------- LAURANA SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EFFORTLESS OFFICE ENTERPRISES, LLC; and NEVADA HEART & VASCULAR CENTER, LLP, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01123 (D. Nev., June 23, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard protected health information ("PHI"), as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPAA"), and other personally identifiable information ("PII") (collectively with "PHI", "Private Information"), and for failing to provide timely, accurate, and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that the integrity of their Private Information was compromised in a cyber incident. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information––and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive data. This unencrypted, unredacted Private Information was compromised due to Defendants' negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect its patients' sensitive data. The Defendants maintained the Private Information in a reckless manner. In particular, Private Information was maintained on and/or accessible from Defendants' network in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks. Upon information and belief, the mechanism of the cyberattack and potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was a known risk to Defendants, and thus, Defendants knew that failing to take reasonable steps to secure the Private Information left it in a dangerous condition, says the suit. Effortless Office Enterprises, LLC is a hybrid managed services provider that delivers and fully supports secure cloud products and services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan R. Ring, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY PLLC 3100 W. Charleston Blvd., Ste. 208 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Telephone: (725) 235-9750 Email: nring@stranchlaw.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (786) 879-8200 Facsimile: (786) 879-7520 Email: mweekes@milberg.com EFFORTLESS OFFICE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Waudby Says ------------------------------------------------------------ JOHN WAUDBY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EFFORTLESS OFFICE ENTERPRISES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01135 (D. Nev., June 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and other similarly situated persons' personally identifiable information and protected health information, including names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, medical information, and health insurance information, from criminal hackers. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered and are at an imminent, immediate, and continuing increased risk of suffering, ascertainable losses in the form of harm from identity theft and other fraudulent misuse of their Private Information, the loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach. Effortless Office Enterprises, LLC is a business cloud services provider offering an all-in-one, fully supported ecosystem of complementary products and services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan R. Ring, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY PLLC 3100 W. Charleston Blvd., Ste. 208 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Telephone: (725) 235-9750 Email: nring@stranchlaw.com - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Neil P. Williams, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Email: tbean@sirillp.com nwilliams@sirillp.com EMCENTRIX INC: Laney Files Suit in C.D. California -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Emcentrix, Inc. The case is styled as Daniel Laney, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Emcentrix, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-05972 (C.D. Cal., July 1, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. EmCentrix -- https://www.emcentrix.com/ -- offers integrated online solutions for HR, payroll, time & attendance, & benefit management, providing complete connection of your information.[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 EMCENTRIX INC: O'Conner Files Suit in C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Emcentrix, Inc. The case is styled as Vanessa O'Conner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Emcentrix, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-05973 (C.D. Cal., July 1, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. EmCentrix -- https://www.emcentrix.com/ -- offers integrated online solutions for HR, payroll, time & attendance, & benefit management, providing complete connection of your information.[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 EPISOURCE LLC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Thomas Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- LARRY THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EPISOURCE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-05623 (C.D. Cal., June 20, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on or about January 27, 2025, through February 6, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Episource, LLC is a software company based in Gardena, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: (Eddie) Jae K. Kim, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 117 E. Colorado Blvd., Ste. 600 Pasadena, CA 91105 Telephone: (213) 723-0707 Facsimile: (858) 313-1850 Email: ekim@lcllp.com - and – Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Nicholas A. Colella, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Ave., 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 Email: gary@lcllp.com nickc@lcllp.com EPISOURCE LLC: McFall Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info --------------------------------------------------------------- AL MCFALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EPISOURCE, LLC and SHARP HEALTHCARE, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-05692 (C.D. Cal., June 23, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, and violations of the California Unfair Competition Law and the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within Episource's network systems following a data breach on or about January 27, 2025, through February 6, 2025. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Episource, LLC is a software company based in Gardena, California. Sharp Healthcare is a healthcare services provider, headquartered in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq. Matthew A. Pearson, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 788-8300 Facsimile: (818) 788-8104 Email: dwarshaw@pwfirm.com mapearson@pwfirm.com - and - Steven M. Nathan, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street Fourteenth Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 357-1100 Facsimile: (212) 202-4322 Email: snathan@hausfeld.com - and - James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. Nicholas U. Murphy, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1201 17th Street N.W., Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com nmurphy@hausfeld.com EPISOURCE LLC: Peck Files Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Episource LLC. The case is styled as Audrey E. Peck, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Episource LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-05781 (C.D. Cal., June 25, 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 EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Must File Joint Class Status Report by Aug. 8 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hines v. Equifax Information Services LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-06701 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Nov. 27, 2019), the Hon. Judge Rachel P. Kovner entered an order as follows: -- Appointing Continental DataLogix, LLC to provide notice to members of the New York Subclass and the Capital One Subclass consistent with the Court's class certification Order and the Court's Order of March 4, 2025. -- Directing Equifax to provide the Subclass Member Data to Continental DataLogix, LLC by July 7, 2025. -- Directing parties to file a Joint Status Report by Aug. 8, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The Defendant is a subsidiary of Equifax, a global data, analytics, and technology company. It is a major consumer reporting agency that collects and organizes data on consumers to generate credit reports, which are then sold to businesses.[CC] ERIE INDEMNITY: Atta Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Erie Indemnity Company, et al. The case is styled as Lori Van Atta, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Erie Indemnity Company, Erie Insurance Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-00174-CB (W.D. Pa., June 25, 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: Jacob U. Ginsburg, Esq. KIMMEL & SILVERMAN PC 30 E Butler Ave. Ambler, PA 19002 Phone: (267) 468-5374 Email: teamkimmel@creditlaw.com ETSY INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Use of Pixel Trackers --------------------------------------------------------------- Elleiana Green, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Etsy Inc. was hit with a proposed class action alleging the company allowed third parties to collect personal information from the platform's users through the use of pixel trackers. Austin White alleged the company, which offers goods and services to consumers via its website, violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act and other state law by using the pixel trackers operated by third parties like Google, Meta, and Microsoft. He filed the suit July 3 in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The suit joins a raft of other proposed class actions over use of the trackers filed against companies including Meta, Truist, and BMO. The plaintiffs didn't "consent to the installation, execution, embedding or injection" of the trackers and didn't "expect their behavioral data to be disclosed or monetized in this way," the suit said. The trackers transmit data including page views, session duration, IP addresses, and browser and device details to third party servers, the suit said. These trackers, which appear as a small image of JavaScript snippet on webpages are activated when a webpage is loaded, or a user performs a tracked action. White alleges the pixel trackers violate CIPA because the trackers are trap-and-trace devices prohibited without consent or a court order. The plaintiff seeks to represent all individuals in California whose browsers had trackers installed or otherwise affected Etsy's website. White seeks statutory damages, an injunction prohibiting the conduct alleged in the complaint, and attorneys' fees and costs. Etsy didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. White is represented by Nathan & Associates APC and Ross Cornell of Big Bear Lake, Calif. The case is White v. Esty Inc., N.D. Cal., No. 4:25-cv-05644, complaint filed 7/3/25. [GN] EXPRESSVPN: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Auto-Renewal Fees ----------------------------------------------------------- Chiara Castro, writing for Tech Radar, reports that ExpressVPN has been hit by a class action lawsuit over alleged "illegal" auto-renewal fees -- A Californian customer accused ExpressVPN of automatically charging him a monthly fee without his consent -- Most popular VPN providers employ a similar auto-renewal system – a practice lawyers allege to go against California's consumer law A customer in the US has sued VPN provider ExpressVPN over allegedly "illegal" auto-renewal fees. Plaintiff Timothy Millar filed a class action lawsuit against ExpressVPN in California's Court on June 13, 2025, accusing the company of automatically charging him a monthly fee without his consent. Millar seeks to represent himself and all other California consumers who have been charged illegal auto-renewal fees at least once. Despite a few exceptions, almost all the best VPNs on the market have a similar auto-renewal system in place to handle user subscriptions. Another provider, NordVPN, is facing a similar legal case in the US, as a law firm has already brought lawsuits on behalf of four plaintiffs so far. What the lawsuit against ExpressVPN is about As claimed by the lawsuit, Millar bought one month of the virtual private network (VPN) software in September 2022, thinking he was making a one-time purchase. Yet, after his monthly plan expired, "Unbeknownst to him and without his consent, ExpressVPN enrolled him in an automatically renewing monthly plan," reads the suit, alleging that "that charge was illegal and should be refunded." According to Miller's lawyers, such behavior is in clear contrast with the provider's obligations under California's Automatic Renewal Law (ARL). The law, in fact, requires companies adopting auto-renewal payment systems to provide "clear and conspicuous" disclosures about the auto-renewal plan and obtain "affirmative consent" to enroll consumers. Something that – the lawsuit claims – ExpressVPN failed to do "in nearly every way." Furthermore, ExpressVPN is accused of violating the False Advertising Law by disseminating misleading advertisements about the automatically renewing nature of its plans. Miller is now demanding a jury trial and monetary damages for himself and the proposed class. TechRadar approached ExpressVPN for comments, and a company spokesperson shared this written statement: "We are aware of the filing in relation to a subscription from several years ago and intend to defend it. Unfortunately, we cannot comment on the specific allegations made in this complaint. "ExpressVPN has always prioritized transparency and giving users clear information about pricing, billing, and auto-renewal – this information is clear and highly visible at each step of the checkout process. "As a cybersecurity company, providing uninterrupted protection is important to our customers. This subscription model ensures that customers get the protection they need, without fail, on their devices. Customers can switch auto-renew off anytime via their account dashboards or by contacting support. "We remain focused on delivering value to our users; ensuring they retain control over their digital privacy." Time to ditch auto-renewal VPN plans? As mentioned earlier, NordVPN is also facing a lawsuit over alleged "illegal and deceptive" auto-renewal practices. The Wittels McInturff Palikovic law firm has already presented legal complaints on behalf of four former NordVPN customers since April 2024 -- and urges all NordVPN users who were charged for a subscription they did not want to come forward. The same law firm has previously opened investigations into auto-enrollment practices against ExpressVPN, too, alongside Proton VPN and Private Internet Access (PIA). Yet, lawyers filed no lawsuit against these providers. While it is still early to know if these ongoing class actions will change how VPN providers handle user subscriptions once and for all, there are a few exceptions on the market already that you can opt for instead of getting locked into an auto-renewal plan. Mullvad VPN, which axed all recurring subscriptions in 2022 in the name of users' privacy, is one of them. [GN] FABCO ENTERPRISES: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Pittman Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- DEBBIE PITTMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FABCO ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06858 (N.D. Ill., June 20, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://fabcoshoes.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Fabco Enterprises, Inc. was founded in 1978. The Company's line of business includes general automotive repair. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (630) 478-0856 Email: achan@ealg.law FANDUEL INC: Daily Fantasy Sports Constitute Illegal Gambling ------------------------------------------------------------- A coalition of leading consumer protection law firms has filed four class action lawsuits in California federal court against FanDuel, DraftKings, PrizePicks, and Underdog Fantasy, alleging that the companies' daily fantasy sports ("DFS") contests constitute illegal gambling under California law. The class action complaints -- filed on behalf of California residents who entered DFS contests while located in the state -- seek monetary and injunctive relief for what the plaintiffs claim is unlawful operation of online sports betting under the guise of fantasy sports. On July 3, 2025, following the filing of plaintiffs' lawsuits, California's Attorney General's Office of Legal Opinions took further action, issuing a finding that "California law prohibits the operation of daily fantasy sports games with players physically located within California, regardless of where the operators and associated technology are located. Such games constitute wagering on sports in violation of [the] Penal Code." "We're glad to see the California Attorney General stepping in to confirm the core theory of our cases—daily fantasy sports are gambling, plain and simple. And gambling is illegal in California," said Wesley M. Griffith, one of the lead attorneys on the civil class actions. "No one is above the law." Margot Cutter, partner at Cutter Law P.C., added: "These lawsuits are about fairness and truth in advertising. Californians deserve to know when they're engaging in gambling—and when companies call it something else to skirt the law, that's a problem not just for consumers but for the integrity of our legal system." James Bilsborrow, partner at Weitz & Luxenberg, emphasized: "These companies intentionally created the false impression that what they were doing was lawful, and they banked on no one stopping them." Peter Silva, of Tykco & Zavareei concluded: "This litigation is about securing justice, restoring accountability, and aligning conduct with the law." The complaints cite violations of California's Penal Code, raise claims under the state's Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and seek full restitution of funds lost by Californians. [GN] FINANCIAL CRIMES: Valuta Suit Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VALUTA CORPORATION, INC., and PAYAN'S FUEL CENTER, INC., v. FINANCIAL CRIMES ENFORCEMENT NETWORK, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-00191-LS (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to certify the putative class: "All money-services businesses, other than those that are plaintiffs in Texas Association for Money Services Businesses v. Bondi, No. 5:25-cv-00344 (W.D. Tex.), that are doing or will do business in the zip codes 78520, 78521, 79901, 79902, 79903, 79905, 79907, 79935, 78503, 78557, 78572, 78577, 78596, 78852, 78040, 78041, 78043, 78045, or 78046." Temporally, the class is limited to money-services businesses (MSBs) that will benefit from prospective relief. Geographically, the class is limited to MSBs in targeted Texas zip codes. By not reaching into California, where Novedades is underway, and by carving off the TAMSB plaintiffs, the proposed class certification should lead to consistent judgments. The Plaintiffs fall squarely within the proposed class because they are MSBs, and, by doing business in zip codes 79901 (Valuta) or 79905 (Payan’s), they are subject to the unlawful requirements of the Border GTO. Neither is a plaintiff in the TAMSB case. On March 14, 2025, FinCEN issued what it calls an order, effective April 14, 2025, requiring MSBs in thirty zip codes near the border to file a report for every cash transaction over $200. The Plaintiffs here alleged five fundamental defects of the Border GTO, that it (1) violates the Fourth Amendment, (2) is arbitrary and capricious, (3) is ultra vires, (4) was promulgated without required notice-and-comment, and (5) violates the non-delegation doctrine. On June 24, this Court agreed that the Border GTO was likely unlawful and entered a temporary restraining order. Financial is a government bureau that aims to prevent money laundering and other financial crimes. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lpZe54 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew K. Ward, Esq. Elizabeth L. Sanz, Esq. Robert E. Johnson, Esq. Christen Mason Hebert, Esq. Jeffrey Rowes, Esq. Katrin Marquez, Esq. INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE 901 N. Glebe Road, Suite 900 Arlington, VA 22203 Telephone: (703) 682-9320 FRANKLIN COUNTY, OH: Plantiff Seeks More Time to File Class Reply ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TREY SMITH-JOURNIGAN, and PAUL E. WILLIAMS, JR., both Individually and on behalf of a class of Others similarly situated, v. FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO, Case No. 2:18-cv-00328-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for extension of time to file reply brief. The Plaintiff's reply papers in support of his motion for Class Certification are due today, July 2, 2025. By this motion, the Plaintiff seeks to have an additional week, until July 9, 2025, to file this reply brief. Franklin County is a county in the U.S. state of Ohio. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2n0wiF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esq. KEACH LAW FIRM One Pine West Plaza, Suite 120 Albany, NY 12205 Telephone: (518) 434-1718 E-mail: bobkeach@keachlawfirm.com FUBOTV INC: Final Settlement Hearing in Privacy Suit Set Oct. 6 --------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a $3.4 million settlement will resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged FuboTV secretly collects and retains subscribers' data and distributes that information to third parties without their knowledge or consent. The FuboTV class action settlement received preliminary court approval on May 29, 2025 and covers anyone in the U.S. or its territories who had their own or used another person's Fubo account before May 29, 2025. The court-approved website for the FuboTV settlement can be found at VPPADataPrivacyFuboSettlement.com. FuboTV settlement class members who submit a valid, timely claim form may receive a pro-rata, or equal share, portion of $3,400,000 settlement, after the payment of legal fees and lead plaintiff awards. To submit a claim form online, class members can head to this page and sign in with the unique Notice ID found in the settlement notice emailed to class members. Alternatively, a PDF of the claim form is available to download, print, fill out and mail back to the address listed on the first page of the form. Claimants will be required to submit the email address or addresses connected with the Fubo account or accounts they used, as well as the years during which the accounts were in use, the settlement website shares. All FuboTV settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by September 12, 2025. A hearing is set for October 6, 2025 to determine whether the settlement will receive final court approval. Compensation will begin to be dispensed to eligible settlement class members only in the event that final approval is granted and after any appeals have been resolved. The privacy class action lawsuit against FuboTV alleged that the company illegally tracked, recorded and distributed subscribers' data -- including locations, device details and viewing histories -- to third parties without their consent, in violation of the federal Video Privacy Protection Act. [GN] FULLBEAUTY BRANDS: Appeals Remand Order in Broomes Suit to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- FULLBEAUTY BRANDS OPERATIONS, LLC is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to remand in the lawsuit entitled Amanda Broomes, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FullBeauty Brands Operations, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-02697, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the Superior Court for Alameda County to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, On Apr. 11, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to State Court. On Apr. 21, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On June 10, 2025, Judge Rita F. Lin granted the Plaintiffs' motion to remand. The Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied as moot. The appellate case is entitled Broomes, et al. v. FullBeauty Brands Operations, LLC, Case No. 25-3886, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 23, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents AMANDA BROOMES, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Alexander Elliot Wolf, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 402 W. Broadway, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 90101 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 - and - Caleb Lucas-Hansen Marker, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP 6420 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1080 Los Angeles, CA 90048 - and - Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. JENNINGS & EARLEY PLLC 500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 110 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 247-6267 Defendant-Petitioner FULLBEAUTY BRANDS OPERATIONS, LLC is represented by: James Sigel, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP 50 California Street, 23rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 - and - Jacob Harper, Esq. Daniel Leigh, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP 350 S. Grand Avenue, 27th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 - and - Joseph Elie-Meyers, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP 865 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90017 FURNITURE.COM AMERICA: Dalton Sues Over Website Inaccessibility --------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FURNITURE.COM AMERICA LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-02680-ECT-JFD (D. Minn., May 26, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in unfair discriminatory practices against Plaintiff and others in that it has failed to ensure that Defendant's website and online content is fully accessible to persons with disabilities on an independent and equal basis. Based in Seffner, FL, Furniture.com America LLC owns and operates the website, www.furniture.com, which offers home furnishings for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com GEICO GENERAL: Loses Bid to Seal Documents ------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN MARCELLETTI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 6:23-cv-06211-EAW-CDH (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Colleen Holland entered an order: -- granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion to compel; -- denying the Defendant's motion to seal; -- granting the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a response to the Defendant's sur-replies; and -- denying as moot the Defendant's motion for leave to file a sur-reply. In sum, while the documents at issue are entitled to only a modest presumption of public access, the Defendant has not put forth any non-conclusory competing considerations that warrant sealing the documents. For these reasons, the Defendant's motion to seal is denied. Nevertheless, the Court finds that the Defendant's responses go beyond the narrow legal issue of relevancy redactions and assert new arguments that were not included in the initial briefing on Plaintiff’s motion to compel.9 Accordingly, the Court finds that it would be equally unfair to deny Plaintiff leave to file a response. Plaintiff's motion is therefore granted, and the Court has reviewed and considered the response submitted by Plaintiff. The Plaintiff brings this putative class action suit against the defendant, asserting a claim for breach of contract based on the Defendant's failure to pay sales tax as part of the "Actual Cash Value" for total loss vehicles. GEICO offers a variety of additional insurance such as life, umbrella, travel, overseas, pet, and more. A copy of the Court's decision and order dated July 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UTIAkZ at no extra charge.[CC] GOODRX INC: OneroRx Suit Transferred to D. Rhode Island ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as OneroRx, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GoodRX Inc., GoodRx Holdings, Inc., CVS Caremark Corporation, Express Scripts Inc., Medimpact Healthcare Systems, Inc., Navitus Health Solutions, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-04926 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island on July 1, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-03025-MSM-AEM to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. GoodRx -- https://www.goodrx.com/ -- is the first and only prescription drug price comparison tool created for consumers with prices from pharmacies nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chase, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK LLP 801 Garden Street Suite 301 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Phone: (805) 456-1496 Fax: (805) 456-1497 Email: achase@kellerrohrback.com - and - David J. Ko, Esq. Derek W Loeser, Esq. Ryan P. McDevitt, Esq. Rachel C Bowanko, Esq. Vinh T. Le, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK LLP 1201 3rd Ave, Suite 3400 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 623-1900 Email: dko@kellerrohrback.com dloeser@kellerrohrback.com rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com rbowanko@kellerrohrback.com vle@kellerrohrback.com GREEN SOLUTIONS: Weaver Wins Class Certification Bid ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM WEAVER, v. GREEN SOLUTIONS OF FLORIDA LLC, Case No. 6:23-cv-02059-CEM-LHP (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Carlos Mendoza entered an order as follows: 1. The report and recommendation is adopted and made a part of this Order. 2. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is granted. a. The following class is certified: "All persons (1) with a Florida area code telephone number (2) who received a call from GSFL Center (3) to a telephone number (a) purchased from Generational Energy or (b) for which Green Solutions has no record of the source (4) that was GSFL Center's first attempt to call the number and (5) was made using the ChaseData Dialer (6) in "Outbound" mode (7) as part of the "solar" campaign and (8) are included in Exhibit 8 to the Plaintiff's expert's report. b. William Weaver is appointed as class representative. c. The law firm of Kaufman P.A. is appointed as class counsel. d. On or before July 22, 2025 class counsel shall submit a proposed schedule for providing the class members notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2). Green installs affordable impact windows, impact doors, roofing, HVAC systems as well as insulations. A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pXfaR2 at no extra charge.[CC] GRYPHON DIGITAL: M&A Probes Reverse Merger With American Bitcoin ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reflector reports that Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2024 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. The firm is headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and is investigating Gryphon Digital Mining, Inc. (NASDAQ: GRYP) related to its reverse merger with American Bitcoin Corp. Upon completion of this transaction American Bitcoin shareholders will own approximately 98% of Gryphon while existing Gryphon shareholders will retain only 2% of the post-closing ownership. Is it a fair deal? Click here for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/gryphon-digital-mining-inc-2/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. [GN] HANWHA PHILLY: Rivera Class Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under PMWA -------------------------------------------------------------- IRENE RIVERA, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HANWHA PHILLY SHIPYARD, INC., Case No. (June 27, 2025) alleges that the Hanwha violated the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act by failing to pay wages for time associated with various required work activities arising at the beginning and end of the workday within the premises of Defendant's Philadelphia Shipyard facility. The Defendant employs individuals who work at the Shipyard and are paid an hourly wage. The Plaintiff is a class member because she was employed by Defendant at the Shipyard from February 2022 until July 2023. The Plaintiff, like other class members, was generally scheduled to work a minimum of 40 hours per week for Defendant at the Shipyard. The Defendant, as a matter of policy, has failed to pay Plaintiff and other class members for all compensable hours as required by the PMWA, asserts the suit. The Defendant owns and operates a 118-acre facility located at 2100 Kitty Hawk Avenue, Philadelphia. The Shipyard, according to Defendant's website, is a "state-of-the art shipbuilding facility" that employs individuals in various trades.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Winebrake, Esq. R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 HARCROS CHEMICALS: Faces Class Suit Over Plant Toxic Emission ------------------------------------------------------------- Gabe Swartz, writing for MSN, reports that a class-action lawsuit filed in United States District Court claims Harcros Chemicals has been knowingly emitting dangerous quantities of toxins for decades. The lawsuit, filed June 30, by six individuals and a family on behalf of an individual who has died, claims the company located at 5200 Speaker Road in Kansas City, Kansas, has engaged in "abnormally dangerous activity" since 1960. It claims emissions include several known carcinogens and that "due to exposure to the poisoned air, plaintiffs have suffered severe injuries, including blood cancers, lung cancer, liver cancer and breast cancer -- and one has died as a result." The lawsuit was filed by Ellsworth William Jefferies III, Rocky Garner, Misty Coyazo, Jose L. Ramirez Jr., Kenique Smith, Estelle White and Diane Woods -- who is representing the estate for Cecil B. McBee. The Kansas City, Kansas, facility is located within three miles of homes each member of the class-action lawsuit has spent substantial periods of their lives living at. "Well within the toxic air plume," the lawsuit claims. The lawsuit also notes that several K-12 schools like Turner Elementary, Turner Middle and Turner High School, as well as Wyandotte High School, fall within the toxic plume, "placing over 5,000 students at ongoing risk from daily exposure to hazardous air contaminants." "This site is far from a relic of past pollution," the lawsuit states, citing an EPA Risk Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI) score that was well beyond the national median. "It remains an active and alarming hazard." Hacros' facility risk score in 2021 exceeded the collective score of 2,700 separate median-risk facilities, the lawsuit says. As a result, the company has paid more than $8 million in environmental penalties since 2000. The plaintiffs seek damages for abnormally dangerous activities, gross negligence, negligence; negligent construction, repair and maintenance, wrongful death and punitive damages. KCTV reached out to Harcros for comment and received this response: "We are aware of the litigation recently filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas and are actively reviewing the Complaint. We strongly dispute the allegations asserted in the lawsuit. Harcros is a chemical distributor and manufacturer specializing in the production of surfactants (industrial soaps) and other chemical products. Since 2001, Harcros has handled a variety of materials at this facility and we are committed to operating in compliance with all applicable permits, as well as local, state, and federal regulations. We take these claims seriously. Harcros is a 100% employee-owned company, headquartered in Wyandotte County, Kansas, with locations across the United States. We stand by our longstanding commitment to our employees, the communities where we operate, and the customers we serve." [GN] HENRY FORD: Final $12.2M-Settlement Approval Hearing Set October 7 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a settlement worth more than $12.2 million will resolve a class action lawsuit over Henry Ford Health's alleged use of spyware on its website to track and send user data, including confidential health and personal details, to third parties without consent. The Henry Ford Health class action settlement received preliminary court approval on May 27, 2025 and covers all Henry Ford Health patients residing in the United States who had a MyChart patient portal account with Henry Ford Health between January 1, 2020 and December 31, 2023. The court-approved website for the $12,293,715 Henry Ford Health settlement can be found at HenryFordHealthDataSettlement.com. According to court documents, more than 819,000 consumers are eligible to submit a claim form for the Henry Ford Health settlement. Henry Ford Health settlement class members who file a timely, valid claim form may receive a $15 cash payment via check, PayPal, Zelle or Venmo, the class action settlement website states. Each Henry Ford Health settlement class member will also automatically receive a code to enroll in a one-year subscription to Privacy Shield Pro. This code can be found in the body of the settlement notice sent to class members via email. To file a claim form online, class members can head to this page and log in with the unique ID and PIN found in the email notice received by all class members. Alternatively, a PDF of the claim form is available to print, fill out and mail back to the address listed on the first page of the form. All Henry Ford Health settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by August 25, 2025. A hearing will be held on October 7, 2025 to determine whether the settlement will receive final approval from the court. Cash payments from the Henry Ford Health class action settlement will begin to be distributed only if final approval is granted to the deal and after any appeals are resolved. The Henry Ford Health class action lawsuit claimed that the company violated various privacy laws by implementing tracking software on its website, including the Meta Pixel, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager and Google DoubleClickAds, to collect user data -- including private and sensitive health and personal data -- and distribute it to unrelated third parties without consent. [GN] HERITAGE VILLAGE: Refuses to Provide Info to Homeowners, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOHN M. CROTTS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HERITAGE VILLAGE HORIZONTAL PROPERTY REGIME, INC.; SENTRY MANAGEMENT, INC.; ASSET MANAGEMENT & CONSULTING SERVICES, INC., JOHN DOES 1-10; XYZ, CORP. 1-10; Defendants, Case No. 2025CP1003652 (Ct. Common Pl., 9th Judicial, Charleston Cty., June 25, 2025) arises from the management and governance of a residential property regime in Mount Pleasant, Charleston County, South Carolina, which forms the Heritage Village Horizontal Property Regime. The complaint involves the Defendants' refusal to furnish information to homeowners, like Plaintiff. Allegedly, the Defendants have delayed and impeded Plaintiff's access to Plaintiff's information, documentation, and/or files. Heritage Village Horizontal Property Regime is a non-profit organization based in South Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Merritt Farmer, Jr., Esq. THE FARMER LAW FIRM, LLC 361 N. Shelmore Blvd. Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 306-4144 Facsimile: (844) 325-0459 E-mail: mfarmer@thefarmerlawfirm.com HERMES OF PARIS: Faces Class Action Over Labor Laws Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- BMBD reports that luxury fashion powerhouse Hermes of Paris, Inc. faced serious allegations after a former employee filed a California class action lawsuit claiming that the brand systematically violated labor laws. Justin Lewis filed the original complaint in San Francisco County Superior Court, and the class action could impact a significant number of Hermes employees throughout California. Case: Justin Lewis v. Hermes of Paris, Inc. Court: San Francisco County Superior Court Case No.: CGC-24-618955 Case Background: Justin Lewis v. Hermes of Paris In Justin Lewis v. Hermes of Paris, Inc. (Case No. CGC-24-618955), plaintiff Justin Lewis accuses Hermes of failing to uphold key provisions of California's wage and hour laws. The complaint outlines a pattern of misconduct by Hermes, including: -- Failure to pay overtime wages -- Inaccurate or incomplete timekeeping records -- Noncompliant meal and rest break practices -- Potential violations of wage statement requirements These claims reflect recurring concerns in California's retail and luxury goods sector, where employees often work long shifts under strict supervision, with little room to advocate for basic labor rights. Plaintiff Details: Justin Lewis v. Hermes of Paris Justin Lewis, the lead plaintiff, alleges that Hermes engaged in a systemic denial of legally protected breaks, as well as underpayment for hours worked beyond the standard 8-hour day or 40-hour week. The suit also argues that the company failed to maintain accurate time records, which is a legal requirement under the California Labor Code. Lewis brings the action as a proposed class representative, seeking to represent other current and former hourly employees who worked for Hermes (who qualify according to the class definitions approved by the court). Justin Lewis v. Hermes of Paris: The Defendant, Hermes' Position As of now, Hermes has not publicly responded to the lawsuit, and no formal answer has been filed in court. However, it's expected that the company will deny the allegations and possibly seek to compel arbitration or oppose class certification -- a common strategy in wage and hour defense. Luxury retailers like Hermes often maintain detailed internal policies and strict scheduling systems, but California law requires more than precision -- it mandates compliance with employee protections designed to prevent exploitation. What's at Stake for California Workers? Justin Lewis v. Hermes of Paris highlights the importance of enforcing California's labor protections, particularly in high-pressure industries like luxury retail. If the class members are successful, the lawsuit could result in: -- Back pay and penalties for unpaid overtime -- Premium pay for missed breaks -- Corrective action regarding timekeeping systems -- Civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) For California workers, this case highlights that even elite employers must adhere to the same standards when it comes to fair labor practices. FAQ: Justin Lewis v. Hermes of Paris Q: What is this case about? A: A former Hermes employee filed a class action alleging the company failed to pay overtime, provide meal and rest breaks, and maintain proper time records in violation of California labor laws. Q: Who is included in the class? A: The proposed class includes all hourly, non-exempt Hermes employees in California who may have experienced similar wage and hour violations during the applicable period. Q: What could Hermes be required to pay? A: If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, Hermes could owe back wages, penalties, premium pay for missed breaks, and potentially significant civil penalties under PAGA. Q: Has Hermes responded yet? A: As of now, Hermes has not filed a formal response in court. The case is in its early stages, and a defense strategy has not been made public yet. Do you have questions about filing a California class action? Please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago. [GN] HILL'S PET: Nevius Appeals Class Decertification Order to 7th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ SHERRY NEVIUS is taking an appeal from a court order decertifying a class in the lawsuit entitled Holly Blaine Vanzant, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02535, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint alleges that the Defendants used deception and misrepresentations and omissions of material facts in marketing, labeling, and/or selling "prescription" pet food at above-market prices in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. On Jan. 20, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Jorge L. Alonso granted in part and denied in part. The Defendant filed a motion to decertify class, which Judge Alonso granted. The appellate case is entitled Holly Blaine Vanzant, et al. v. Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc., Case No. 25-8012, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on June 23, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner SHERRY NEVIUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Ellen M. Carey, Esq. FORDE & O'MERA LLP 191 North Wacker Drive, 31st Floor Chicago, Il 60606 Telephone: (415) 981-7210 Email: ecarey@fordellp.com - and - Christopher S. Edwards, Esq. Mark S. Wigley, Esq. WARD AND SMITH, PA P.O. Box 7068 Wilmington, NC 28406 Telephone: (910) 794-4800 Email: csedwards@wardandsmith.com mswigley@wardandsmith.com Defendant-Appellant HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC. is represented by: Hannah Y. Chanoine, Esq. Bruce Crawford, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 1700 New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 326-2000 Facsimile: (212) 326-2061 Email: hchanoine@omm.com jkopczski@omm.com - and - John C. Gekas, Esq. SAUL EWING LLP 161 N. Clark St., Suite 4200 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (212) 326-2000 Email: john.gekas@saul.com - and - Richard B. Goetz, Esq. Justine M. Daniels, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 400 South Hope Street, 19th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 430-6000 Facsimile: (213) 430-6407 Email: rgoetz@omm.com jdaniels@omm.com - and - Amy Laurendeau, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 610 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 823-6900 Facsimile: (949) 823-6994 Email: alaurendeau@omm.com HOME DEPOT INC: Carranza Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Home Depot, Inc. The case is styled as Caria Carranza, individually and on behalf of Others similarly situated v. The Home Depot, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0008939 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., July 1, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." The Home Depot, Inc. -- https://www.homedepot.com/ -- is an American multinational home improvement retail corporation that sells tools, construction products, appliances, and services, including fuel and transportation rentals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Jimenez, Esq. PROTECTION LAW GROUP LLP 149 Sheldon St. El Segundo, CA 90245-3916 Phone: 424-290-3095 Fax: 866-264-7880 Email: jeffrey@protectionlawgroup.com HYUNDAI MOTOR: Agrees to Settle Airbag Defects Class Suit for $62MM ------------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that Hyundai and Kia have agreed to pay a more than $62 million settlement to resolve multidistrict litigation (MDL) over allegations that defective ZF-TRW airbag control units (ACU) found in certain models are vulnerable to "electrical overstress," which could cause a vehicle's airbags and other safety systems to fail during a collision. The court-authorized website for the Hyundai-Kia airbag control unit settlement can be found at ACUSettlement.com/HyundaiKia. Under the terms of the class action settlement, defendants Hyundai Motor Company, Hyundai Motor America, Kia Corporation, Kia America, Hyundai Mobis Co. and subsidiary Mobis Parts America will provide $62,100,100 in cash payments and other benefits to be distributed among eligible class members. The deal covers all individuals or entities that, on April 14, 2025, own or lease (or previously owned or leased) any of the following Hyundai or Kia vehicles originally sold or leased in the United States or any of its territories or possessions: -- 2011-2019 Hyundai Sonata; -- 2011-2019 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid; -- 2018-2023 Hyundai Kona; -- 2022-2023 Hyundai Kona N; -- 2019-2021 Hyundai Veloster; -- 2010-2013 Kia Forte; -- 2010-2013 Kia Forte Koup; -- 2011-2020 Kia Optima; -- 2011-2016 Kia Optima Hybrid; and -- 2011-2012 or 2014 Kia Sedona. The Hyundai-Kia class action settlement covers models with specific 17-digit vehicle identification numbers (VINs). Class members can check whether their vehicle is covered by the deal by entering their VIN on this page. To receive cash benefits from the Hyundai-Kia airbag settlement, consumers must submit a valid claim form online or by mail by March 29, 2027. Hyundai-Kia settlement claim forms can be filed online on this page. Class members who prefer to submit by mail can download a PDF claim form to print, complete and return, or they may contact the settlement administrator to request a paper copy. Consumers who received a personalized settlement notice in the mail or via email must include the unique ID they were provided. According to the settlement agreement, eligible class members with vehicles that have been recalled by the automakers can submit a claim form with supporting documentation to receive reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses incurred while completing the recalls. Per the official settlement website, the recalled vehicles include: -- Certain 2011-2013 Hyundai Sonatas; -- Certain 2011-2012 Hyundai Sonata Hybrids; -- 2010-2012 and certain 2013 Kia Fortes; -- 2010-2012 and certain 2013 Kia Forte Koups; -- 2011-2012 and certain 2013 Kia Optimas; -- 2011 and certain 2012 Kia Optima Hybrids; and -- 2011-2012 Kia Sedonas. The site says that class members can file a claim for reimbursement of rental car or other transportation costs incurred while awaiting completion of the recall. Eligible consumers may also file for reimbursement of towing charges for transport to a Hyundai or Kia dealer, childcare expenses incurred in relation to the performance of the service, lost wages directly associated with picking up or dropping off a vehicle, or other unreimbursed costs related to repairing the allegedly defective ZF-TRW ACUs. Class members may submit a claim for this benefit for each recalled vehicle they have or had, provided they do not seek reimbursement more than once for the same out-of-pocket expense, the website notes. According to the class action settlement website, Hyundai and Kia have not issued a recall for the following vehicles covered by the settlement: -- Certain 2011-2013 and all 2014-2019 Hyundai Sonatas; -- Certain 2011-2012 and all 2013-2019 Hyundai Sonata Hybrids; -- 2018-2023 Hyundai Konas; -- 2022-2023 Hyundai Kona N models; -- 2019-2021 Hyundai Velosters; -- Certain 2013 Kia Fortes; -- Certain 2013 Kia Forte Koups; -- Certain 2013 and all 2014-2020 Kia Optimas; -- Certain 2012 and all 2013-2016 Kia Optima Hybrids; and -- 2014 Kia Sedonas. The site specifies that consumers cannot file a claim for reimbursement if their Hyundai or Kia vehicle has not been recalled due to the ZF-TRW ACU problem. Class members will become eligible for the reimbursement benefit if a recall is issued for their vehicle before the claim submission deadline, the site states. Moreover, as part of the deal, all consumers who submit a timely, valid claim form will be entitled to receive a residual distribution payment, regardless of whether their Hyundai or Kia vehicle was recalled or whether they incurred any out-of-pocket expenses related to a recall, the website relays. These Hyundai-Kia settlement payments will be up to $350 for recalled vehicles and up to $150 for those not subject to a recall, the site says. Final payout amounts will be determined after all eligible reimbursement claims are paid and will be distributed on a per capita basis, the website shares. Furthermore, for recalled vehicles, Hyundai and Kia will provide a 10-year warranty for new parts installed to address the apparent defect in recalled vehicles, the settlement agreement states. During the warranty period, which began on April 14, 2025, the automakers will cover repairs or replacements, including parts and labor, that become necessary due to any problems with new parts installed pursuant to the recalls, the agreement says. Class members whose vehicles have already completed a recall do not need to do anything to qualify for the new parts warranty, while those with a vehicle that has not yet completed a recall must complete the recall process to obtain this benefit, the settlement website explains. Per the site, if the ZF-TRW ACUs are recalled in the future for the so-far unrecalled vehicles, the automakers will extend the warranty to cover those services as well. As part of the deal, Hyundai and Kia will also implement a "robust" vehicle inspection program and outreach initiative, the website states. The latter, valued at $3.5 million, is designed to maximize recall completion rates, the site says. Lastly, the automakers have agreed to provide loaner vehicles, if available, to class members who seek a recall remedy from a Hyundai or Kia dealer before the claim submission deadline and request a courtesy car while the service is being performed, the website shares. Consumers may alternatively file a claim for reimbursement of rental car costs from the settlement fund during this period, the site says. The Hyundai-Kia settlement, which resolves the consolidated class action lawsuit against the automakers, received preliminary approval from the court on April 14, 2025. The parties await a hearing on September 29, 2025, at which time the court will determine whether to grant final approval to the terms of the deal. Hyundai-Kia settlement payments will be issued to eligible class members only if the deal receives ultimate court approval, and after any appeals are resolved. [GN] IMMERSIVE GROUP: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Zhang Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW ZHANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IMMERSIVE GROUP GAMING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05179 (S.D.N.Y., June 20, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.immersivegamebox.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inaccurate heading hierarchy, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, the lack of navigation links, the lack of adequate labeling of form fields, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Immersive Group Gaming, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com JOHNSON CITY, TN: $4.2M Deal in Assault Suit Gets Court Formal OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Keeling, writing for News Channel 11, reports that a federal judge has formally approved a $4.2 million settlement covering all women and girls who reported sexual assaults to the Johnson City Police Department (JCPD) from 2018 through 2022, estimated at around 375 people. Judge Travis McDonough issued the order Wednesday, July 2. The class action suit stemmed from an original 2023 lawsuit filed on behalf of alleged victims of Sean Williams, a former downtown Johnson City resident who prosecutors claim sexually assaulted more than 60 women and filmed those alleged assaults. The City of Johnson City has also settled separately with those original plaintiffs in a $23.8 million payout that did not require judicial approval. The class settlement relates to an added element to the original lawsuit that came following the release of the "Daigle Report" -- an audit of JCPD's sexual assault investigations the city commissioned in 2022 after a completely separate lawsuit related to Sean Williams was filed. That report found that while a number of JCPD's investigations between 2018 and 2022 were adequate, the department had a number of "certain investigative practices" that "could negatively affect the quality and efficiency of their response to sexual assault cases." The decision came eight days after a telephone hearing between plaintiffs' attorneys and lawyers representing the city, and more than five months after Johnson City Commissioners unanimously approved a total of $28 million in payouts to settle both elements of the case. McDonough wrote that he found the settlement "the product of serious, informed, non-collusive, arm's length negotiations between experienced counsel and conducted with the assistance of (a) mediator." A settlement administrator has been ordered to send notice to the class members no later than July 16. Class members who wish to opt out would need to send a written notice to that effect within 60 days of the notices being sent. The judge's order allows the plaintiffs' attorneys to move for up to $1.4 million in attorneys' fees. Accounting for that amount and other, smaller administrative costs would leave the individual settlement amounts, if divided by the entire class of 375, at around $7,000. In addition to monetary relief, the settlement includes "equitable relief in the form of improved procedures and a mechanism for oversight." That will come in the form of an external check, spanning two years, on how JCPD is doing in implementing the changes Daigle recommended. The proposed agreement notes that JCPD "will continue to implement" its Sexual Oriented Crimes general order, "or other amended or new General Order(s) that are consistent with the requirements of the United States Constitution." "The audits will serve as the basis for Class Counsel's monitoring of Defendant's compliance with the constitutional policing standards set forth in the SOCGO," it adds. If the attorneys see any evidence that JCPD isn't complying, they will first inform Johnson City's attorneys in the case and "make all reasonable attempts to resolve the issue prior to Class Counsel seeking relief from the Court." McDonough set a final approval hearing for Jan. 6, 2026 at the U.S. District Courthouse in Greeneville. Elizabeth Kramer, an attorney with a class action firm that's among the plaintiffs' representatives, provided this statement on the said decision: The Court's thorough review of the proposed settlement, and its recent order granting preliminary approval, means that we are on the road to delivering long-awaited justice to these survivors. We are pleased that the City is committed to implementing this landmark settlement, including the accountability measures that we believe will ensure lasting change. The City provided the following statement: As expected, Judge Travis R. McDonough granted preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement. This procedural step marks an important point in the legal process, initiating the next phase, which includes formal notice to class members and a scheduled hearing for final approval. Judge McDonough has set that hearing for January 6, 2026. We will continue to follow the court-directed process. [GN] JOHNSON HEALTH: Ahearn Sues Over Defective Dumbbell Products ------------------------------------------------------------ ROBERT AHEARN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON HEALTH TECH TRADING, INC.; and JOHNSON HEALTH TECH RETAIL, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-03435-SIL (E.D.N.Y., June 18, 2025) is a consumer class action brought against the Defendant for their sale of dangerously defective BowFlex SelectTech adjustable dumbbells and for their implementation of a fundamentally inadequate recall that fails to compensate most affected consumers. According to the complaint, the recall concerns approximately 3.8 million BowFlex-branded dumbbells, specifically the Model 552 (adjustable from 5 to 52.5 lbs) and Model 1090 (adjustable from 10 to 90 lbs) (hereinafter the "Products")—which were sold throughout the United States from 2004 through 2025. These dumbbells contain a critical design defect: during normal use, the weight plates can dislodge from the handle, posing a serious risk of injury to consumers (hereinafter the "Defect"). The defect renders the dumbbells unsafe and unusable. A product that risks flinging weight plates across a room is not one consumers can continue using, or resell, repair, or give away. Yet the Defendants offer most affected customers only partial store credit toward the purchase of new equipment from the same brand, with no cash refund or repair option, says the suit. Johnson Health Tech Co., Ltd. manufactures and markets a variety of fitness equipment for institutional club as well as home use. The Company's products include treadmills, ellipticals, air rowers, recumbents, uprights, and steppers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip J. Furia, Esq. Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 Email: furiap@thesultzerlawgroup.com sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - Russell Busch, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (630) 796-0903 Email: rbusch@milberg.com - and - Nick Suciu, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 6905 Telegraph Road, Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Telephone: (313) 303-3472 Email: nsuciu@milberg.com - and - Trenton R. Kashima, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 402 West Broadway St., Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 810-7047 Email: tkashima@milberg.com JOHNSON HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Defective Dumbbells ----------------------------------------------------------- The South Shore Press reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Johnson Health Tech Trading, Inc. and Johnson Health Tech Retail, Inc., alleging that certain adjustable dumbbells sold under the BowFlex brand are defective and that the defendants' recall efforts have been insufficient. The complaint concerns approximately 3.8 million BowFlex-branded adjustable dumbbells sold in the United States between 2004 and 2025. The products at issue, the Model 552 and Model 1090 dumbbells, allegedly have a design defect that can cause weight plates to dislodge during normal use. As of June 2025, there have been at least 349 reports of malfunctions, with injuries including broken toes and concussions. In response to these incidents, the defendants initiated a recall in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). According to the complaint, the recall offers full refunds or replacements only to consumers who purchased the dumbbells after April 23, 2024. Purchasers before that date are offered prorated vouchers and a one-year subscription to a fitness app. The plaintiff alleges that this remedy does not adequately address the safety issues or the cost of replacing the product. The lawsuit claims that the defendants engaged in deceptive marketing and failed to implement an adequate remedy for the alleged defects. The complaint seeks restitution and compensatory damages for all affected purchasers and requests a court-supervised recall program. The plaintiff is represented by attorneys Philip J. Furia and Jason P. Sultzer of Sultzer & Lipari PLLC, along with Russell Busch, Nick Suciu, and Trenton R. Kashima of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York under Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-03435. [GN] KISWIRE INC: Bedenbaugh Seeks Conditional Cert of Action -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mitchell Bedenbaugh, individually and on behalf of all other similarly-situated individuals, v. Kiswire, Inc., Case No. 8:25-cv-04771-DCC (D.S.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for conditional certification. The Plaintiff moves the Court for an order as follows: 1. conditionally certifying Plaintiff's Proposed Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective Action Class pursuant to (FLSA), to include all individuals that worked for the Defendant during the period June 2022 through the present; 2. Directing that within 14 days of the Order, the Defendant shall produce to Plaintiff's counsel, in a usable electronic format, identifiers for all FLSA Class Members including each individual’s (i) full legal name, (ii) mailing address, (iii) cellular telephone number; and (iv) email address; 3. Directing that within 1 days of the Plaintiff's counsel's receipt of the FLSA Class Member identifiers from Defendant, Plaintiff's counsel (or a third-party administrator) shall serve a copy of the Court Approved Notice and the Court Approved FLSA Opt-In Consent Form on each FLSA Class Members by (i) first class mail; (ii) text message; and (iii) email; and 4. Directing that each FLSA Class Member shall be permitted 60 days from the date Plaintiff’s counsel's service of the Notice and FLSA Opt-In Consent From to file his or her FLSA Opt-In Consent Form with the Court to join this action as a FLSA Opt-In Plaintiff. The Defendant hired Plaintiff around 2012, and the Plaintiff has worked on and off for the Defendant since that time. Most recently, the Defendant hired the Plaintiff in 2019 as an Operator. Shortly thereafter, the Defendant changed the Plaintiff's job title to Lead Man. On June 23, 2019, the Defendant changed Plaintiff's job title to Supervisor. Kiswire is a global manufacturer of specialty steel wire products. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XFSud7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack E. Cohoon, Esq. Sarah J.M. Cox, Esq. BURNETTE SHUTT & MCDANIEL, PA Columbia, SC 29202 Telephone: (803) 904-7914 Facsimile: (803) 904-7910 E-mail: JCohoon@BurnetteShutt.Law SCox@BurnetteShutt.Law KRISPY KREME: Faces Dosreis Suit Over Private Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH DOSREIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KRISPY KREME DOUGHNUT CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00452 (W.D.N.C., June 25, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to protect the sensitive personally identifiable information of its employees and customers. On or around November 19, 2024, or November 29, 2024, a third party gained access to Defendant's corporate systems and data. However, the breach was only discovered on May 22, 2025. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings this class action lawsuit individually, and on behalf of all those similarly situated, to address Defendant's inadequate data protection practices and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice of the data breach. The Plaintiff also asserts claims for negligence/wantonness, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, and for breach of implied contract. Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corporation is a food and beverage company headquartered in Charlotte, NC. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. Ryan A. Valente, 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 teamvalente@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com KROGER CO: Basmati Rice Contains Heavy Metals, Tomassian Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ MARY TOMASSIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE KROGER CO., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-05608 (C.D. Cal., June 20, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law, and California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its Kroger Basmati Rice. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to disclose to consumers that the product contains heavy metals such as arsenic and cadmium. The Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers would not have purchased the product had they known that it contained (or was at risk of containing) the heavy metals and/or would not have paid a premium price for it. The Kroger Co. is a retail company, based in Cincinnati, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Trenton R. Kashima, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive, Ste. PH Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (619) 810-7047 Email: tkashima@milberg.com LAUNCH WISE LLC: Ortiz Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Launch Wise LLC. The case is styled as Hector Ortiz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Launch Wise LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-22952-RAR (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. Launchwise -- https://www.launchwise.co/ -- launches products, brands and businesses.[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 LEFT COAST: Weedman Suit Seeks Unpaid Tips for Restaurant Workers ----------------------------------------------------------------- RACHEL WEEDMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEFT COAST ENTERPRISES, INC. dba La Fiamma Pizza and VITAMIN G, INC. dba Fiamma Burger, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01163 (W.D. Wash., June 20, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay all tips to employees in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Washington State Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from June 5, 2022 until March 31, 2023. Left Coast Enterprises, Inc., doing business as La Fiamma Pizza, is a restaurant owner and operator in Bellingham, Washington. Vitamin G, Inc., doing business as Fiamma Burger, is a restaurant owner and operator in Bellingham, Washington. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Hornal, Esq. TALOS LAW 615 E. Chestnut St. Bellingham, WA 98225 Telephone: (202) 709-9662 Email: Daniel@taloslaw.com LINEAGE LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Alford Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ ERICKA ALFORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LINEAGE LOGISTICS SERVICES LLC; and DOES 1 through 25, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01725-TLN-CSK (E.D. Cal., June 18, 2025) is an action against the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff Alford was employed by the Defendant as a warehouse worker. Lineage Logistics Services LLC control and operate a warehouse distribution and supply chain company specializing in refrigerated supply chains. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ben Travis, Esq. BEN TRAVIS LAW, APC 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (619) 353-7966 Email: ben@bentravislaw.com - and - Justin Hewgill, Esq. EMPLOYEE JUSTICE LEGAL GROUP, PC 1001 Wilshire Blvd. 2nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 394-3804 Email: jhewgill@EJLGlaw.com LVNV FUNDING: Must File Class Cert Response by July 16 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BETSY SHAW, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. LVNV FUNDING, LLC, and LLOYD & MCDANIEL, PLLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-00205-MW-MAF (N.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Mark E. Walker entered an order granting the Defendants' unopposed motion for extension of time to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Defendants' deadline to respond to the motion for class certification is extended to on or before July 16, 2025. LVNV is a U.S.-based debt buyer that acquires charged-off consumer debts. A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oQDIwn at no extra charge.[CC] MACY'S RETAIL: Nelson Suit Removed to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Latrice Nelson, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. MACY'S RETAIL HOLDINGS, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company, DBA MACY'S; and DOES 1-50, Inclusive, Case No. C25-01266 was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Contra Costa, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on July 1, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-05541. The Plaintiff alleges class claims under California law for failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods and rest periods, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse reasonable and necessary business expenses, failure to pay all wages due upon separation of employment, and violation of the state Unfair Competition Law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michael C. Christman, Esq. Steven K. Luther, Esq. MACY'S LAW DEPARTMENT 11477 Olde Cabin Road, Suite 400 St. Louis, MO 63141 Phone: (314) 342-6334 Facsimile: (314) 342-6366 Email: michael.christman@macys.com steven.luther@macys.com MAINLINE HEALTH: Beck Files Suit in E.D. Arkansas ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mainline Health Systems, Inc. The case is styled as Dylan Beck, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated v. Mainline Health Systems, Inc., Case No. 4:25-cv-00659-JM (E.D. Ark., July 1, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Declaratory Judgement. Mainline Health Systems, Inc. -- https://www.mainlinehealth.net/ -- provide primary medical and dental care, psychiatric, behavioral health and pediatric services to the citizens of Southeast Arkansas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. JENNINGS & EARLEY PLLC 500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 110 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 247-6267 Email: chris@jefirm.com - and - David S. Almeida, Esq. Elena A. Belov, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Phone: (708) 437-6476 MATTRESS FIRM: Agrees to Settle False Discount Class Suit for $6.4M ------------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that Mattress Firm has agreed to pay a more than $6.4 million settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that claimed the retailer violated several California laws by deceptively advertising certain mattress discounts on MattressFirm.com. The court-approved website for the Mattress Firm class action settlement can be found at HamptonVMattressFirmLitigation.com. The deal, which received preliminary approval from the court on May 16, 2025, covers all individuals in California who purchased up to four mattresses in a single transaction from MattressFirm.com between August 1, 2020 and July 16, 2024. According to the settlement agreement, eligible Mattress Firm class members are entitled to receive $40 per qualifying mattress order in the form of either a store credit voucher or cash payout. Per the official Mattress Firm settlement website, consumers who wish to receive a $40 cash payment for each mattress they bought must submit a valid claim form by August 5, 2025. Mattress Firm settlement claim forms can be filed online on this page. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form to print, complete and return by mail. Online claim form submission requires a consumer's unique ID and PIN, which can be found on the settlement notice issued about the deal. Class members do not need to do anything if they prefer to receive store credit in lieu of a cash payment. The $40 voucher, which will be automatically issued to those who do not file a claim, can be applied toward any future purchase on MattressFirm.com, the website says. Court documents indicate that of the $6,411,000 settlement fund, approximately $5,476,000 will be used for the aforementioned class action settlement benefits, with the rest covering the payment of attorneys' fees, service awards and administrative costs. According to the settlement agreement, Mattress Firm will pay up to $2 million of this amount in cash payments. If the total number of claims for cash payouts exceeds $2 million, individual payment amounts will be reduced on a pro rata basis, the agreement states. "The Parties anticipate that all Settlement Class Members who elect to receive their settlement payment in cash will receive the full $40 per purchased mattress," the website notes. The retailer estimates that 136,900 mattresses were sold to eligible consumers during the qualifying period, the site adds. The settlement agreement shares that in addition to providing monetary benefits, Mattress Firm has modified the promotions offered on its website to comply with California laws. The court will decide whether to grant final approval to the terms of the deal at a hearing on October 10, 2025. Court documents state that, should the settlement be approved, credit vouchers will be issued within 21 days following the date the deal goes into effect, and cash payments will be distributed within 14 days after the settlement administrator receives the funds. [GN] META PLATFORMS: Bouck Sues Over Stock Manipulation Scheme --------------------------------------------------------- JOSHUA BOUCK; ATUL SHAH; SHENWEI ZHAO; ADAM SPRING; and GIAO Q. TRAN, individually on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-05194-KAW (N.D. Cal., June 20, 2025) is a case arising from Meta's role in enabling and facilitating a stock manipulation scheme that used the Company's Facebook and Instagram social media platforms and its WhatsApp messaging service to extract millions of dollars from unsuspecting victims. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were lured into investing in shares in China Liberal Education Holdings Ltd., between January 22, 2025 and January 30, 2025 directly or indirectly as a result of fraudulent advertisements on Facebook and Instagram and suffered losses as a result (the "Class"). In the early hours of January 30, 2025, the market became aware of CLEU's previously secret share issuance, meaning the number of CLEU shares outstanding was nearly 10 times the amount previously known. The stock price immediately collapsed, and Plaintiffs and other victims of the scheme lost hundreds of millions of dollars they had invested in CLEU shares. The Plaintiffs estimate total losses to the proposed Class to be in excess of $300 million, says the suit. Meta Platforms, Inc. operates as a social technology company. The Company builds applications and technologies that help people connect, find communities, and grow businesses. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leonid Kandinov, Esq. MORRIS KANDINOV LLP 555 West B Street, 4th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 780-3993 Email: leo@moka.law - and - Aaron T. Morris, Esq. Andrew W. Robertson, Esq. William H. Spruance, Esq. MORRIS KANDINOV LLP 305 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 431-7473 Email: aaron@moka.law andrew@moka.law william@moka.law META PLATFORMS: Harris and Paul Sue Over Tracking of Web Browsing ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOANNE HARRIS and TERRY PAUL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-05302 (N.D. Cal., June 25, 2025) arises from surreptitious tracking of Android device users' web browsing activity by Meta. The Plaintiffs seek to remedy these harms individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, whose data privacy was violated as a result of Meta's unlawful conduct. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the Classes, assert claims for (i) violations of California Invasion of Privacy Act; (ii) violation of Electronic Communications Privacy Act; (iii) intrusion upon seclusion; (iv) invasion of privacy; (v) violation of the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act; and (vi) unjust enrichment. Headquartered in Menlo, CA, Meta Platforms, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that owns and operates social media platforms and communication services including Facebook and Instagram. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jennifer L. Joost, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP One Sansome Street, Suite 1850 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 400-3000 Facsimile: (415) 400-3001 E-mail: jjoost@ktmc.com - and - Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq. Melissa L. Yeates, Esq. Tyler S. Graden, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com myeates@ktmc.com tgraden@ktmc.com - and - James E. Cecchi, Esq. Kevin G. Cooper, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com kcooper@carellabyrne.com MIKE BLOOMBERG: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sipp-Alpers Says ----------------------------------------------------------- ALINA SIPP-ALPERS; CYNTHIA AYERS; SHAKA BELLO; MADELINE BROWN; CASSANDRA CHAVEZ; CRAIG CONLEE; JACK COLLINS; WILLIAM COOPER; ALFRED CULPEPPER; KYLE DEVASIER; SETH GILLES; NOAH HARPER; WHITNEY HUMPHREY; MATTHEW JEWELER; DELANCEY LANE; PATRICIA MITCHELL; THOMAS NAGLER; ANDREAS PEREA; RICHARD PORTER; EMILY ROTOLO; SCOTT SANDERS; VICTORIA STONER; JUSTIN THOMPSON; WHYLIE THOMPSON; NATHAN WINCH; ISAAC URNER; and SARAH URONKA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MICHAEL BLOOMBERG; and MIKE BLOOMBERG 2020, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-11822 (D. Mass., June 24, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants lost wages, benefits, damages, and interest. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as campaign staff. Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc. operates as Michael Bloomberg's presidential campaign committee. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Michael J. Romano, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994–5800 Email: sliss@llrlaw.com mromano@llrlaw.com NAVAJO TRANSITIONAL: Rosales Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------- JOEY ROSALEZ, individually and on for others similarly situated v. NAVAJO TRANSITIONAL ENERGY COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01999-SBP (D. Colo., June 27, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid wages and other damages from Navajo under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, NTEC pays Rosalez and the other Hourly Employees by the hour. Rosalez and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more than 40 hours a workweek. However, NTEC does not pay Rosalez and the other Hourly Employees for all their hours worked, including overtime hours. Instead, NTEC requires Rosalez and the other Hourly Employees to suit out in protective clothing and safety gear fundamentally necessary to perform their job duties and attend safety meetings, while on NTEC's premises, "off the clock," asserts the suit. NTEC employed Rosalez as one of its Hourly Employees in its Spring Creek Coal Mine located in Decker, Montana. The putative FLSA collective of similarly situated employees is defined as: "All hourly NTEC employees during the last three years through final resolution of this action (the "Hourly Employees"). Navajo is a coal producer in the United States that owns Navajo Mine on the Navajo Nation and three mines in the Powder River Basin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: josephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com NEW ONE NAIL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Han Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- ZHEN BIAO HAN, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW ONE NAIL & SPA INC d/b/a One Nail & Spa; HUSHAN HUANG a/k/a Hu Sha Huang a/k/a Andy Huang; and HUA JIN a/k/a Lina Jin, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-01027 (D. Conn., June 25, 2025) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act. From on or about July 29, 2023 to on or about October 28, 2023, the Plaintiff was employed by Defendants to work as a masseur at 21 High Ridge Road, Stamford, CT. Allegedly, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff his lawful overtime compensation of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a given workweek. In addition, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated employees at least the Connecticut minimum wage for each hour worked, says the suit. New One Nail & Spa Inc d/b/a One Nail & Spa is a domestic business corporation headquartered in Stamford, CT. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 110 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 E-mail: johntroy@troypllc.com NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- NATALIE BARBICH; and BRUCE LINDVALL, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the Northwestern University Employee Welfare Plan, Plaintiffs v. NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY; NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR; BENEFITS & WORK/LIFE RESOURCES; and Does 1-20,Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-06849 (N.D. Ill., June 20, 2025) alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants failed to prudently select and monitor the Plan's preferred provider organization ("PPO") medical insurance options, allowing the low-deductible option to be financially dominated by the high-deductible option. The Defendants likewise failed to disclose this material information to the Plan's participants. The Defendants' actions and omissions have caused millions of dollars in losses to the proposed class. Plaintiffs bring this action to recover these losses, prevent further similar conduct, and obtain equitable and other relief as provided by ERISA, says the suit. Northwestern University provides educational services. The University offers degree programs in arts, communication, music, journalism, law, medicine, and business. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Amit Bindra, Esq. THE PRINZ LAW FIRM, P.C. 1 East Upper Wacker Drive, Suite 2500 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 212-4450 Facsimile: (312) 284-4822 Email: abindra@prinz-lawfirm.com - and - Paul J. Lukas, Esq. Brock J. Specht, Esq. Ben Bauer, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4700 IDS Center 80 S 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: 612-256-3200 Facsimile: 612-338-4878 Email: lukas@nka.com bpsecht@nka.com bbauer@nka.com - and - Don Bivens, Esq. DON BIVENS, PLLC 15169 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 205 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Telephone: (602) 762-2661 ONE CAPITAL SOLUTIONS: Hicks Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against One Capital Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Jennifer Hicks, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. One Capital Solutions, LLC, Case No. 6:25-cv-01131 (M.D. Fla., June 25, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. One Capital Solutions, LLC -- https://onecapitalsolutions.com/ -- offers debt consolidation services in Santa Ana, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is = represented by: Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 S Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com OPENAI INC: Miller Files Suit in N.D. Georgia --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against OpenAI, Inc. The case is styled as Harvey L. Miller, Jr., Life imitates art inc., Fatassman Publishing, Inc., Speedy Productions, Inc., Bsmmusic, LLC, Kevin Hallingquest, Harvey Miller Media Inc, Organic Music Marketing LLC, i2i Studios, Organic Music Distro, GRGROUP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OpenAI, Inc., Chatgpt, Case No. 1:25-cv-03548-VMC (N.D. Ga., June 25, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. OpenAI, Inc. -- https://openai.com/ -- is an American artificial intelligence organization founded in December 2015 and headquartered in San Francisco, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. OUTSET GROUP: Faces Pittman Suit Over Website's Access Barriers --------------------------------------------------------------- DEBBIE PITTMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE OUTSET GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06860 (N.D. Ill., June 20, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://theoutset.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inadequate focus order, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of adequate labeling of form fields, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. The Outset Group, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (630) 478-0856 Email: achan@ealg.law PALMETTO SOLAR: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Bronstin Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- ASHER BRONSTIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PALMETTO SOLAR, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00426-MOC-SCR (W.D.N.C., June 18, 2025) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Palmetto Solar, LLC provides software solutions. The Company offers clean technology software and fulfillment platform for distribution and democratization of clean energy products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan P. Duffy, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RUAN P. DUFFY PLLC 1213 W. Morehead St. Suite 500, Unit #450 Charlotte, NC 28208 Telephone: (704) 741-9399 Email: ryan@ryanpduffy.com - and - Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com PELTIER ENTERPRISES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Vidrine Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- JAMYE VIDRINE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PELTIER ENTERPRISES, INC. D/B/A PELTIER KIA LONGVIEW, Defendant, Case 6:25-cv-00229-JDL (E.D. Tex., June 23, 2025) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Peltier Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Peltier Kia Longview is an automobile dealer that buys and sells automobiles to consumers in Texas and the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com PENN STATE: Breaches Fiduciary Duties, Muldoon Class Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES MULDOON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PENN STATE HEALTH, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF PENN STATE HEALTH, and THE PENN STATE HEALTH RETIREMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE, Case No. 1:25-cv-01181-KM (M.D. Pa., June 27, 2025) is a class action brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 against the Defendants for breaches of their fiduciary duties. The Plans are a defined contribution retirement plans, established pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 1002(2)(A) and section 1002(34) of ERISA, that enable eligible participants to make tax-deferred contributions from their salaries to the Plans. The Plaintiff alleges that during the putative Class Period, Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Plans failed to objectively and adequately review the Plans' investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of cost and performance. Mr. Muldoon participated in the 401(k) Plan and 403(b) Plan. Mr. Muldoon invested in the Great West GIC in the 403(b) Plan and suffered injury to his 403(b) Plan account due to the significant underperformance of the Great West GIC. Penn State is the sponsor of the Plans and a named fiduciary of the Plans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel K. Natirboff, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 2933 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 233-4101 Facsimile: (717) 232-3080 E-mail: dann@capozziadler.com - and - Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. James A. Maro, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Facsimile: (717) 232-3080 E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com jamesm@capozziadler.com PENTEGRA BOD: Class Action Settlement in Khan Suit Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as IMRAN KHAN, et al., v. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF PENTEGRA DEFINED CONTRIBUTION PLAN, et al., Case No. 7:20-cv-07561-PMH (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Philip M. Halpern entered an order granting unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. 1. A hearing is scheduled at the Hon. Charles L. Brieant Jr. Federal Building and Courthouse, the Honorable District Court Judge Philip M. Halpern presiding, at 10:00 a.m. on Nov. 26, 2025. 2. A common fund is agreed to by the Settling Parties in the Settlement Agreement and is established and shall be known as the Khan et al. v. Board of Directors of Pentegra Defined Contribution, et al. Qualified Settlement Account (the "Settlement Account"). The Settlement Account shall be a "qualified settlement fund" within the meaning of Treasury Regulations section 1.468-1(a) promulgated under Section 468B of the Internal Revenue Code. The Settlement Account shall consist of $48,500,000 (the "Gross Settlement Amount") and any interest or other earnings thereon. The litigation arises out of a class action alleging breaches of fiduciary duties against Defendants the Board of Directors of Pentegra Defined Contribution Plan, Pentegra Services Inc., John E. Pinto, Sandra L. McGoldrick, Lisa A. Schlehuber, Michael N. Lussier, William E. Hawkins, Jr., Brad Elliott, and George W. Hermann under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) with respect to their management, operation, and administration of the Pentegra Defined Contribution Plan for Financial Institutions. Pentegra Defined Contribution Plan provides Members of participating Employers with a convenient way to save on a regular and long term basis and, in addition to, or in lieu of such benefit, a benefit under a Profit Sharing Feature. A copy of the Court's order dated July 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0s0rap at no extra charge.[CC] PFIZER INC: Agrees to Settle Lipitor Pricing Class Suit for $8.25M ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top class Actions reports that Ranbaxy agreed to an $8.25 million settlement to resolve claims that it conspired with other pharmaceutical companies to raise the price of Lipitor. The Lipitor settlement benefits individuals and entities who purchased, paid for or provided reimbursement for the purchases of a Lipitor branded product in West Virginia between March 24, 2010 and Nov. 30, 2011. According to the lawsuit from the West Virginia attorney general, Ranbaxy conspired to suppress generic alternatives to its Lipitor prescriptions. This scheme allegedly forced patients to pay a higher price for Lipitor-brand medication. Ranbaxy is a pharmaceutical company that sells Lipitor, a cholesterol medication. The defendants have not admitted any wrongdoing, though Ranbaxy agreed to pay $8.25 million to resolve the attorney general lawsuit. Pfizer agreed to a similar $35 million settlement in October 2024. Under the terms of the Ranbaxy Lipitor settlement, class members can receive a cash payment of up to $599. According to the settlement agreement, settlement payments will vary depending on the number of valid claims filed. There is no exclusion or objection deadline for the settlement. The West Virginia Lipitor settlement was approved by the court in an order filed on Dec. 12, 2024. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by July 28, 2025. Who's Eligible Individuals and entities who purchased, paid for or provided reimbursement for the purchases of a Lipitor branded product in West Virginia between March 24, 2010 and Nov. 30, 2011. Potential Award Up to $599 Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 07/28/2025 Case Name State of West Virginia v. Pfizer Inc., et al., Case No. CC-26-2013-С-1, in the West Virginia Circuit Court for Mason County Final Hearing 12/12/2024 Settlement Website WVLipitorClaim.com Claims Administrator Settlement Administrator ILYM Group P.O. Box 2031 Tustin, CA 92781 info@ilymgroup.com (888) 250-6810 Class Counsel Troy N. Giatras Matthew Stonestreet THE GIATRAS LAW FIRM PLLC Frederick S. Longer LEVIN SEDRAN AND BERMAN LLP Vaughn T. Sizemore OFFICE OF THE WEST VIRGINIA ATTORNEY GENERAL Defense Counsel N/A [GN] PICANHA GROUP: Soares Files Suit in Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Picanha Grp. LLC. The case is styled as Caio Silverio Soares, on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees v. Picanha Group LLC d/b/a Picanha Brazilian Grill Steak House, Inc., Jono Paulo Miranda, Case No. 250700283 (Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas, July 1, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Picanha Group LLC doing business as Picanha Brazilian Grill Steak House, Inc. -- https://www.picanhasteakhouse.com/ -- offers authentic Brazilian cuisine.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rhiannon DiClemente, Esq. COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES, INC. 1424 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: (267) 443-2505 PNC BANK: Seeks Denial of Melian Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NELLY MELIAN and MICHAEL TREON, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. PNC BANK, N.A., DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-09034-MRA-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants, on Aug. 18, 2025, will move the Court for an Order denying certification of the class as defined in the Complaint filed by the Plaintiffs. Specifically, the class cannot be certified because it includes individuals who have signed binding arbitration agreements and class action waivers. The Plaintiffs are among those individuals who have not signed binding arbitration agreements. Thus, Plaintiffs are not adequate representatives of the 132 putative class members who have agreed to waive their right to bring a class action and who must submit their claims in arbitration. On Sept. 18, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed the instant action in California Superior Court, Los Angeles County. The Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) failure to pay overtime; (2) failure to pay wages due upon separation; (3) waiting time penalties under California Labor Code section 203; (4) failure to pay all hours worked; (5) unlawful deduction from wages; and (6) unfair competition under California Business and Professions Code. The Complaint defines the proposed class as: "all persons whom PNC employed in the State of California as an MLO at any time in the last four years before the filing of this action until such time as there is a final disposition of this lawsuit"—i.e., from Sept. 18, 2020 through the present. PNC s a national bank and a subsidiary of The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NTjRI1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Paul W. Sweeney, Jr., Esq. Cassidy T. Young, Esq. Patrick M. Madden, Esq. K&L GATES LLP 10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Eighth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 552-5000 Facsimile: (310) 552-5001 E-mail: paul.sweeney@klgates.com cassidy.young@klgates.com patrick.madden@klgates.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Noguchi Suit Removed to E.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Eri Noguchi, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, an Ohio corporation, Case No. STK-CV-UPI-2025-0007940 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Joaquin, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on July 1, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-at-00860. The Class Action Complaint ("CAC") concerns P&G's sale and marketing of Crest brand toothpaste products (the "Products"). The Plaintiff asserts that P&G has deceptively marketed the Products as "safe, unadulterated, and without significant levels of heavy metals" even though P&G allegedly knew that the Products contain or risk containing lead, mercury, and arsenic. On behalf of a putative class of consumers who purchased the Products in California during the past four years, Plaintiff asserts claims under California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), for breach of implied warranty of merchantability under the Song-Beverly Act, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment or quasi contract.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Megan L. Rodgers, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 3000 El Camino Real 5 Palo Alto Square, 10th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112 Phone: (650) 632-4700 Email: mrodgers@cov.com - and - Andrew Soukup, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP One CityCenter 850 Tenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Phone: (202) 662-6000 Email: asoukup@cov.com PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Appeals Ruling in Franco Suit to 4th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Mayra Franco, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00225, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff submitted a claim to her insurer, Defendant Progressive Southeastern Insurance Company, after her 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee was totaled. She alleges that Progressive Southeastern underpaid her claim and that Defendant Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, which manages and controls the insurance claims process for Progressive affiliates, systematically underpays insureds who submit a total-loss claim by the arbitrary and illegal use of a "projected sold adjustment." On Feb. 20, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Catherine C. Eagles granted on May 14, 2025. The Plaintiff, Mayra Franco, is appointed as class representative. Hemmings & Stevens, PLLC is appointed as class counsel. On June 2, 2025, the Defendants filed a notice of supplemental authority in support of their submission on class notice and trial date. The appellate case is captioned Mayra Franco v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 25-1703, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on June 23, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee MAYRA FRANCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Aaron Craig Hemmings, Esq. Kelly Ann Stevens, Esq. HEMMINGS & STEVENS 5540 McNeely Drive Raleigh, NC 27675 Telephone: (919) 277-0161 Defendants-Petitioners PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. are represented by: Zoe Michal Beiner, Esq. Paul Alessio Mezzina, Esq. Amy R. Upshaw, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 737-0500 (202) 626-8988 (202) 626-2915 - and - Nicole Bronnimann, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1100 Louisiana Street Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 276-7402 - and - James Matthew Brigman, Esq. Jeffrey Cashdan, Esq. Seth Isaac Euster, Esq. Zachary Andrew McEntyre, Esq. Allison Hill White, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1180 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 572-4600 (404) 572-5600 (404) 572-3510 (404) 572-2440 PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Class Cert Bid Filing in Angulo Due August 15 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAROLINE ANGULO, et al., v. PROVIDENCE HEALTH & SERVICES WASHINGTON, et al., Case No. 4:25-cv-05029-SAB (E.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Stan Bastian entered a scheduling order for briefing on motion for class certification: Class discovery shall close Jan. 15, 2026. The Plaintiffs shall file any motion for class certification on or before Aug. 15, 2025. The Motion shall not exceed 30 pages. The Defendants shall file any response to the motion on or before Feb. 17, 2026. The Response shall not exceed 30 pages. The Plaintiffs shall file any Reply on or before March 16, 2026. The Reply shall not exceed 15 pages. The Court shall set a hearing for oral argument on the motion, if necessary, after briefing has complete. Providence is a not-for-profit Catholic healthcare system. A copy of the Court's order dated July 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=U5SHxt at no extra charge.[CC] PUBLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL: Phillips Files Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Publications International Limited. The case is styled as Lark Phillips, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Publications International Limited, Case No. 1:25-cv-05297 (C.D. Cal., June 25, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Publications International, Ltd. (PIL) -- https://pilbooks.com/ -- is a leading North American publisher, producing hundreds of new titles each year and printing millions of books annually.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lipari, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Phone: (845) 483-7100 Fax: (888) 749-7747 Email: liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com QUOTEWIZARD INC: Final Settlement Hearing in TCPA Suit Set Sept 29 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a $19 million settlement is set to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged online insurance quote comparison platform QuoteWizard unlawfully sent telemarketing text messages to thousands of consumers whose phone numbers were on the National Do Not Call Registry. The QuoteWizard.com settlement received preliminary court approval on March 22, 2025 and covers anyone in the U.S. whose phone number was listed on the National Do Not Call Registry and still received more than one telemarketing text from Drips, a third-party marketing message sender, promoting QuoteWizard goods or services within a 12-month period of each other, and whose phone number is presently on the lawsuit's list of affected numbers. The court-approved website for the QuoteWizard class action settlement can be found at QuoteWizardLitigation.com. Each QuoteWizard settlement class member will receive a portion of the $19 million settlement commensurate with the number of spam texts they received, the settlement site says. Per the website, the settlement covers nearly 66,700 people whose telephone numbers were identified as having received a qualifying telemarketing text from QuoteWizard. The QuoteWizard class action settlement website estimates that each eligible class member will receive approximately $76 for the two initial texts they received from Drips, the site states. Additional compensation of roughly $38 for each subsequent text will be awarded to class members who received three or more QuoteWizard telemarketing messages, the website adds. The payments may be adjusted on a pro-rata, or equal share, basis depending on the total number of settlement class members to be compensated, court documents state. No action is required on the part of any settlement class member to receive QuoteWizard settlement compensation. A hearing is set for September 29, 2025 to determine whether the QuoteWizard settlement will receive final court approval. Compensation will be distributed only if final approval is granted and after any appeals have been resolved. The QuoteWizard.com class action lawsuit claimed that QuoteWizard, via Drips, sent out telemarketing texts to individuals whose phone numbers were on the National Do Not Call Registry, in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act. [GN] R.R.K. INC: Coiro Files TCPA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against R.R.K. Inc. The case is styled as Cathie Coiro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. R.R.K. Inc. doing business as: Empire Numismatics, Case No. 2:25-cv-03626 (E.D.N.Y., June 30, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. R.R.K. Inc. doing business as Empire Numismatics -- https://www.empirenumismatics.com/ -- is coin dealer in Middle Island, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stefan Coleman, Esq. COLEMAN, PLLC 11 Broadway, Suite 615 New York, NY 10001 Phone: (877) 333-9427 Email: law@stefancoleman.com RAC ACCEPTANCE: Appeals Class Certification Order in McBurnie Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ RAC ACCEPTANCE EAST is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Shannon McBurnie, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. RAC Acceptance East, Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-01429, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Plaintiffs filed a complaint against the Defendant for its imposition of a processing fee on its Rental Purchase Agreement in violation of the Karnette Act, the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and the Unfair Competition Law. On Dec. 14, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class, which Judge James Donato granted on June 6, 2025. The Court certifies the following class for the Plaintiffs' claims under the Karnette Act, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and UCL: All individuals who entered into a Rental-Purchase Agreement with RAC in California at any time between December 11, 2016, and June 30, 2021 and who were charged a Processing Fee. Plaintiffs Shannon McBurnie and April Spruell are appointed class representatives. Attorneys Zach Dostart of Dostart Hannink LLP and Michael Rubin of Altshuler Berzon LLP are appointed lead class counsel. The appellate case is entitled McBurnie, et al. v. RAC Acceptance East, Case No. 25-3905, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 23, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents SHANNON MCBURNIE, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: James T. Hannink, Esq. Zachariah P. Dostart, Esq. DOSTART HANNINK, LLP 4225 Executive Square, Suite 600 La Jolla, CA 92037 - and - Michael Rubin, Esq. Connie K. Chan, Esq. ALTSHULER BERZON, LLP 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 Defendant-Petitioner RAC ACCEPTANCE EAST is represented by: Jeffrey Topor, Esq. Tomio B. Narita, Esq. WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US), LLP 50 California Street, Suite 2750 San Francisco, CA 94111 - and - Matthew G. Ball, Esq. K&L GATES, LLP Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1200 San Francisco, CA 94111 RENKIM CORP: Faces Griffin Suit Over Data Security Failures ----------------------------------------------------------- ELEANOR GRIFFIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RENKIM CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-11918-MFL-DRG (E.D. Mich., June 25, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and former customers' of Defendant's clients sensitive information. On or about March 2, 2025, cybercriminals accessed Defendant's network systems without authorization, causing the wrongful exposure of 46,864 individuals' private information stored therein. However, the Defendant failed to provide timely notice of the data breach to each affected individual. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for negligence, breach of third-party beneficiary, and unjust enrichment. Renkim Corporation is a consumer communications company headquartered in Southgate, MI. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Emily E. Hughes, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM 950 W. University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com eeh@millerlawpc.com - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 402 W. Broadway, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com RESTAURANT DEPOT: DePina Sues For Unlawful Use of Lie Detector Test ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ernesto DePina, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Restaurant Depot, LLC, Defendant, Case No. _______ (Mass. Sup., June 25, 2025) seeks redress for Defendant's alleged violations of the Massachusetts General Laws' Chapter 149, which requires all applications for employment within the Commonwealth to contain a notice of job applicants' and employees' rights concerning lie detector tests. In or around March 2025, while located in Massachusetts, the Plaintiff applied to work as a Front End Manager at Defendant’s store in New Bedford, MA. However, in his Restaurant Depot Massachusetts-based job application, Plaintiff was not provided the notice of his rights concerning lie detector tests, says the suit. Restaurant Depot, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company that operates as a wholesale food service provider. Headquartered in Whitestone, NY, the company offers restaurant equipment, food processing equipment, and food products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David S. Godkin, Esq. James E. Kruzer, Esq. BIRNBAUM & GODKIN, LLP 1 Marina Park Drive, Suite 1410 Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617)307-6100 E-mail: godkin@birnbaumgodkin.com kruzer@bimbaumgodkin.com - and - Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Matthew A. Girardi, Esq. Julian C. Diamond, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com mgirardi @bursor. com jdiamond@bursor.com RETSEL CORP: Lawsuit vs Native Americans Tossed ----------------------------------------------- Judge Lawrence L. Piersol of the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota granted the Native American defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the case captioned as RETSEL CORPORATION, d/b/a Grand Gateway Hotel and d/b/a Cheers Sports Lounge and Casino, CONNIE UHRE, and NICHOLAS UHRE, Plaintiffs, vs. NDN COLLECTIVE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situation, SUNNY RED BEAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, NICK TILSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, MARY BOWMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, NICK COTTIER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, ALBERTA EAGLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, BRE JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, GEORGE BETTELYOUN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, BOOKING HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a Bookings.com, and THE RAPID CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants, Case No. 5:24-CV-05070-LLP (D.S.D.). Counts I, II, III, IV, and V of the amended complaint are dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff Retsel Corporation is a South Dakota corporation which does business as the Grand Gateway Hotel and Cheers Sports Lounge and Casino located in Rapid City, South Dakota. Plaintiffs Connie Uhre and Nicholas Uhre either operate or did operate the Grand Gateway Hotel. Nicholas Uhre is currently a director of Retsel. Defendant NDN Collective is a non-profit South Dakota Corporation that benefits Native Americans. Defendants Nick Tilsen, Sunny Red Bear, Mary Bowman, Nick Cottier, Alberta Eagle, and Bre Jackson are Native American individuals who reside in Rapid City, South Dakota. Nick Tilsen is the president and CEO of NDN Collective. Defendant George Bettelyoun is a Native American who resides in Coon Rapids, Minnesota. Plaintiffs allege that all individually named Defendants are members of NDN Collective. The parties are currently involved in two active lawsuits: 1. NDN Collective et al. v. Retsel et al. Case No. 5:22-CV-05027-LEP (D.S.D.) ("Retsel I") Retsel I began when NDN Collective, Sunny Red Bear, George Bettelyoun, Alberta Eagle, Nick Cottier, Bre Jackson, and Mary Bowman sued Retsel, Nick Uhre, and Connie Uhre for discrimination on the basis of race on March 23, 2022, in the Western Division of the District of South Dakota. In Retsel I, Retsel and Nick Uhre asserted five counterclaims against NDN Collective: (Counterclaim I) Intentional Interference with Business Relations; (Counterclaim II) Defamation; (Counterclaim III) Trespass; (Counterclaim IV) Nuisance; and (Counterclaim V) Civil Conspiracy. 2. Retsel et al. v. NDN Collective et al. Case No. 5:24-CV-05070-LLP (D.S.D.) ("Retsel II") Retsel II -- the one currently before the Court -- began when Retsel, Nick Uhre, and Connie Uhre sued the Native American Defendants on September 6, 2024, also in the Western Division of the District of South Dakota asserting five claims: (Count I) Intentional Interference with Business Relations; (Count II) Injurious Falsehood; (Count III) Defamation; (Count IV) Forgery; and (Count Y) Civil RICO Conspiracy. Both the counterclaims in Retsel I and the claims in Retsel II concern the alleged conduct of NDN Collective, through its claimed members, following Connie Uhre's post on her Facebook that Native Americans would no longer be allowed to stay at the Grand Gateway Hotel and other alleged racial comments and actions by Nick Uhre. According to the Court, the extent to which the lawsuits cover the same conduct and involve the same parties, however, is the key question. The Native American Defendants argue that Retsel I and Retsel II involve the same parties and rely on the same, or essentially the same, nucleus of operative facts, which would preclude Retsel II on claim-splitting grounds. Plaintiffs argue in opposition that the parties to Retsel I and Retsel II are not identical and that the facts in Retsel II are temporally distinct from those in Retsel I. According to the Court, even though Retsel II expands on the allegations of Retsel I, includes different legal theories, and adds a handful of Defendants, there can be little doubt that both cases arise from a common nucleus of operative fact -- NDN Collective and its claimed members' alleged conduct following Connie Uhre's racially charged statements, and the Grand Gateway Hotel's alleged discriminatory policy towards Native Americans. Further, both actions seek the same relief: to hold NDN Collective liable for the alleged ongoing and continuing injury to Plaintiffs' business. Accordingly, for purposes of the claim-splitting analysis, the Court finds that Plaintiffs' claims against the Native American Defendants in Retsel II is duplicative of Retsel's and Nick Uhre's counterclaims in Retsel I. The Court concludes that the identity of the claims and parties, and the desire to promote judicial economy and protect the parties from duplicative litigation over the same subject matter, together warrant the dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims against the Native American Defendants. Defendants NDN Collective, Sunny Red Bear, Nick Tilsen, Mary Bowman, Nick Cottier, Alberta Eagle, Bre Jackson, and George Bettelyoun are dismissed as parties to Retsel II. A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated June 30, 2025, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KhY6OW from PacerMonitor.com. About Retsel Corporation Retsel Corporation operates in the traveler accommodation industry. It conducts business under the names Grand Gateway Hotel and Cheers Sports Lounge and Casino. Retsel Corporation filed a petition under Chapter 11, Subchapter V of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. D.S.D. Case No. 24-50081) on September 7, 2024, with $1 million to $10 million in both assets and liabilities. Chad Uhre, president, signed the petition. Judge Laura L. Kulm Ask oversees the case. The Debtor is represented by Robert L. Meadors, Esq., at Brende & Meadors, LLP. ROSS STORES: Gevorgyan Sues Over Unlawful Employment Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- VARANTSOV GEVORGYAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROSS STORES INC; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV18377 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 25, 2025), arises from Defendants' alleged unlawful employment practices and intolerable working conditions. On or about December 18, 2021, the Defendant hired Plaintiff as a seasonal employee at its Sherman Oaks location. Due to the intolerable working conditions, including unpaid work requirements, ongoing harassment, denial of medical accommodations, and retaliation for asserting his rights, the Plaintiff was forced to resign his employment on or about June 24, 2024. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings claims under the California Labor Code, the California Business and Professions Code, and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. Ross Stores, Inc. operates retail stores throughout California, including locations at 13750 Riverside Drive, Sherman Oaks, CA and 12121 Victory Boulevard, North Hollywood, CA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manny Starr, Esq. Daniel Ginzburg, Esq. FRONTIER LAW CENTER 23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 1084 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 914-3433 Facsimile: (818) 914-3433 E-mail: manny@frontierlawcenter.com dan@frontierlawcenter.com eservice@frontierlawcenter.com SALVATION ARMY: Varcoe Sues Over Failure to Secure Employees' Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHRISTINE VARCOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE SALVATION ARMY NATIONAL CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 8:25-cv-01611 (M.D. Fla., June 20, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence/wantonness, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, and unfair and deceptive trade practices. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees stored within its network systems following a data breach in late March 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. The Salvation Army National Corporation is an international Protestant Christian church and charitable organization, with its principal place of business in Alexandria, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Caitlyn Prichard Miller, Esq. AYLSTOCK WITKIN KRIES & OVERHOLTZ 17 E. Main Street Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (850) 202-1010 Email: cmiller@awkolaw.com - and - Andre R. Belanger, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 Email: andre.belanger@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Joins Class Suit Against EPA Over Grant Program ------------------------------------------------------------------ Thomas Hughes, writing for Local News Matters, reports that San Francisco has joined a federal class action lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, challenging the agency's freeze of a grant program, San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu's office said. It's at least the third such suit the city and county has joined, after suing President Donald Trump's administration for withholding grants from both the U.S. Justice Department and U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The EPA Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grant program in question was authorized by Congress as part of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. The program was given $3 billion to fund initiatives such as air quality monitoring, natural disaster preparedness, flood and stormwater protection, and other initiatives related to pollution reduction. Local governments, nonprofit organizations, tribes, and higher education institutions were eligible for the grants. The Treasure Island Mobility Management Agency, a city agency planning and building transportation infrastructure on Treasure Island, is also a plaintiff in the suit, along with 22 other named plaintiffs from across the nation. The case is called Appalachian Voices, et al. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency et al. and was filed last week in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The suit is seeking grants to resume being transmitted to all 350 recipients who have been awarded funds from the Climate Justice program. "Climate change is an existential threat to humanity that cannot be ignored, and this funding is critical to help our communities address serious environmental issues," Chiu said in a statement" . . . Once again, Trump is attempting to illegally terminate funding to promote his anti-environmental policies -- all at the expense of our communities and our climate." Some of the initiatives funded by the grant program include lead pipe replacement, tree planting in urban heat zones, installing pollution notification systems, and investing in projects to enhance climate resiliency against extreme weather events, according to the civil complaint. San Francisco's grant was for $1 million over a three-year period. The Treasure Island Mobility Management Agency (TIMMA) was awarded a much larger grant of $20 million by the EPA in November that was earmarked for six transportation projects. "By joining this lawsuit, we're working to ensure that our communities continue to benefit from federal support that advances climate goals and invests in a healthier, more connected future." -- San Francisco Supervisor Matt Dorsey San Francisco Supervisor Matt Dorsey, who is also the chair of the Treasure Island Mobility Management Agency, said the program was funding a free shuttle on the island and a bikeshare program. "By joining this lawsuit, we're working to ensure that our communities continue to benefit from federal support that advances climate goals and invests in a healthier, more connected future," Dorsey said in a statement. As with the other suits the city has filed challenging the withholding of previously authorized federal dollars, the new lawsuit claimed the Trump administration is violating the U.S. Constitution's Separation of Powers doctrine, which stipulates that Congress controls spending. It also asserted the grants' cancellation was a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, which limits how federal agencies can make rules, and it cited the Constitution's Presentment Clause, which gives the president authority to veto a bill passed by Congress, but not the power to change law once it is signed. [GN] SANDRIDGE EXPLORATION: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due August 3, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREGG B. COLTON, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated persons, v. SANDRIDGE EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION, LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-00986-JD (W.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Jodi Dishman entered a specialized scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline Motions to Join Additional Parties or to Oct. 20, 2025 Otherwise Amend the Pleadings Fact Discovery Completed by: March 18, 2026 The Plaintiff's expert disclosures required April 27, 2026 by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2), including expert reports due: The Defendant's expert disclosures required May 26, 2026 by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2), including expert reports due: Expert Depositions completed by: July 15, 2026 The Plaintiff's deadline to file class Aug. 3, 2026 certification motion and briefing: The Defendant's Deadline to file class Aug. 28, 2026 certification motion and briefing: The Plaintiff's deadline to file reply Sept. 14, 2026 brief regarding class certification: Class Certification hearing: To be scheduled SandRidge is an independent oil and gas company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GJ3yST at no extra charge.[CC] SAZERAC COMPANY: Court Certifies Class in Andrews Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILBERT ANDREWS and STEVEN KHAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SAZERAC COMPANY, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-01060-AS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Arun Subramanian entered an order certifying a class of: "All persons who purchased the Southern Comfort malt products in the State of New York at any time during the period Feb. 8, 2020, to the date of judgment." Khan's lawyers, Charles D. Moore, Neal Jamison Deckant, and Spencer Sheehan, are appointed as class counsel. In sum, Ingersoll's conjoint analysis "provides an acceptable, though likely imperfect" method of measuring the damages attributable to plaintiffs' theory of liability. None of this means that the plaintiffs will prevail at the merits stage. Most of Sazerac's arguments are really for summary judgment, not class certification. The Plaintiffs say that a class action is the "superior" method for "fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy," because "proceeding individually would be prohibitive for class members with small claims." Sazerac doesn't object, and the Court agrees: when, like here, there are thousands of potential class members with small claims, and those claims are capable of resolution through classwide proof, "the class action device is . . . superior to individual actions." In February 2023, Christina Del Rosario sued Sazerac on behalf of a putative class of malt-beverage purchasers. In February 2024, the Court granted leave to amend the complaint to replace Del Rosario as plaintiff. Sazerac manufactures, packages, labels, markets, and sells fruit and spice flavored liqueur under the Southern Comfort brand. A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DnIe7J at no extra charge.[CC] SHAMAN BOTANICALS: Jennings Sues Over Deceptive Ads of Kratom Shot ------------------------------------------------------------------ ERIN JENNINGS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHAMAN BOTANICALS, LLC D/B/A SOMA KRATOM, and CBD AMERICAN SHAMAN, LLC D/B/A SOMA KRATOM, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-at-00815 (E.D. Cal., June 25, 2025) arises from Defendants' alleged false, misleading, deceptive, and negligent sales practices regarding their kratom shot products. Allegedly, the Defendants have engaged in a systemic effort to peddle an addictive substance to unsuspecting and oftentimes vulnerable consumers. Defendants failed to disclose that their products contain active ingredients that are similar to opioids. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks relief in this action individually, and as a class action on behalf of similarly situated purchasers of Defendants' products, for: (i) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law; (ii) violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act; (iii) violation of California's False Advertising Law; (iv) breach of implied warranty; (v) unjust enrichment; and (vi) fraud by omission. Shaman Botanicals, LLC manufactures, markets sells and distributes the kratom shot products throughout the United States, including in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Neal J. Deckant, Esq. Luke Sironski-White, Esq. Ryan B. Martin, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com lsironski@bursor.com rmartin@bursor.com SHENZHEN SMOORE: M.M. Alleges Vaporizers System's Price Fixing -------------------------------------------------------------- M.M. on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. SHENZHEN SMOORE TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, LTD.; SMOORE INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LIMITED; JUPITER RESEARCH, LLC; CB SOLUTIONS, LLC d/b/a CANNA BRAND SOLUTIONS; and GREENLANE HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-01163 (D. Nev., June 27, 2025) alleges that Smoore's anticompetitive distribution agreements and restrictions on the Distributor Defendants prevent price competition in the wholesale distribution market of CCELL-branded (Ceramic Cell) closed cannabis oil vaporizers systems and components. According to the complaint, the Defendants' agreements not to compete, pricing restrictions, and allocation of customers constitute a horizontal price fixing and market allocation scheme. The Defendants implemented this anticompetitive scheme through several in person meetings and through employee training that directed employees of Distributor Defendants to follow the minimum price restraints and not to solicit or compete for customers of Smoore or of other Distributor Defendants, asserts the suit. Plaintiff M.M. is legally allowed to purchase and/or consume vaporized cannabis oil for his personal individual, recreational or medicinal use. Plaintiff M.M. has purchased Products at a licensed dispensary during the Class Period (January 1, 2020 through the present day). Smoore International Holdings Limited, either a parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate to Shenzhen Smoore Technology Company, Limited, is a corporation organized under the laws of the Cayman Islands, having its principal place of business located at Block Dongcai Industry Park, Gushu Village, Bao-an District, Shenzhen, China.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Cadio Zirpoli, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP. 601 California Street, Suite 1505 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com czirpoli@saverilawfirm.com - and - Miles N. Clark, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MILES N. CLARK, LLC 5510 S. Fort Apache Rd, Suite 30 Las Vegas, NV 89148-7700 Telephone: (702) 856-7430 Facsimile: (702) 552-2370 E-mail: miles@milesclarklaw.com SKOPOS FINANCIAL: Philipson Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXANDER PHILIPSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SKOPOS FINANCIAL, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02105-WMR (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for extension of LR 23.1 class certification deadline: The instant motion is made in good faith and not for purposes of delay. The Plaintiff requests entry of the attached proposed order, and for such other relief deemed appropriate by this Court. The Plaintiff submits that there is good cause to support the requested extension. The Plaintiff will diligently pursue discovery but needs additional time to complete discovery and file for class certification. The discovery Plaintiff needs to complete is necessary so he can meet her burden in moving for class certification under Rule 23. The action was filed on April 16, 2025. The Defendant appeared on May 15, 2025, and moved for an unopposed extension to respond to the Complaint. The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on June 16, 2025, which was mooted by the filing of the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Barrett operates as a mortgage broker. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OWifbs at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1400 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (305) 336-7466 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com SO. CAL. SANDBAGS INC: Linton Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SO. CAL. SANDBAGS INC. The case is styled as Joshua Linton, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. SO. CAL. SANDBAGS INC., Case No. 25STCV18681 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., June 25, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." So Cal Sandbags, Inc. -- https://www.socalsandbags.com/ -- is a General Contractor that serves the Corona, California area and specializes in Earthwork.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Quadrel, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, APC 8383 Wilshire Boulevard., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: 310-622-4278 Fax: 855-786-6356 Email: rquadrel@blackstonepc.com SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT: McKever Seeks More Time to File Class Reply ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRACY MCKEVER and DANA J. BELVIY On behalf of Southeastern Freight Lines Retirement Savings Program, v. SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT LINES, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-06170-SAL (D.S.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending the time in which the Plaintiffs must file their reply in support of their motion for class certification by two weeks, making the reply due on or before July 16, 2025. The Plaintiffs' counsel needs additional time to engage in a thorough fact-intensive analysis to assess the Defendant's arguments and develop an appropriate reply. On May 14, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification. The Defendant filed its opposition on June 25, 2025. Southeastern provides transportation services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bTMnfi at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lauren Heath Carroway, Esq. Marc R. Edelman, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 1544 Fording Island Road, Suite A Hilton Head, SC Telephone: (854) 222-6075 E-mail: lcarroway@forthepeople.com MEdelman@forthepeople.com - and - Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. Amanda E. Heystek, Esq. Brandon J. Hill, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 337-7992 E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com bhill@wfclaw.com aheystek@wfclaw.com - and - Michael C. Mckay, Esq. MCKAY LAW, LLC 5635 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 170 Scottsdale, AZ 85250 Telephone: (480) 681-7000 E-mail: mmckay@mckaylaw.us SOUTHEASTERN SYNOD: Finney Sues Over Senate Bill 392's Legality --------------------------------------------------------------- SOUTHEASTERN SYNOD OF THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH IN AMERICA, GARRETT CAUSEY, and JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STEVEN R. FINNEY; BARRY P. STAUBUS; DAN E. ARMSTRONG; JIMMY DUNN; RYAN DESMOND; CHARME P. ALLEN; DAVE CLARK; JARED EFFLER; RUSSELL JOHNSON; STEPHEN HATCHETT; COTY WAMP; COURTNEY LYNCH; BRYANT C. DUNAWAY; CRAIG NORTHCOTT; JASON LAWSON; JENNINGS H. JONES; ROBERT J. CARTER; RAY WHITLEY; ROBERT J. NASH; GLENN FUNK; STACEY EDMONSON; BRENT COOPER; RAY CROUCH; NEIL THOMPSON; MARK DAVIDSON; JODY PICKENS; COLIN JOHNSON; FREDERICK AGEE; DANNY GOODMAN JR.; STEVE MULROY; CHRIS STANFORD; and HANS SCHWENDIMANN, in their official capacities as the district attorneys general of Tennessee, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00684 (M.D. Tenn., June 20, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Supremacy Clause, Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, First Amendment Free Exercise of Religion, and First Amendment Freedom of Association. The case challenges the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Senate Bill 392 signed by Tennessee Governor Bill Lee into law on May 27, 2025, which is set to take effect on July 1, 2025. According to the complaint, Section 5 is unconstitutional in multiple respects: (1) it violates the Supremacy Clause because it is preempted by federal law, (2) it violates the Fourteenth Amendment because it is impermissibly vague, and (3) it also infringes churches' First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion and religious association. The Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to bar enforcement of this unconstitutional law, suit says. Southeastern Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is a Christian organization with congregations across Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael C. Holley, Esq. Spring Miller, Esq. TENNESSEE IMMIGRANT & REFUGEE RIGHTS COALITION 3310 Ezell Road Nashville, TN 37211 Telephone: (615) 457-4768 Email: mike@tnimmigrant.org spring@tnimmigrant.org - and - Rupa Bhattacharyya, Esq. Gregory Briker, Esq. Elizabeth Cruikshank, Esq. William Powell, Esq. INSTITUTE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL ADVOCACY AND PROTECTION Georgetown University Law Center 600 New Jersey Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 661-6629 Facsimile: (202) 661-6730 Email: rb1796@georgetown.edu gb954@georgetown.edu erc56@georgetown.edu whp25@georgetown.edu - and - Michelle Lapointe, Esq. Suchita Mathur, Esq. Chris Opila, Esq. AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL 2001 L. Street NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 507-7523 Facsimile: (202) 742-5619 Email: mlapointe@immcouncil.org smathur@immcouncil.org copila@immcouncil.org STRATEGY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Bitcoin Investment ------------------------------------------------------------ Danny Park, writing for THE BLOCK, reports that New York-based law firm Pomerantz filed a class action lawsuit against Strategy, claiming the company made false and misleading statements about its bitcoin investment strategy. The lawsuit also alleges that Strategy failed to adequately disclose the impact of adopting new accounting standards. New York-based law firm Pomerantz LLP filed a class action lawsuit against Michael Saylor-led Strategy, alleging that the company violated federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements about the profitability of its bitcoin investment strategy. The complaint, filed in the Eastern District Court of Virginia, represents investors of Strategy in the period between April 30, 2024, and April 4, 2025. Pomerantz said other investors can join the class action suit until July 15. It alleges that Strategy overstated the profitability of its bitcoin investment strategy and treasury operations, while downplaying volatility risks associated with bitcoin. This renders the company's public statements "materially false and misleading," the statement said. The lawsuit also revolves around Strategy's adoption of the Financial Accounting Standards Board's accounting standards -- ASU 2023-08 -- that require fair value accounting for crypto assets. This replaced the firm's prior cost-less-impairment model, which only recognized impairments for price drops, and didn't mark up assets for price increases until they were sold. Pomerantz claims that Strategy failed to properly disclose the exact nature or scope of the impact of the new accounting standards on its financial statements, while downplaying risks to investors. "Defendants consistently provided rosy assessments of Strategy's performance as a bitcoin treasury company following its adoption of ASU 2023-08," the law firm said in a statement. "They did this, in part, by reporting and projecting positive BTC Yield, BTC Gain, and BTC $ Gain results, while omitting the immense losses the Company could realize on its bitcoin assets after accounting for these assets under a fair value accounting methodology." Specifically, the lawsuit mentions Strategy's $5.9 billion in unrealized loss from digital assets in Q1, 2025, due to the adoption of ASU 2023-08, which caused the stock price to drop over 8% at the time. Strategy, formerly MicroStrategy, adopted its bitcoin accumulation strategy in 2020 and currently stands as the largest holder of bitcoin among publicly traded companies with 597,325 BTC under its belt. Its stock price has surged significantly since its bitcoin focus, rising 3,328% in the past five years, according to Yahoo Finance data. Its success prompted other companies, such as Metaplanet, to pursue similar strategies. Strategy (MSTR) closed with a 7.76% gain, reaching $402.28. The Block has reached out to Strategy for comments. [GN] SYSCO CORP: Final $2.3M-Settlement Approval Hearing Set October 9 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sandra V, writing for UnionRayo, reports that another class action, but this time the protagonist is Sysco. In case you don't know Sysco, it's a food distribution company that provides food, equipment and supplies to restaurants, healthcare and educational facilities, hotels and other customers in the United States. In 2023, the company experienced a technological issue and thousands of people' digital privacy and personal data were at risk. As a consequence, Sysco is facing a class action lawsuit and every affected person was offered economic compensation. So, let's see in more detail what this case is about. What happened? Nowadays, everything is digitalized and technology has a key role in companies, so it's not rare for companies to get hacked. This is what happened to Sysco, in 2023, the company experienced a data breach making many people's personal data at risk since others could have access to their private information without any authorization. Sysco warned affected people about the issue, but they decided to start a class action against the company because their personal data wasn't properly protected, which was Sysco's responsibility. What affected people plead They said the company could have prevented this issue if the safety measures had been better. This meant the affected people had to invest a lot of money and time in protecting themselves from identity theft and frauds. They are worried because they know they have more chances to suffer from identity theft in the future, as a consequence of Sysco's data breach. Sysco's take on this situation The company said nothing about being responsible for what happened, but there was a legal agreement to close the class action lawsuit and avoid a trial. The company agreed on paying $2.3 million, although it doesn't mean the company is solving anything about the data breach. Who is receiving the money? Not everybody could receive this economic compensation so check out if you are part of this group: only those who live in the United States and received a direct notification from Sysco in May 2023 related to the cyberattack, could benefit from this agreement. Be careful, because if you aren't part of the affected group, you mustn't file the claim. This will be considered fraud because you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury, so lying will have legal consequences. How much will they receive? Not everybody will receive the same amount of money, there are two types of benefits, so let's explain them: 1. Cost reimbursement up to $5,000 if you can show documents proving you spent money as a consequence of the data breach, for example, money used to deal with frauds or identity thefts, legal expenses, or other personal data misuses. 2. An additional payment in cash, a residual payment. This is estimated to be between $100 and $200, but it could reach up to $599 depending on how many people submit a valid claim. Apart from this financial compensation, the affected people will receive 2 years of free credit monitoring service including: identity theft insurance, dark web scanning, real-time credit monitoring with three major credit bureaus, and access to fraud resolution agents. Proof of purchase To finish the process, you must also send some documents along with the form to prove you have spent money due to the Sysco data breach. These are some of the documents you need: receipts, invoices, account statements, tax forms, IRS letters, and other documentation of data breach losses. Save these dates! Now that you know whether you can submit the claim or not, it's important to save some important dates you don't miss the chance to receive that benefit: -- Last day for exclusion and objection: August 8, 2025. -- Final approval hearing for the Sysco data breach settlement: October 9, 2025. -- Last day to submit a valid form to receive settlement benefits: September 8, 2025. So, if you think you might be part of the affected group, check everything to confirm your situation and follow the dates to use your rights. [GN] TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR: Faces Suit Over Plant's Unsafe Conditions --------------------------------------------------------------- William Pitts, writing for 12News, reports that more plaintiffs have joined a class action lawsuit against TSMC, the Taiwanese microchip manufacturer building a massive plant in northern Phoenix. The latest filing on June 30 reflects 17 plaintiffs and more than 160 pages of allegations. The suit accuses TSMC of racial discrimination, retaliation, and unsafe working conditions. It started with one woman who worked in human resources for TSMC in California. She claims the company favors Taiwanese and Chinese employees and discriminates against non-East Asian workers. Multiple plaintiffs say they were subjected to a hostile work environment. The lawsuit claims TSMC pushes out American workers to replace them with foreign workers, specifically from Taiwan and China. The suit alleges about half of the employees at TSMC Arizona are on foreign work visas. Some employees say they were routinely belittled and yelled at. One Black employee reported finding a rubber chicken hanging above their desk. Others claim coworkers made racist comments, including claims that Black people were lazy or smelled bad and that Americans in general did not work hard, or were too stupid to build the plant. One plaintiff said company policy discouraged calling 911, directing employees to call an internal emergency number instead. Another claimed managers wanted to buy safety harnesses from the online retailer TEMU, but dropped the idea after an outcry. Others allege they were exposed to hazardous chemicals because of a lack of training or a lack of personal protective equipment. One section of the lawsuit includes an allegation of a drug and prostitution ring operating at the site. Other sections are redacted, with the judge stating those redactions relate to claims of sexual assault. In a statement to 12News, TSMC said: "Our policy is to not comment on litigation outside of court filings. We’re proud of the global team of more than 3,000 people that has come together to make our new facility in Arizona a success, and we look forward to growing the site into a major center of American semiconductor manufacturing excellence. TSMC is committed to providing a safe, welcoming and inclusive environment for our employees, contractors, and everyone who works at our facilities around the world." The free 12+ app from 12News lets users stream live events -- including daily newscasts like "Today in AZ" and "12 News" and our daily lifestyle program, "Arizona Midday"--on Roku, Apple TV and Amazon Fire TV. 12+ showcases live video throughout the day for breaking news, local news, weather and even an occasional moment of Zen showcasing breathtaking sights from across Arizona. Users can also watch on-demand videos of top stories, local politics, I-Team investigations, Arizona-specific features and vintage videos from the 12News archives. Roku: Add the channel from the Roku store or by searching for "12 News KPNX." Amazon Fire TV: Search for "12 News KPNX" to find the free 12+ app to add to your account, or have the 12+ app delivered directly to your Amazon Fire TV through Amazon.com or the Amazon app. [GN] TARTE INC: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Senior Says ------------------------------------------------------------ MILAGROS SENIOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TARTE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05283 (S.D.N.Y., June 24, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://tartecosmetics.com/, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Tarte, Inc. retails cosmetics and personal care products. The Company offers oil, sunscreen lotions, shimmering powder, clay, mascara, clay waterproof liners, eye pencil, lipstick, facial mask, and shadow palette. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal TORRID LLC: Agrees to Settle False Discount Class Suit for $10MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that Torrid has agreed to a class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it deceptively advertised discounts on its website. The Torrid class action settlement benefits consumers who purchased products on Torrid.com while residing in Oregon, California or Washington between Jan. 1, 2020, and Feb. 18, 2025. Plaintiffs in the Torrid discount class action lawsuit claimed Torrid deceptively advertised discounts on its website. The plaintiffs say that they would not have purchased products from Torrid if they knew the company did not offer the advertised discounts. Torrid, a plus-size clothing retailer with locations across the country, has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a settlement to resolve the Torrid discount class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Torrid class action settlement, class members can receive either a $15 cash payment or a $15 store voucher. Cash payments will be sent via check or electronic payment. Store vouchers will be sent via email and can be used during a single order on Torrid.com or at one of the company's brick-and-mortar stores. The deadline for exclusion and objection is July 28, 2025. The final approval hearing for the class action settlement is scheduled for Sept. 19, 2025. To receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid claim form by Aug. 26, 2025. Who's Eligible Consumers who, while residing in the states of Oregon, California or Washington (as determined by the order billing address), purchased products on Torrid.com from Jan. 1, 2020, to Feb. 18, 2025. Potential Award $15 cash benefit or $15 store voucher. Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 08/26/2025 Case Name Cline, et al. v. Torrid LLC, Case No. 25CV10315, in the Circuit Court of The State Of Oregon for the County of Multnomah Final Hearing 09/19/2025 Settlement Website TorridClassAction.com Claims Administrator Cline v. Torrid c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC P.O. Box 225391 New York, NY 10150-5391 torridclassaction@kroll.com (833) 890-5912 Class Counsel Simon Franzini Jonas Jacobson DOVEL & LUNER LLP Gary M. Klinger Alexander E. Wolf MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC Defense Counsel James P. Bennett Benjamin J. Kittay MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP [GN] TRAEGER PELLET: Agrees to Settle Wood Pellet Class Suit for $1.5MM ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top class Actions reports that Traeger has agreed to a $1.5 million settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit claiming it misled customers about the type of wood used in its wood pellets. The Traeger wood pellets class action settlement benefits consumers who purchased Traeger wood pellets in California or Utah after Oct. 1, 2015. The plaintiffs in the Traeger wood pellets class action lawsuit accused Traeger of violating California and Utah laws by misrepresenting the type of wood used in its wood pellets. According to the plaintiffs, Traeger claimed its pellets were made from 100% hardwood when they were actually made from a mixture of softwood and hardwood. Traeger, a grill manufacturer that sells wood pellets for use in grills, has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to this $1.5 million settlement to resolve the class action lawsuit allegations. Under the terms of the Traeger wood pellets class action settlement, class members can receive a $3 coupon for Traeger wood pellets. These coupons will be attached to certain bags of wood pellets or will be available on shelves in California and Utah stores where Traeger wood pellets are sold. The deadline for exclusion and objection was Feb. 1, 2025. The final approval hearing for the Traeger wood pellets class action settlement was scheduled for April 2, 2025. No claim form is required to benefit from the settlement. Class members who do not exclude themselves will automatically receive settlement benefits. Who's Eligible Consumers who bought Traeger wood pellets in stores or online in California or Utah after Oct. 1, 2015. Potential Award $3 coupon Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form Deadline 07/30/2025 Case Name Yates, et al. v. Traeger Pellet Grills LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-00723-DN-DAO, in the United States District Court for the District of Utah Settlement Website TraegerWoodPelletSettlement.com Claims Administrator Traeger Wood Pellet Settlement c/o Settlement Administrator PO Box 25226 Santa Ana, CA 92799 info@TraegerWoodPelletSettlement.com (866) 675-2564 Class Counsel Jared D. Scott Jacob W. Nelson ANDERSON & KARRENBERG Karl Kronenberger KRONENBERGER ROSENFELD LLP Defense Counsel Julianne P. Blanch Juliette P. White PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER James F. Speyer E. Alex Beroukhim ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP [GN] TRIDENT MARITIME: Class Settlement in Jefferson Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANNON OATES JEFFERSON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TRIDENT MARITIME SYSTEMS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00375-LMB-LRV (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Leonie M. Brinkema entered an order granting preliminary approval of proposed class action settlement 1. For purposes of settlement only, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1)(b), the Court provisionally certifies the class, defined as follows: "All individuals in the United States whose Private Information was compromised in the data security incident that Trident Maritime Systems, LLC experienced between Feb. 1, 2023 and Feb. 10, 2023." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) the judges presiding over this Action, and members of their direct families; (2) the Defendants, their subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendant or their parents have a controlling interest, and their current or fonner officers and directors; and (3) Settlement Class Members who submit a valid Request for Exclusion prior to the Opt-Out Deadline. For purposes of settling this Action, the Parties conditionally stipulate and agree that the requirements for establishing class certification with respect to the Settlement Class have been met, and that the Settlement Class is comprised of 5,111 individuals. 2. The Plaintiff Jefferson is provisionally designated and appointed as the Class Representative. The Court provisionally finds that the Class Representative is similarly situated to absent Settlement Class Members and is typical of the Settlement Class, and, therefore, will be an adequate Class Representative. 3. A Final Approval Hearing shall be held on Dec. 12, 2025. The case involves a putative class action against Trident relating to a data security incident against Trident that potentially allowed an unauthorized actor to access the Personal Information of approximately 5,111 individuals from Feb. 1,2023 and Feb. 10, 2023. Trident announced the Incident in a notice sent in February 2025. On Feb. 27, 2025, the Plaintiff Jefferson filed a Complaint alleging, among other things, that Trident failed to take adequate measures to protect her and other putative Class Members’ Personal Information and failed to disclose that its systems were susceptible to such a criminal attack Trident offers engineering solutions in marine interiors, distributed ship systems, electro mechanical solutions, and automation and control. A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=83ssZd at no extra charge.[CC] TRINITY HEALTH: Dombal Sues Over Alleged Labor Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN DOMBAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRINITY HEALTH CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-11910-JEL-DRG (E.D. Mich., June 25, 2025) alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and similarly situated patient care staff have been subject to Defendant's policy and practice of deducting time from recorded hours for meal periods and/or requiring patient care staff to work through their unpaid meal periods without pay regardless of if the break time was automatically deducted. Moreover, the Defendant's policies and practices deny patient care staff wages due under the FLSA. Trinity Health Corporation is health system headquartered in Livonia, MI. It operates approximately 93 hospitals in 23 states. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Lossia McManus, Esq. FAGAN MCMANUS, P.C. 25892 Woodward Avenue Royal Oak, MI 48067-0910 Telephone: (248) 542-6300 Facsimile: (248) 542-6301 E-mail: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com - and - Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq. Ori Edelstein, Esq. Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100; Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com rmorelli@schneiderwallace.com UNILEVER MANUFACTURING: Dotson False Ads Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled MICHAEL DOTSON, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNILEVER MANUFACTURING US, INC., Defendant, Case No. 25STCV14776, was removed from Superior Court for Los Angeles County to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 25, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-05789 to the proceeding. The case arises from Defendant's alleged violations of the Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law in connection with the deceptive ads of its certain Knorr pasta and rice side dish products. Headquartered in Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Unilever Manufacturing US, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that manufactures and sells a wide range of consumer goods. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Dale J. Giali, Esq. Keri E. Borders, Esq. Rebecca B. Johns, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 633 W Fifth Street, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-4355 Facsimile: (213) 443-4310 E-mail: dgiali@kslaw.com kborders@kslaw.com rjohns@kslaw.com UNILEVER US: Bid for Summary Judgment in Hossain Due August 1 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HOSSAIN v. UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-02833 (E.D.N.Y., Filed May 19, 2021), the Hon. Judge Natasha C. Merle entered an order that: In light of the resolution of the motion for class certification in Candelaria v. Conopco, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-06760, and pursuant to this Court's April 12, 2024, Order, any party wishing to move for summary judgment must take the first step in dispositive motion practice no later than August 1, 2025. Otherwise, the parties shall file a proposed joint pretrial order by Sept. 2, 2025. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Product Liability. The Defendant is the American division of the global consumer goods company, Unilever. It's headquartered in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, and its parent company is Unilever PLC. Unilever USA encompasses various brands in the beauty & wellbeing, personal care, home care, nutrition, and ice cream sectors.[CC] UNITED HEALTHCARE: Tamburrino Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH F. TAMBURRINO, M.D., as an assignee and authorized representative of his patient L.K., and BARBARA WILLIAMS, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNITED HEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:21-cv-12766-SDW-LDW (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs, on Oct. 6, 2025, will move before Hon. Edward S. Kiel, to enter the proposed order granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Plaintiff requests that the Court: 1. Grant the Plaintiff's motion for class certification; 2. Certify the following class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2): "All people in the United States who were a member of a health benefit plan governed by ERISA (a) whose request for coverage for DIEP Flap surgery was denied by UHIC on or after June 21, 2015; where (b) such denial was based on UHIC's Co- Surgeons/Team Surgeon Policy, Assistants-at-Surgery Policy, or UHIC's Breast Reconstruction Policy; and (c) such denial was not reversed on administrative appeal. 3. Appoint the Plaintiff Barbara Williams as class representative; and 4. Appoint Berger Montague PC and Cohen Howard LLP as co-lead class counsel. United is a health insurance company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=utAigb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Natalie Lesser, Esq. Amey J. Park, Esq. Julie S. Selesnick, Esq. Zoe Seaman-Grant, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: nlesser@bm.net apark@bm.net jselesnick@bm.net zseamangrant@bm.net - and - Leslie S. Howard, Esq. Michael F. Fried, Esq. COHEN HOWARD, LLP 766 Shrewsbury Avenue, Suite 200 Tinton Falls, NJ 07724 Telephone: (732) 747-5202 Facsimile: (732) 747-5259 E-mail: lhoward@cohenhoward.com mfried@cohenhoward.com UNITED STATES: UC Irvine Joins Coalition in Immigration Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ The UC Irvine School of Law's Immigrant and Racial Justice Solidarity Clinic has joined a broad coalition of legal and community organizations in a class action lawsuit challenging the federal government's recent immigration raids in Southern California. Filed on July 2, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the amended complaint in Vasquez-Perdomo v. Noem seeks to halt what plaintiffs describe as unconstitutional and racially targeted immigration enforcement actions across Los Angeles, Orange County and surrounding areas. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of individuals stopped and detained in the raids, as well as labor and immigrant rights' groups including the Los Angeles Worker Center Network, United Farm Workers, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, and Immigrant Defenders Law Center. The Immigrant and Racial Justice Solidarity Clinic, directed by Professor Annie Lai, represents plaintiffs challenging the unlawful stop-and-arrest practices under the Fourth Amendment and federal law. The case is supported by a coalition of partners, including the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, Public Counsel, the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, and others. The amended complaint details allegations including stops based on racial profiling, warrantless arrests, denial of access to counsel and inhumane conditions in the notorious "B-18" holding facility in downtown Los Angeles. Plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief to stop further violations and certification of several plaintiff classes corresponding to the government's stop-and-arrest practices. "We are proud to stand with our clients and fellow advocates to challenge this attack on our communities," said Clinical Professor of Law Annie Lai. "These raids are not only illegal -- they are an affront to human dignity and the basic values of our democracy." Read the full amended complaint: https://www.aclusocal.org/sites/default/files/vasquez_perdomo_v_noem_-_first_amended_petition_and_complaint.pdf. Watch Professor Lai speak at a press conference held on July 2, 2025, in Torrance, CA, at Bubble Bath Hand Car Wash, the site of a contentious immigration raid last month, to address the lawsuit and ongoing enforcement actions: https://www.foxla.com/video/1668160. About the University of California, Irvine School of Law The University of California, Irvine School of Law is a visionary law school that provides an innovative and comprehensive curriculum, prioritizes public service, and demonstrates a commitment to equity within the legal profession. At UC Irvine Law, we are driven to improve our local, national, and global communities by grappling with important issues as scholars, as practitioners, and as teachers who are preparing the next generation of leaders. The collaborative and interdisciplinary community at UC Irvine Law includes extraordinary students, world-renowned faculty, dedicated staff, engaged alumni, and enthusiastic supporters. Connect with us on Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook, Threads, Bluesky and sign up for our monthly newsletter for the latest news and events at UC Irvine School of Law.[GN] UOVO MANAGEMENT: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against UOVO MANAGEMENT LLC, et al. The case is styled as Jonathan Garcia, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UOVO MANAGEMENT LLC, UOVO ART LLC, UOVO GR LLC, UOVO OC ART LLC, UOVO SAI LLC, Case No. 25STCV19020 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 30, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." UOVO -- https://uovo.art/ -- is the premier provider of storage and services for art, fashion, archives, and collectibles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung L. Yang, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880 Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: seung.yang@moonyanglaw.com USC: Appeals Court Order in Favell Class Suit to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------ UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Iola Favell, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. University of Southern California, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-03389-GW-MAR, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs bring this suit against the Defendant for fraud. On Dec. 2, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class. On June 2, 2025, Judge George H. Wu issued a supplemental tentative ruling on the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class. On June 5, 2025, Judge Hu adopted the tentative ruling as Court's final ruling. The Plaintiffs' motion to certify class is granted. The appellate case is entitled Favell, et al. v. University of Southern California, Case No. 25-3852, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 20, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents IOLA FAVELL, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Sabita J. Soneji, Esq. Annick Persinger, Esq. TYCKO AND ZAVAREEI, LLP 1970 Broadway, Suite 1070 Oakland, CA 94612 - and - Anna C. Haac, Esq. Hassan Zavareei, Esq. Schuyler Standley, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI, LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20006 - and - Eric Rothschild, Esq. NATIONAL STUDENT LEGAL DEFENSE NETWORK 1701 Rhode Island Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Defendant-Petitioner UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA is represented by: Michael Lawrence Mallow, Esq. Mark D. Campbell, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON, LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 - and - Holly Pauling Smith, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON, LLP 2555 Grand Boulevard Kansas City, MO 64108 USC: Petitions Court Ruling in Favell Class Suit to 9th Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Iola Favell, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. University of Southern California, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00846-GW-MAR, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs bring this suit against the Defendant for fraud. On Dec. 2, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class. On June 2, 2025, Judge George H. Wu issued a supplemental tentative ruling on the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class. On June 5, 2025, Judge Hu adopted the tentative ruling as Court's final ruling. The Plaintiffs' motion to certify class is granted. The appellate case is entitled Favell, et al. v. University of Southern California, Case No. 25-3849, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 20, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents IOLA FAVELL, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Sabita J. Soneji, Esq. Annick Persinger, Esq. TYCKO AND ZAVAREEI, LLP 1970 Broadway, Suite 1070 Oakland, CA 94612 - and - Anna C. Haac, Esq. Hassan Zavareei, Esq. Schuyler Standley, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI, LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20006 - and - Eric Rothschild, Esq. NATIONAL STUDENT LEGAL DEFENSE NETWORK 1701 Rhode Island Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Defendant-Petitioner UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA is represented by: Michael Lawrence Mallow, Esq. Mark D. Campbell, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON, LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 - and - Holly Pauling Smith, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON, LLP 2555 Grand Boulevard Kansas City, MO 64108 VENTURE LOGISTICS: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $933,000 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Aljets, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that consumers who previously received a written notification that their personal information was affected by the May 2023 data breach involving Venture Transportation Partners LLC, doing business as Venture Logistics, may be eligible to submit a claim for a cash payment or credit monitoring services from a class action settlement. Venture Transportation Partners LLC agreed to pay $932,800 to settle a class action lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges that a criminal ransomware attack in May 2023 allowed unauthorized access to the personally identifiable information of certain employees and their dependents. Who is eligible for a data breach settlement payout? Individuals are considered class members if they: -- Previously received written notification from Venture Logistics that their personally identifiable information may have been compromised as a result of the May 2023 data breach -- Were among the approximately 9,328 individuals whose information was accessed during the cybersecurity incident How much is the class action payment? Available benefits include: -- Credit monitoring services: Class members can select to receive three years of credit monitoring and identity theft protection, including $1,000,000 in insurance. -- Reimbursement for ordinary out-of-pocket losses: Class members can claim up to $500 for documented "ordinary" out-of-pocket losses, such as professional fees, credit repair services, costs to freeze or unfreeze credit and other expenses or losses incurred between May 13, 2023, and July 10, 2025. -- Reimbursement for extraordinary out-of-pocket losses: Class members can claim up to $5,000 for proven unreimbursed financial losses associated with the data breach, caused by misuse of personal data or identity theft. -- Reimbursement for attested time: Class members may claim up to five hours of lost time spent dealing with data breach at $25 per hour for a maximum of $125. -- Pro rata cash payment: After payment of attorneys’ fees, administrative costs, service awards and approved claims, the remaining settlement funds will be distributed automatically to all class members as a pro rata cash payment. Final payment amount will be determined by the number of claims filed. -- No claim form is required for this benefit. How to claim a data breach class action rebate Class members do not need to submit a claim form to receive a pro rata cash payment. To receive a credit monitoring services or a reimbursement settlement, class members must submit a claim by the Oct. 1, 2025 deadline. Claims can be filed online using the online claim form or by printing and mailing the PDF claim form to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Venture Logistics Data Breach Action, c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC, P.O. Box 225391, New York, NY 10150-5391 Required information and proof -- Class member ID from official settlement notice required to submit a claim for credit monitoring or a reimbursement payment. -- Out-of-pocket ordinary and extraordinary losses claims require supporting documentation such as receipts, invoices for attorney or CPA services, bank or credit card statements, police reports, proof of falsified tax returns or other identity fraud that took place. Payout options -- Electronic payment -- Check mailed to the address provided Data breach settlement fund breakdown The $932,800 settlement fund will include: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys’ fees and expenses: Not to exceed $310,933 -- Service award to class representative: Up to $5,000 -- Credit monitoring and identity theft protection services: Amount determined by the number of claims filed -- Payments to eligible class members: Remaining settlement funds Important dates -- Deadline to file a claim: Oct. 1, 2025 -- Opt-out deadline: Aug. 12, 2025 -- Final approval hearing: Sept. 19, 2025 When is the Venture Logistics data breach settlement payout date? Payments will be issued to eligible class members after the court grants final approval of the settlement, the claim deadline passes and claim processing is complete. Why did this class action lawsuit settlement occur? The class action lawsuit was filed after a ransomware attack in May 2023 compromised the personal information of Venture Logistics employees and their dependents. The class action alleged that Venture Logistics failed to adequately protect this information. Venture Logistics does not admit any wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid the expense and risk of going to trial. Venture Logistics also agreed to implement enhanced security measures. [GN] VERA BRADLEY: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Vera Bradley, Inc. (NASDAQ:VRA) resulting from allegations that Vera Bradley may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Vera Bradley securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=40454 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On June 11, 2025, Vera Bradley announced its financial results for the first quarter of the 2026 fiscal year. Commenting on the results, Vera Bradley's CEO stated that "[o]ur first quarter results were disappointing as top line and profitability trends from the previous several quarters continued." On this news, the price of Vera Bradley stock fell 19% on June 11, 2025. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. At the time Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] VERADIGM INC: Goodrum and Mixon Sue Over Unprotected Private Data ----------------------------------------------------------------- TONY GOODRUM and JASON MIXON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VERADIGM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07062 (N.D. Ill., June 25, 2025) arises from 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. On or around December of 2024, upon information and belief, the Defendant's IT Network was infiltrated by cybercriminals. As a result of the data breach, the unauthorized third-party was able to access and copy files on Defendant's IT Network containing private information of Defendant's Clients patients and policyholders. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Class, now assert claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. Veradigm, Inc. is a healthcare technology company headquartered in Chicago, IL. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com VIATOR INC: Andersen Sues Over Installation of Website Trackers --------------------------------------------------------------- DUSTIN ANDERSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VIATOR, INC.; DELAWARE VIATOR, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-01532 (C.D. Cal., June 20, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Penal Code, California Civil Code, and California Business and Professions Code. The case arises from the Defendants' disclosure of the information of its website visitors to third parties. According to the complaint, when users visit the Defendants' website, they cause tracking technologies to be embedded in visitors' browsers, which allows third parties to collect users' information without their consent. By installing and activating the trackers without obtaining user consent or a valid court order, the Defendants violated the law. Viator, Inc. is an online travel and tour booking company, headquartered in Needham, Massachusetts. Delaware Viator, Inc. is an online travel and tour booking company, headquartered in Needham, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (949) 270-2798 Email: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC 40729 Village Dr., Suite 8 - 1989 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Telephone: (562) 612-1708 Email: rc@rosscornelllaw.com VITAC CORP: Anderson Seeks Conditional Cert of Collective Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 action as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Specifically the Plaintiff requests that the Court: 1. Conditionally certify this case as a collective action; 2. Conditionally certify this case as a class action; 3. Approve the proposed notices to similarly situated employees; 4. Order Defendant to produce contact information for class members; and 5. Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. The Plaintiff seeks conditional certification of a collective and class consisting of: "All current and former closed captioners who worked for the 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." The case arises from Defendant's failure to compensate the 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. VITAC is an American audio transcription company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=neJLyi 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 WEST SHORE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bohr Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- STEPHEN BOHR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WEST SHORE ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT SERVICES, INC. d/b/a GEISINGER EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-01103-MWB (M.D. Pa., June 18, 2025) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff Bohr was employed by the Defendant as a paramedic. West Shore Advanced Life Support Services, Inc. d/b/a Geisinger Emergency Medical Services offers services such as paramedical, medical support, emergency assistance, routine transports, vehicle, and maintenance. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott B. Cooper, Esq. SCHMIDT KRAMER PC 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Telephone: (717) 888-8888 Facsimile: (717) 232-6467 Email: scooper@schmidtkramer.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Fax: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com WESTERN ASSET: Faces Securities Class Action Suit in W.D. Pa. ------------------------------------------------------------- Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, has filed a securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against Western Asset Management Company, LLC ("WAMCO" or the "Company"), Franklin Resources, Inc. ("Franklin"), and Stephen Kenneth Leech, II ("Leech") (collectively, "Defendants"). The Class Action asserts claims under Secs.10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Secs.78j(b) and 78t(a)) and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (17 C.F.R. §240.10b‑5) on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased and/or otherwise acquired shares of the "Western Asset US Core Bond Fund" mutual fund classes -- Class I (ticker: "WATFX"), Class A (ticker: "WABAX"), Class C (ticker: "WABCX"), Class FI (ticker: "WAPIX"), Class IS (ticker: "WACSX"), and Class R (ticker: "WABRX") -- and the "Western Asset Core Plus Bond Fund" mutual fund classes -- Class A (ticker: "WAPAX"), Class C (ticker: "WAPCX"), Class C1 (ticker: "LWCPX"), Class FI (ticker: "WACIX"), Class R (ticker: "WAPRX"), Class I (ticker: "WACPX"), Class IS (ticker: "WAPSX") -- between January 1, 2021 and October 31, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby (the "Class"). The Class Action filed by Scott+Scott is captioned: The Western PA Electrical Employees Insurance Trust Fund v. Western Asset Management Company, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00937. LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE ON SEPTEMBER 2, 2025 WAMCO is a limited liability company, SEC-registered investment advisor, and specialist investment manager that is contracted by registered mutual funds and private funds to manage their investment portfolios and by other investment advisors as a sub-advisor. The Class Action alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants made misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's business, financial condition, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to warn investors that: (1) Defendants favored certain WAMCO strategies, like Macro Opps, over other WAMCO strategies, like Core and Core Plus; (2) Defendants disfavored certain WAMCO strategies, like Core and Core Plus; (3) any "compliance policies and procedures" that WAMCO maintained "to result in fair allocations of investment opportunities to clients" were either insufficient to ensure that Leech and his WAMCO Team fairly allocated trades among the strategies they managed or were expressly disregarded by Defendants in order to allow the favoring of certain WAMCO strategies at the expense of other WAMCO strategies; and (4) any "oversight mechanisms" that WAMCO maintained were either insufficient to monitor Leech and his WAMCO Team or were expressly disregarded by Defendants in order to allow the favoring of certain WAMCO strategies at the expense of other WAMCO strategies. As a result, Defendants' actions operated as a fraud or deceit on the Class, artificially reducing the price of the "Western Asset US Core strategy" mutual fund classes during the Class Period, damaging Class members. LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE ON SEPTEMBER 2, 2025 If you purchased and/or otherwise acquired shares of the "Western Asset US Core Bond Fund" mutual fund classes identified above during the Class Period and were damaged thereby, you are a member of the "Class" and may be able to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. If you wish to apply to be lead plaintiff, a motion on your behalf must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania no later than September 2, 2025. The lead plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent class members of the Class. You do not need to seek appointment as lead plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in the Class Action. If you are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an absent Class member. If you wish to apply to be lead plaintiff, please contact attorney Nicholas Bruno at (888) 398-9312 or at nbruno@scott-scott.com. What Can You Do? You may contact an attorney to discuss your rights regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff or your interest in the Class Action. You may retain counsel of your choice to represent you in the Class Action. About Scott+Scott Scott+Scott is an international law firm known for its expertise in representing corporate clients, institutional investors, businesses, and individuals harmed by anticompetitive conduct or other forms of wrongdoing, including securities law and shareholder violations. With more than 100 attorneys in eight offices in the United States, as well as three offices in Europe, our advocacy has resulted in significant monetary settlements on behalf of our clients, along with other forms of relief. Our highly experienced attorneys have been recognized for being among the top financial lawyers in 2024 by Lawdragon, WWL: Commercial Litigation 2024, and Legal 500 in Antitrust Civil Litigation, and have received top Chambers 2024 rankings. In addition, we have been repeatedly recognized by the American Antitrust Institute for the successful litigation of high-stakes anticompetitive claims in the United States. To learn more about Scott+Scott, our attorneys, or complex case resolution, please visit www.scott-scott.com. This may be considered Attorney Advertising. Contacts Nicholas S. Bruno Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP 230 Park Avenue, 24th Floor, New York, NY 10169 (888) 398-9312 nbruno@scott-scott.com [GN] YESCA LLC: Markgraf Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Budtenders ---------------------------------------------------------- RAVEN MARKGRAF, CALEB PEABODY, and BRYAN CHAPMAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. YESCA LLC D/B/A CANNABIS DEPOT and KIMBELRY PARKER, Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-00811-BKS-ML (N.D.N.Y., June 23, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including misappropriation of gratuities, failure to provide notices upon hiring, failure to provide wage statements, unlawful wage deductions, and retaliation. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as budtenders at any time between 2023 and the present. Yesca LLC, doing business as Cannabis Depot, is a licensed dispensary in Jefferson County, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Chaya M. Gourarie, Esq. BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC 116 Jackson Avenue Syosset, NY 11791 Telephone: (516) 280-3008 Email: CG@belllg.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***