250716.mbx

250716.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, July 16, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 141 Headlines 1ST PHORM: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Wilson Alleges 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Swarm Alleges 3M COMPANY: Lamon Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama 3M COMPANY: Weber Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama 3M COMPANY: Willis Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama 5100 LLC: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Pardo Suit Alleges ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Class Cert Bid Hearing Continued to August 7 ADOBE INC: Securities Suit over Failed Merger Deal Dismissed AEROVIRONMENT INC: Labor Suit Continues After Failed Mediation AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Brown Extended to Nov. 24 ANDERSON BROTHERS: Monroe Overdraft Fees' Suit Removed to D.S.C. ARCH RESOURCES: Fails to Provide WARN Act Notice, McDonald Says ATRIA MANAGEMENT: Cruz Sues Over Failure to Pay All Wages BECHTEL CORP: Lail Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA BRADFORD HEALTH: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Michael Suit Says BROOKLINEN INC: Dalton Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users CARDIOLOGY ASSOCIATES: Faces Doe Suit Over Unprotected Private Info CHRISTOPHER LAROSE: Parties Must Submit Status Reports by August 1 COINBASE INC: Class Action Settlement in Suski Gets Initial Nod COMPUMEDICS USA: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Lockwood Says CONTRA COSTA ELECTRIC: Moncton Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. COPINE 891 INC: Anderson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website COVE SMART LLC: Rojas Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida COZY EARTH HOLDINGS: Persson Files Suit in C.D. California CRANE COMPANY: McCarville Alleges Breach of ERISA Fiduciary Duties CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Black Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CREDIT CONTROL: Faces Hoffman Class Action Suit in S.D.N.Y. DARVEYS USA: Battle Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website DATANYZE LLC: Quinones Files Suit in D. Colorado DONALD TRUMP: Emergency Bid to Lift Court's Stay Tossed DYCOM INDUSTRIES: Dixon Suit Removed to C.D. California EPISOURCE LLC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Mojaddedi Says FLOWERS FOODS: Dushaj Sues Over Bread Product's False Labeling GEICO INDEMNITY: 9th Cir. Vacates for Jurisdictional Inquiry GERBER PAYROLL: Mayer Suit Removed to W.D. Washington GILA LLC: Court Affirms Breach But Limits Insurer Cost HARBIN CLINIC: Dean Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia HARBIN CLINIC: Ellenburg Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia HARBIN CLINIC: Hudgins Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia HARBIN CLINIC: Rangel Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia HARBIN CLINIC: Shutley Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia HARBIN CLINIC: Stout Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia HARLEY-DAVIDSON INC: Humpries Class Action Dismissed HEARTLAND DENTAL: Intercepts Patients' Sensitive Communications HENRIK VIBSKOV: Faces Jones Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website HIBASE 36W: Faces Liz Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website INFOSYS LIMITED: Milito Suit Removed to W.D. Washington INTERIOR DEFINE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hernandez Says IROBOT CORP: Faces Savant Securities Suit Over Market Value Drop JRPAC INC: Faces Jones Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website KICKS CREW: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Jacobs Alleges KRAFT HEINZ FOODS: Daly Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois KRISPY KREME: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Rodriguez Says KROGER LIMITED: Knox Suit Removed to S.D. Ohio KURA SUSHI: Anderson Alleges Over Blind-Inaccessible Website LESTER'S DINER: Campbell Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Website MAGGY LONDON: Fabricates Fake Reference Price, Sanchez Alleges MARY ARNOLD: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hernandez Says MDL 3114: 15 Suits Consolidated in AT&T Customer Data Breach Row MDL 3140: Daniels v. Pfizer Consolidated in Depo-Provera Case MINERAL POINT: Faces James Class Over Tribal Lending Business MISONO FOOD: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hernandez Says MOSHY GAMING: Faces Hurst Suit Over Alleged Illegal Online Casino NISWI LLC: Faces Wood Class Suit Over Usurious Interest Rates NORDVPN SA: Sasgen Sues Over Illegal Automatic Subscription Renewal OAK HEARTH: Faces Perzel Class Suit Over Automatic Club Enrollment P's & Q's BRAND: Faces Battle Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website PICCOLA BUSSOLA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hernandez Says POLITICO LLC: Wiretaps Web Users' Private Info, Shah Says PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Faces Madison Class Suit Over PSA Deduction SALVATION ARMY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Lewis Suit Says SCRAMBLERS BRANDS: Drummond Sues Over Disability Discrimination SEAMORE'S ON ICE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Anderson Says SOUTHWOOD FINANCIAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Rivers Says TAL EDUCATION: Bid to Dismiss 2022 Securities Suit Pending TD BANK: Faces $9.9MM Choe Class Action Suit in S.D.N.Y. THERMOS LLC: Valenzuela Suit Removed to S.D. California TOWER HEALTH SYSTEM: Brennan Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty UNITED STATES: Crawford Sues Over Illegal Execution Practices UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS: O'Flanagan Files Suit in D. Mass. VALLEY FINE FOODS: Joseph Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. VILLAGE CARE: Rahman Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA, NYLL WELLBOTS INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Mercedez Says WEXFORD HEALTH: Bid to Correct Docket in Spurlock Suit Tossed WWL VEHICLE SERVICES: Brien Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ********* 1ST PHORM: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Wilson Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ HOWARD WILSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. 1ST PHORM INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-07574 (N.D. Ill., July 7, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.1stphorm.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people under the Americans with Disabilities Act. On June 3, 2025, Plaintiff visited Defendant’s website, www.1stphorm.com, to purchase the Phorm Energy 12-Pack, from the Defendant’s online store. Despite his efforts, however, the Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted individual due to the website’s lack of a variety of features and accommodations, which effectively barred Plaintiff from having an unimpeded shopping experience, asserts the suit. The Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse, the lawsuit adds. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Mr. Wilson is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. The Defendant's Website offers products and services for online sale and general delivery to the public.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Swarm Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID ALLEN SWARM v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-05332-RMG (D.S.C., June 12, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiffs' training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiffs contend that he regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. As a result of his exposure to the Defendants' AFFF and TOG products, the Plaintiffs were diagnosed with kidney cancer and thyroid disease, which has caused him to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Plaintiffs include MELODY ALLEN; JAMEL BARNWELL; CEDRIC BONIER; MICHAEL R. BOWEN; MARTHA BOWEN; WILLIE J.BROOKS; ANGELA BROOKS; HENRY J. CERIL SR.; HELEN CERIL; JAMES FLANAGAN; CARMELA FLANAGAN; STEVEN HAMBLET; MICHELLE HERMAN; CURTIS HUDSON, RONALD HYATT; COLLEEN HYATT; CHAVALIER JENKINS; JOHN LEWIS JR.; JANET LEWIS; STANLEY MONTNEY; RICHARD NICHOLS; JEANNINE NICHOLS; JOHN POWNELL; ANGEL POWNELL; CHARLES G. ROLLINS JR.; SHEILA ROLLINS; RACHEL SCHAFFTER; WILLIAM SIMPSON; ERIC SWIGGUM; TERRY VAUGHN; FREDERICK WOODLEY; SANDRA WOODLEY; RAYMOND YOUNG; RHONDA YOUNG; and NICHOLAS ZUNIGA. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James Ryan Ziminskas, Esq. Themis Law, PLLC 7718 Wood Hollow Drive, Suite 105 Austin, TX 78731 Telephone: (737) 208-1636 E-mail: rziminskas@themislawpllc.com 3M COMPANY: Lamon Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama ---------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jeffrey Wade Lamon, et al., and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. 01-CV-2025-902050.00 was removed from the Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit Jefferson County, Alabama, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on June 26, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01019-ACA. The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other Defendants liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, and/or selling aqueous film forming foams ("AFFF") and/or firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") that Plaintiffs allege were used in firefighting activities, thereby causing injury to Plaintiffs. In relevant part, Plaintiffs allege that 3M and certain other Defendants sold AFFF containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), including perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS"). Moreover, each Plaintiff expressly alleges that he "regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter" and allegedly suffered injury "as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: M. Christian King, Esq. Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq. W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq. Jacob M. Salow, Esq. LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C. The Clark Building 400 North 20th Street Birmingham, AL 35203-3200 Phone: (205) 581-0700 Email: cking@lightfootlaw.com hprater@lightfootlaw.com lradney@lightfootlaw.com jsalow@lightfootlaw.com 3M COMPANY: Weber Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama ---------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Christopher Weber, et al., and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. 01-CV-2025-902076.00 was removed from the Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit Jefferson County, Alabama, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on June 26, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01021-JHE. The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other Defendants liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, and/or selling aqueous film forming foams ("AFFF") and/or firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") that Plaintiffs allege were used in firefighting activities, thereby causing injury to Plaintiffs. In relevant part, Plaintiffs allege that 3M and certain other Defendants sold AFFF containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), including perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS"). Moreover, each Plaintiff expressly alleges that he "regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter" and allegedly suffered injury "as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: M. Christian King, Esq. Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq. W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq. Jacob M. Salow, Esq. LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C. The Clark Building 400 North 20th Street Birmingham, AL 35203-3200 Phone: (205) 581-0700 Email: cking@lightfootlaw.com hprater@lightfootlaw.com lradney@lightfootlaw.com jsalow@lightfootlaw.com 3M COMPANY: Willis Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama ----------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Charles Edward Willis, et al., and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. 01-CV-2025-902324.00 was removed from the Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit Jefferson County, Alabama, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on June 26, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01024-RDP. The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other Defendants liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, and/or selling aqueous film forming foams ("AFFF") and/or firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") that Plaintiffs allege were used in firefighting activities, thereby causing injury to Plaintiffs. In relevant part, Plaintiffs allege that 3M and certain other Defendants sold AFFF containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), including perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS"). Moreover, each Plaintiff expressly alleges that he "regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter" and allegedly suffered injury "as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: M. Christian King, Esq. Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq. W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq. Jacob M. Salow, Esq. LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C. The Clark Building 400 North 20th Street Birmingham, AL 35203-3200 Phone: (205) 581-0700 Email: cking@lightfootlaw.com hprater@lightfootlaw.com lradney@lightfootlaw.com jsalow@lightfootlaw.com 5100 LLC: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Pardo Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO v. 5100 LLC and MIAMI WHOLESALE MARKET INC. A/K/A MIAMI CASH & CARRY PLAZA, Case No. 1:25-cv-23027-RAR (S.D. Fla., July 7, 2025) is a class action seeking injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant owns, operates and/or oversees the commercial property; to include its general parking lot, parking spots, and entrance access and path of travel specific to the tenant business therein and all other common areas open to the public located within the commercial property. The Plaintiff contends that the he found the commercial property and commercial mini mart business located within the commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the commercial property and commercial mini mart business located within the commercial property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises, says the suit. The Defendant owns, operates and/or oversees the commercial property; to include its general parking lot, parking spots, and entrance access and path of travel specific to the tenant business therein and all other common areas open to the public located within the commercial property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 E-mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com jr@ajperezlawgroup.com ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Class Cert Bid Hearing Continued to August 7 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONDALISA LEGRAND, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Case No. 3:22-cv-05815-TSH (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Thomas Hixson entered an order continuing hearing on Plaintiff's motion for class certification and the Defendant's motion to exclude, currently set for July 17, 2025, to Aug. 7, 2025. Abbott is an American multinational medical devices and health care company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iJIYk7 at no extra charge.[CC] ADOBE INC: Securities Suit over Failed Merger Deal Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------ Adobe Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-q report for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 26, 2024, that the company filed a motion to dismiss a securities class action captioned "Pembroke Pines Firefighters & Police Officers Pension Fund et al. v. Adobe, Inc. et al.," which was granted in full on March 27, 2025. On October 20, 2023, said action (Case No. 1:23-cv-09260) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York naming Adobe and certain of its current and former officers as defendants. It was renamed as "In Re Adobe Inc. Securities Litigation." The Securities Action purports to be brought on behalf of purchasers of the company's stock between July 23, 2021 and September 22, 2022. The complaint, which was amended on February 23, 2024, alleges that certain public statements made by Adobe during the Class Period related to competition from its unsuccessful merger with Figma, Inc. and the adequacy of Adobe's existing offerings to counter harms Adobe may have faced due to Figma's growing market position were materially false and misleading. Action sought unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and extraordinary equitable and/or injunctive relief. Adobe Inc. is a software company based out of San Jose, California. AEROVIRONMENT INC: Labor Suit Continues After Failed Mediation -------------------------------------------------------------- Aerovironment, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 28, 2023, that on August 9, 2021, a former employee filed a class action complaint against AeroVironment in California Superior court in Los Angeles, California alleging various claims pursuant to the California Labor Code related to wages, meal breaks, overtime, and other recordkeeping matters. The complaint seeks a jury trial and payment of various alleged unpaid wages, penalties, interest, and attorneys' fees in unspecified amounts. The parties participated in a mediation session on May 8, 2025, but did not reach a resolution during the session. Aerovironment, Inc. is into multi-domain robotic systems and related services based in Virginia. AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Brown Extended to Nov. 24 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER BROWN, et al., v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware, Case No. 2:22-cv-00965-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John H. Chun entered an order regarding class certification briefing schedule 1. The deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their class certification motion is extended to Nov. 24, 2025. 2. The deadline for Amazon to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion, and file any Daubert motions, is March 9, 2026. 3. The deadline for the Plaintiffs' reply brief, and any Daubert motions and oppositions, is May 9, 2026. 4. The deadline for Amazon's Daubert reply briefs and oppositions is July 17, 2026. 5. The deadline for the Plaintiffs' Daubert reply briefs is Sept. 15, 2026. Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. The Defendant is A copy of the Court's order dated July 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=k5OQWU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq. Anne F. Johnson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com barbaram@hbsslaw.com annej@hbsslaw.com - and - Zina G. Bash, Esq. Jessica Beringer, Esq. Shane Kelly, Esq. Alex Dravillas, Esq. Roseann Romano, Esq. KELLER POSTMAN LLC 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500 Austin, TX, 78701 Telephone: (512) 690-0990 E-mail: zina.bash@kellerpostman.com Jessica.Beringer@kellerpostman.com shane.kelly@kellerpostman.com ajd@kellerpostman.com roseann.romano@kellerpostman.com - and - Alicia Cobb, Esq. Steig D. Olson, Esq. David D. LeRay, Esq. Nic V. Siebert, Esq. Maxwell P. Deabler-Meadows, Esq. Adam B. Wolfson, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 1109 First Avenue, Suite 210 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 905-7000 E-mail: aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com steigolson@quinnemanuel.com davidleray@quinnemanuel.com nicolassiebert@quinnemanuel.com maxmeadows@quinnemanuel.com adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com The Defendant is represented by: John A. Goldmark, Esq. MaryAnn Almeida, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 Facsimile: (206) 757-7700 E-mail: SteveRummage@dwt.com JohnGoldmark@dwt.com MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com - and - Karen L. Dunn, Esq. William A. Isaacson, Esq. Amy J. Mauser, Esq. Meredith Dearborn, Esq. Kyle Smith, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 2001 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1047 Telephone: (202) 223-7300 Facsimile: (202) 223-7420 E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com wisaacson@paulweiss.com amauser@paulweiss.com ksmith@paulweiss.com mgoodman@paulweiss.com mdearborn@paulweiss.com ANDERSON BROTHERS: Monroe Overdraft Fees' Suit Removed to D.S.C. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled CLARA MONROE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANDERSON BROTHERS BANK, Defendant, Case No. 2025-CP-33-00333, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Marion County, South Carolina, to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina on June 20, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-06007-JD to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges the failure of Anderson Brothers to adequately disclose its overdraft fee practices to its customers as required by the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E. Anderson Brothers Bank is a full service community bank offering loan services and deposit products.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Suzanne Taylor Graham Grigg, Esq. MAYNARD NEXSEN P.C. 1230 Main Street, Suite 700 Columbia, SC 29201 Telephone: (803) 771-8900 Facsimile: (803) 253-8277 E-mail: sgrigg@maynardnexsen.com - and - John Bolus, Esq. Stone Hendrickson, Esq. MAYNARD NEXSEN P.C. 1901 Sixth Ave. N, Suite 1700 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 254-1000 Facsimile: (205) 254-1999 E-mail: jbolus@maynardnexsen.com shendrickson@maynardnexsen.com ARCH RESOURCES: Fails to Provide WARN Act Notice, McDonald Says --------------------------------------------------------------- JOSHUA MCDONALD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ARCH RESOURCES, INC. D/B/A Leer South Mine, Case No. 2:25-cv-00012-TSK (N.D.W.Va., July 3, 2025) alleges that Arch failed to provide a 60-day "WARN" Act notice. According to the complaint, Arch employed Mr. McDonald and others at multiple sites of employment in West Virginia until he was temporarily laid off in January 2025. On February 7, Arch terminated Mr. McDonald and approximately 100 other employees. The termination was effective immediately. Arch produces metallurgical products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Greg A. Hewitt, Esq. HEWITT & SALVATORE, PLLC 109 E. Main Street, Suite 200 Beckley, WV 25801 Telephone: (304) 574-0272 Facsimile: (304) 578-5345 E-mail: ghewitt@hewittsalvatore.com - and - Anthony Majestro, Esq. POWELL & MAJESTRO, PLLC 405 Capitol Street, Suite 1200 Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 346-2889 Facsimile: (304) 346-2895 E-mail: amajestro@powellmajestro.com ATRIA MANAGEMENT: Cruz Sues Over Failure to Pay All Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Cruz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. ATRIA MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2025CUOE045802 (Cal. Super. Ct., Ventura Cty., June 17, 2025), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay all wages in violation of the California Labor Codes. The Defendant has failed to pay all overtime wages due to non-exempt employees. As a result, employees are not properly compensated for work performance in excess of 8 hours in a workday and work performed in excess of 40 hours in a workweek at a rate of no less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay. Employees of Defendant regularly work in excess of 8 hours in a day or more than 40 hours per week and do not receive overtime compensation at a rate of one and one half of their regular rate. Plaintiff and Defendant's California employees were forced to work overtime and were not paid for all hours worked including all straight time wages, and overtime wages. These failures to pay all overtime wages constitute violations of Labor Code, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt, hourly employee in California, including in and around the city of Camarillo, County of Ventura. Atria Management Company, LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company doing business in Camarillo, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Otkupman, Esq. Nidah Farishta, Esq. OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, A LAW CORPORATION 5743 Corsa Ave., Suite 123, Westlake Village, CA 91362 Phone: (818) 293-5623 Facsimile: (888) 850-1310 Email: Roman@OLFLA.com Nidah@OLFLA.com BECHTEL CORP: Lail Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------- DAVID LAIL, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BECHTEL CORPORATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-01114 (E.D. Va., July 7, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Although Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members have routinely worked (and continue to work) in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members were not paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all current and former hourly employees who worked for Bechtel anywhere in the United States, at any time during the relevant statutes of limitations. Bechtel is an industrial construction company operating throughout the United States. To provide its services, Bechtel employed (and continues to employ) thousands of hourly, non-exempt employees—including Plaintiff and the individuals that make up the putative collective and class.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harris D. Butler, III, Esq. Craig J. Curwood, Esq. Zev H. Antell, Esq. Paul M. Falabella, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 648-4848 Facsimile: (804) 237-0413 E-mail: harris@butlercurwood.com craig@butlercurwood.com zev@butlercurwood.com paul@butlercurwood.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com BRADFORD HEALTH: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Michael Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- AMANDA MICHAEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BRADFORD HEALTH SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00990-SGC (N.D. Ala., June 20, 2025) is a class action lawsuit against the Defendant due to its failure to properly secure and safeguard patients' sensitive and confidential personally identifiable information. On or around December 8, 2023, the Defendant experienced unusual activity within its network. Based on their subsequent investigation, which concluded on May 15, 2025, they determined that an unauthorized party accessed their systems and acquired certain records. Bradford waited nearly 18 months before informing the public on or about May 15, 2025. The Defendant knew, or should have known, of the increasing number of well- publicized data breaches that have occurred in the United States. And yet, the Defendant failed to adequately secure and upgrade its systems, allowing another breach to occur, this time compromising its patients' PII, including Plaintiff. The Defendant has caused harm to Plaintiff and Class Members by collecting, using, and maintaining their Personal Information for its own economic benefit but utterly failing to protect that information. As shown through the breach, Defendant did not maintain adequate security systems, did not properly archive Personal Information, allowed access by third parties, and did not implement sufficient security measures, the suit alleges. Bradford Health Services is an addictive disorder treatment facility. Although formed as a domestic corporation in Alabama, it operates facilities throughout the United States including these other states: Florida, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee and Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian T. Stellwag, Esq. Andre R. Belanger, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 E-mail: brian.stellwag@poulinwilley.com andre.belanger@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com BROOKLINEN INC: Dalton Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users ----------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BROOKLINEN, INC, Case No. 0:25-cv-02470-JMB-SGE (D. Minn., June 16, 2025) arises because the Defendant's Website, www.brooklinen.com, is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota; damages, and a damage multiplier. The Defendant offers bed and bath products for sale including, but not limited to, bedding, sheets, pillows, comforters, towels, bath accessories, laundry supplies, and decor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com CARDIOLOGY ASSOCIATES: Faces Doe Suit Over Unprotected Private Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN DOE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARDIOLOGY ASSOCIATES OF FREDERICKSBURG, LTD., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00499 (E.D. Va., July 1, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data about its current and former patients. On or about February 17, 2025, the Defendant realized that it was hacked in the data breach. However, Defendant has declined to disclose when the data breach actually began. And yet, Defendant waited over until June 20, 2025, before it began notifying the class--a full 123 days after the data breach was discovered. Moreover, cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's personal identifiable information/protected health information. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and for declaratory judgment. Based in Fredericksburg, VA, Cardiology Associates of Fredericksburg, Ltd. is a stock corporation that provides healthcare services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven T. Webster, Esq. WEBSTER BOOK LLP 2300 Wilson Blvd., Suite 728 Arlington, VA 22201 Telephone: (888) 987-9991 E-mail: swebster@websterbook.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com CHRISTOPHER LAROSE: Parties Must Submit Status Reports by August 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as A.M. v. CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, warden of Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-01412 (S.D. Cal., Filed June 4, 2025), the Hon. Judge Jinsook Ohta entered an order declining to convert the limited TRO into a preliminary injunction at this time. However, the Court has not ruled on the merits of class certification, Petitioner's underlying habeas petition, nor the merits of the requests for broader injunctive and declaratory relief. The Court directs the parties to submit status reports by August 1, 2025, regarding: the status of Petitioner's work authorization (EAD). On July 2, 2025, the Court held a motion hearing on Petitioners request to convert the limited TRO previously issued by the Court on June 4, 2025, and extended on June 18, 2025, into a preliminary injunction. The nature of suit states Immigration -- Habeas Corpus -- Alien Detainee. Otay Mesa Detention Center is a minimum/medium security federal prison for women, managed by CoreCivic under contract with the United States Marshals Service and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.[CC] COINBASE INC: Class Action Settlement in Suski Gets Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID SUSKI, JAIMEE MARTIN, JONAS CALSBEEK, AND THOMAS MAHER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. COINBASE, INC. and MARDEN-KANE, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-04539-SK (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sallie Kim entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement: 1. The Court grants preliminary approval of the Settlement based upon the terms set forth in the Settlement, which is attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of David J. Harris, Jr. The Settlement appears to be fair, adequate, and reasonable for Settlement Class Members. 2. In accordance with the Settlement, the Court preliminarily certifies the following class for settlement purposes only: "All U.S. persons who opted into the June 2021 Dogecoin sweepstakes sponsored by Coinbase, Inc., and who bought, sold, or traded Dogecoins on the Coinbase trading platform for an aggregate $100 (USD) or more between June 3, 2021 and June 10, 2021, inclusive." 3. Within seven (7) calendar days of the Court's preliminary approval of the Settlement, Coinbase will provide the Administrator with the following information for each Class Member: (a) name; (b) last known email address; (c) last known mailing address; and (d) the approximate U.S. dollar amount that the Class Member incurred in Transaction Fees and Spreads for trading, purchasing, or selling their first $100 in Dogecoins on the Coinbase trading platform between June 3, 2021 and June 10, 2021 (inclusive); and (5) whether the account that incurred such Transaction Fees and Spreads remains open and enabled with respect to U.S. dollar transmissions. 4. The Final Approval Hearing shall be held before this Court on Nov. 10, 2025 at 9:30 a.m. via Zoom, Coinbase provides data and transaction processing services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VWQE6X at no extra charge.[CC] COMPUMEDICS USA: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Lockwood Says ------------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN LOCKWOOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COMPUMEDICS USA, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00486 (W.D.N.C., July 7, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff and other similarly situated current and former patients of the Defendant's clients sensitive information, including personally identifiable information and protected health information. According to the complaint, the Defendant received the Plaintiff and Class Members' Private Information in its provision of medical services to clients, who provided medical services to Plaintiff and Class Members. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. On Feb. 14, 2025, through March 23, 2025, the Defendant's network had been accessed by an unauthorized third party (Data Breach). The Defendant is a medical device company involved in the development, manufacture and commercialization of diagnostics technology for the sleep, brain and ultrasonic blood-flow monitoring applications.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Wilkerson, Esq. Wilkerson Justus PLLC Asheville, NC 28804 Telephone: (828) 316-6902 E-mail: dwilkerson@wilkersonjustus.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (786) 879-8200 Facsimile: (786) 879-7520 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com CONTRA COSTA ELECTRIC: Moncton Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Contra Costa Electric, Inc. The case is styled as Thomas S. Moncton, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Contra Costa Electric, Inc., Case No. 25CU0303 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 26, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Contra Costa Electric -- https://ccelectric.com/ -- offers total electrical construction, engineering, and facilities and energy services throughout California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com COPINE 891 INC: Anderson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Derrick Anderson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Copine 891, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-03359 (E.D.N.Y., June 16, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services Copine 891 provides to their non-disabled customers through https://copinettenyc.com (hereinafter "Copinettenyc.com" or "the website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's website, Copinettenyc.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Copine 891's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Copine 891 provides to the public a website known as Copinettenyc.com which provides consumers with access to American cuisine with French influence, including the ability to learn about the restaurant's services which Defendant offers in connection with their physical location.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: 718.705.8706 Fax: 718.705.8705 Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com COVE SMART LLC: Rojas Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cove Smart LLC. The case is styled as Juan David Rojas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cove Smart LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-61287-RLR (S.D. Fla., June 26, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Cove Security -- https://www.covesmart.com/ -- offers affordable self-installed DIY home security systems tailored to individual needs without contracts or hidden fees.[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 COZY EARTH HOLDINGS: Persson Files Suit in C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cozy Earth Holdings, Inc. The case is styled as Andrea Persson, Johnathan Acevedo, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cozy Earth Holdings, Inc., Case No. 8:25-cv-01294-JVS-JDE (C.D. Cal., June 16, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Cozy Earth -- https://cozyearth.com/ -- offers luxury bedding and loungewear known for its incredible softness and temperature regulation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Martin E. Brenner, III, Esq. Jonas B. Jacobson, Esq. DOVEL AND LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Phone: (310) 656-7066 Fax: (310) 656-7069 Email: martin@dovel.com CRANE COMPANY: McCarville Alleges Breach of ERISA Fiduciary Duties ------------------------------------------------------------------ Daniel McCarville, individually and as a representative of a class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the Crane Savings and Investment Plan, Plaintiff v. Crane Company and Crane Savings Plan Committee, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00987 (D. Conn., June 20, 2025) is an Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and as representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries of the Crane Savings and Investment Plan against the Defendants for (1) failure to comply with the Plan document; (2) breach of ERISA fiduciary duties; and (2) violation of ERISA's prohibited transaction rules. According to the complaint, instead of loyally and prudently acting in the best interest of Plan participants and avoiding prohibited transactions, the Defendants chose to use Plan assets exclusively to benefit Crane, to the detriment of the Plan and its participants, by using over $11 million of Plan assets to offset Crane's contractual obligations to make matching contributions to the Plan, while using $0 to offset Plan expenses borne by participants and requiring Plan participants to pay over $5 million in Plan expenses that should never have come out of their accounts. To remedy these fiduciary breaches and ERISA violations, the Plaintiff, individually and as representative of a class of participants and beneficiaries of the Plan, brings this action on behalf of the Plan under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1132(a)(2) and (3) to enforce Defendants' personal liability under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1109(a) to make good to the Plan all losses resulting from each breach of fiduciary duty and to restore to the Plans any profits made through Defendants' use of the Plan's assets. In addition, the Plaintiff seeks such other equitable or remedial relief for the Plan as the Court may deem appropriate. Crane Company is a Delaware-incorporated company with its principal place of business in Stamford, Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Healy, Esq. COWDERY, MURPHY & HEALY, LLC 280 Trumbull Street, 22nd Floor Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 278-5555 Facsimile: (860) 249-0012 E-mail: jhealy@cmandh.com - and - Tulio D. Chirinos, Esq. CHIRINOS LAW FIRM PLLC 370 Camino Gardens Blvd., Ste 106 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 299-6334 E-mail: tchirinos@chirinoslawfirm.com CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Black Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Acceptance Corporation. The case is styled as Sherrie Black, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. Credit Acceptance Corporation, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0008710 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., June 26, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Credit Acceptance Corporation -- https://www.creditacceptance.com/ -- is an auto finance company providing automobile loans and other related financial products.[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 CREDIT CONTROL: Faces Hoffman Class Action Suit in S.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Control, LLC. The case is captioned as Hoffman v. Credit Control, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-04923-VSB-RWL (S.D.N.Y., Filed June 11, 2025). The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Nelson Stephen Roman. The Defendant is doing business as Credit Control & Collections, LLC.[BN] Plaintiff Jacob Hoffman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com DARVEYS USA: Battle Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------- Andre Battle, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Darveys USA, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-06619 (N.D. Ill., June 16, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Darveys USA provides to their non-disabled customers through https://darveys.com (hereinafter "Darveys.com" or "the website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because the Defendant's website, Darveys.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Darveys USA's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Darveys USA provides to the public a website known as Darveys.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a wide selection of apparel, footwear, and accessories, including jackets, sweaters, T-shirts, hoodies, pants, shorts, suits, skirts, loafers, sandals, slippers, sneakers, boots, bags, belts, wallets, hats, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: 718.705.8706 Fax: 718.705.8705 Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.co DATANYZE LLC: Quinones Files Suit in D. Colorado ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Datanyze, LLC. The case is styled as Celina Quinones, Barrie Dempsey, individually and as the representatives of a class of similarly-situated persons v. Datanyze, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01977-SBP (D. Colo., June 26, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Fraud. Datanyze -- https://www.datanyze.com/ -- is a Technology, Information and Internet, Software General, and Sales Acceleration company located in Durham, North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Wallace C. Solberg, Esq. Brian J. Wanca, Esq. ANDERSON & WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Phone: (847) 368-1500 Fax: (847) 368-1501 Email: buslit@andersonwanca.com bwanca@andersonwanca.com DONALD TRUMP: Emergency Bid to Lift Court's Stay Tossed ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., v. DONALD TRUMP, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00127-JCC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John Coughenour entered an order denying the emergency motion to lift the Court's stay. The Individual Plaintiffs may renew their motion once the Ninth Circuit issues its rulings. Accordingly, it would be premature for the Court to lift its stay when the Ninth Circuit has already moved expeditiously to determine the scope of the preliminary injunction. To that end, maintaining the stay would also promote judicial efficiency, judicial comity, and the overall effort to simplify the issues. On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that this and other district courts' nationwide preliminary injunctions "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts." Donald Trump is an American politician, media personality, and businessman. A copy of the Court's order dated July 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7U8LlR at no extra charge.[CC] DYCOM INDUSTRIES: Dixon Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Demetrius Dixon and Rajendra Rajcooar, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. DYCOM INDUSTRIES, INC., a Florida corporation and UTILIQUEST, LLC, a Georgia Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV14384 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 26, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-05852. The Complaint purports to allege eight claims for relief: "Failure to Pay Lawful Wages;" "Failure to Provide Lawful Meal Periods or Compensation in Lieu Thereof;" "Failure to Provide Lawful Rest Periods or Compensation in Lieu Thereof;" "Failure to Reimburse Employee Expenses;" "Failure to Timely Pay All Wages During Employment;" "Failure to Timely Pay Wages at Termination of Employment;" "Knowing and Intentional Failure to Comply With Itemized Employee Wage Statement Provisions;" and "Violations of the Unfair Competition Law."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Christopher A. Crosman, Esq. Michael A. Sigall, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 33500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Phone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 Email: ccrosman@seyfarth.com msigall@seyfarth.com EPISOURCE LLC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Mojaddedi Says ------------------------------------------------------------- LESLEY MOJADDEDI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EPISOURCE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-05649 (C.D. Cal., June 20, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information (collectively "Private Information") that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed on June 10, 2025. The Plaintiff's claims arise 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. The Defendant failed to take precautions designed to keep individuals' Private Information secure, says the Plaintiff. As a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information was exposed to criminals. The Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries including: financial losses caused by misuse of their private information; the loss or diminished value of their private information as a result of the data breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information, says the suit. Episource LLC is a provider of risk adjustment services for the healthcare industry. The Company offers services such as medical chart retrieval, coding, analytics, and related healthcare services, supporting health plans and healthcare organizations in managing risk adjustment programs and improving care delivery.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 468 N. Camden Dr., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 E-mail: daniel@slfla.com - and - Mark S. Reich, Esq. Melissa G. Meyer, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: mreich@zlk.com mmeyer@zlk.com FLOWERS FOODS: Dushaj Sues Over Bread Product's False Labeling -------------------------------------------------------------- JAQUELINE DUSHAJ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLOWERS FOODS, INC. and FLOWERS BAKERIES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 7:25-cv-05465-JGLC (S.D.N.Y., July 1, 2025) arises from Defendants' false product labeling of their Nature’s Own brand bread products. The Defendants claim that the said bread products do not contain any artificial preservatives, colors, or flavors. However, the Plaintiff contends that Defendants' representation is false and/or misleading because these products contain ascorbic acid--a well-known preservative commonly used in food products. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now asserts claims on behalf of herself and similarly situated purchasers for violation of New York General Business Law's Sections 349 and 350, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment. Headquartered Thomasville, GA, Flowers Foods, Inc. produces and markets packaged bakery foods in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq. KAMBERLAW, LLC 305 Broadway, Suite 713 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (646) 964-9604 Facsimile: (212) 202-6364 E-mail: fklorczyk@kamberlaw.com GEICO INDEMNITY: 9th Cir. Vacates for Jurisdictional Inquiry ------------------------------------------------------------ The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment in the case captioned as BRANDON L. MOE v. GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY; Case No. 22-35161 (9th Cir.). The case is vacated and remanded for the district court to conduct the necessary evidentiary inquiry and determine whether GEICO can sufficiently establish that more than $5 million is in dispute. On March 15, 2015, Plaintiff Brandon Moe was injured when a GEICO-insured driver rear-ended the car that he was riding in while stopped at a red light. Two days later, Moe told GEICO that he was experiencing back pain and planned to seek medical care. Moe was treated at Health in Motion Physical Therapy (HIMPT), and HIMPT submitted his medical bills to GEICO for payment. Moe's employer also sent a wage verification form to GEICO stating that Moe had to use some of his sick leave for missed workdays related to his injury. HIMPT turned Moe's account over to collections for nonpayment, and a dispute arose between Moe and GEICO regarding whether GEICO was obligated to advance pay his medical bills and lost wages. Several months later, GEICO issued a check for Moe's medical bills and lost wages. Moe asserts that GEICO's payment was insufficient because it did not cover the roughly $855 in collections fees and interest incurred on his medical bills. Moe sued GEICO in Montana state court on behalf of himself and an asserted class of similarly situated individuals, alleging, among other things, common law bad faith and violations of the UTPA. Moe alleged that GEICO "programmatically" misrepresents its policy provisions and the law to claimants and illegally fails to promptly pay medical bills and lost wages, among other failures. Moe sought declaratory and injunctive relief, general and special damages, and punitive damages. GEICO removed Moe's lawsuit to federal district court. GEICO asserted subject-matter jurisdiction under CAFA, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2), because: (1) there are potentially more than 100 members in the putative class proposed by Plaintiff Brandon L. Moe; (2) Plaintiff is a citizen of a different state than GEICO; and (3) based upon the allegations in the Complaint and the facts set forth in the attached Declaration of David Antonacci, the claims paid and the damage exposure, not liability, to the potential members of the putative class proposed by Plaintiff, exceeds the sum or value of $5 million in the aggregate, exclusive of interest and costs. Mr. Antonacci, "a Technical Supervisor at GEICO," stated that he "generated data and can state that the claims paid by GEICO Indemnity Co., and the damage exposure, not liability, to the potential members of the putative class proposed by Plaintiff exceeds the sum or value of $5 million in the aggregate." Moe did not challenge GEICO's removal, nor did the district court question its subject-matter jurisdiction over the case. Following removal, GEICO moved to dismiss the action, which the district court granted in part and denied in part. GEICO also moved for summary judgment. The district court stayed briefing on class certification and class-related discovery pending resolution of the summary judgment motion. After a magistrate judge recommended that GEICO's motion be granted, Moe requested that the district court certify five questions to the Montana Supreme Court. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations in full, granted summary judgment for GEICO, and denied Moe's motion for certification. Moe timely appealed. Although neither Moe nor the district court questioned whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists under CAFA, the Court of Appeals raised this issue sua sponte on appeal. Circuit Judge Danielle J. Forrest, writing for the appellate court panel, stated that "we have an independent obligation to ensure subject matter jurisdiction exists" and questioned whether CAFA's amount-in-controversy requirement is met here. The Appeals Court concluded that it could sua sponte question a defendant's allegation of CAFA jurisdiction, explaining that "there is no basis for limiting the ability to question a defendant's allegation of jurisdiction only to the district court where the court of appeals has an independent duty to satisfy itself not only of its own jurisdiction, but also of that of the lower courts in a cause under review." The Appeals Court further concluded that the current record in this case does not sufficiently demonstrate that CAFA's amount-in-controversy requirement is met . The amount in controversy "encompasses all relief a court may grant if the plaintiff is victorious." The court noted that in removing a case to federal court, a defendant need only make a "plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold." However, when the asserted amount in controversy is challenged or questioned, more is required. The Supreme Court has made clear that whether the amount is "contested by the plaintiff or questioned by the court," "evidence establishing the amount is required by Section 1446(c)(2)(B)." The Appeals Court questioned whether CAFA's amount in controversy is met because it is not evident from the face of the complaint and the nature of the class claims that this controversy involves more than $5 million, nor does GEICO's notice of removal and supporting declaration satisfactorily establish that more than $5 million is in dispute. Moe seeks to certify a class that includes tort victims who were injured by tortfeasors with coverage under a GEICO policy issued in Montana and who are entitled to advance payments for expenses incurred because of the covered accident. The Appeals Court observed that Moe's claimed damages in his individual claim are under $1,000, and there is little indication what the average amount of damages the purported class members may have suffered. Further, it is unclear how large the purported class may be given that Montana's statute of limitations for a common law bad-faith claim is three years, and the statute of limitations for a UTPA claim is even shorter -- two years from the date of violation for an insured, and one year within the date of settlement or entry of judgment on the underlying claim for a third-party claimant. The Appeals Court noted that "we are faced with a narrowly defined class of accident victims injured by someone insured under a GEICO policy issued in Montana where the applicable statutes of limitation are short and the delay-based individual damages of each class member may be relatively minimal." However, the court clarified that "this discussion is not to suggest that GEICO cannot meet its burden in establishing that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. Rather, we are simply explaining that the required amount in controversy is not clearly evident from the nature of the case or the parties' assertions." (A) Court's Balancing Test The Appeals Court recognized that "courts should be especially reluctant to sua sponte challenge a defendant's allegations because no antiremoval presumption attends cases invoking CAFA." However, the court emphasized that CAFA does impose specific requirements that must be satisfied before federal jurisdiction is conferred. Therefore, the court concluded it must balance the need for restraint with its obligation to ensure that subject-matter jurisdiction exists. (B) Final Ruling and Remand The Appeals Court concluded that the existing record does not satisfactorily demonstrate federal jurisdiction. Where the court has sua sponte questioned the amount-in-controversy requirement in non-CAFA cases, it has remanded for the district court to conduct the necessary evidentiary inquiry. The court instructed the district court to conduct the necessary proceedings on remand to determine whether GEICO can show by a preponderance of the evidence that the $5 million amount-in-controversy requirement is satisfied. The court declined to consider the merits of Moe's appeal where it questioned both the district court's and its jurisdiction over this case, stating "we cannot consider the merits of the appeal before assuring ourselves that the district court had jurisdiction." The panel also included Judges Milan D. Smith, Jr., and Jennifer Sung complete. A copy of the Appeals Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7fGKau Daniel P. Buckley (argued), Buckley Law Office PC, Bozeman, Montana; and Mark J. Luebeck, Angel Coil & Bartlett, Bozeman, Montana, represent the Plaintiff. Andrew M. Jacobs (argued), Sheila Carmody, Courtney L. Henson, and Dylan Burstein, Snell & Wilmer LLP, Phoenix, Arizona; Kelly H. Dove, Snell & Wilmer LLP, Las Vegas, Nevada; and Ian McIntosh and William McIntosh Morris, Crowley Fleck PLLP, Bozeman, Montana, represent GEICO. GERBER PAYROLL: Mayer Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kandice Mayer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GERBER PAYROLL SERVICES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; THE BOYD GROUP (U.S.) INC, a Delaware Corporation; TIMOTHY O'DAY, an individual and their marital community; JEFF MURRAY, an individual and their marital community and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 25-2-08751-0 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of Pierce, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on June 26, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-05564. The Complaint sets forth five causes of action: alleged failure to provide meal and rest periods under RCW 49.12 and WAC 296-126-092, alleged willful withholding of wages under RCW 49.52.050,070, alleged failure to pay minimum wage, alleged failure to pay overtime wages, and alleged record keeping violations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie K. Serb, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 92 Lenora Street, #179 Seattle, WA 98121 Phone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 Email: jamie@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com The Defendants are represented by: Breanne Sheetz Martell, Esq. Brian Rho, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. One Union Square 600 University Street, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101.3122 Phone: 206.623.3300 Facsimile: 206.447.6965 Email: bsmartell@littler.com brho@littler.com GILA LLC: Court Affirms Breach But Limits Insurer Cost ------------------------------------------------------ The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court's summary judgment order in the indemnification dispute captioned as GILA, LLC v. KAPSCH TRAFFICCOM USA, INC., Case No. A25A0112. The court ruled that Kapsch cannot recover costs incurred by its insurer but affirmed most other aspects of the trial court's decision. The states of Indiana and Kentucky contracted with Kapsch to install and operate an electronic toll-collection system called RiverLink for toll bridges over the Ohio River. The RiverLink system was designed to use cameras to photograph license plates of cars and then either bill the driver from a prepaid account or send invoices to drivers using information from state motor vehicle departments. Kapsch subcontracted with Gila to develop and operate the "back office system" to deliver invoices to drivers. Problems soon arose with the RiverLink invoicing system. Many drivers were never mailed a first toll notice. Indeed, the first notice that many drivers received was a late notice for failing to respond to the first toll notice that was never sent. Two class actions ensued against Kapsch and Gila over the billing issues, which were later consolidated. Kapsch eventually settled the suit, with Kapsch's insurer paying out to the class members after Kapsch paid a $100,000 deductible. Kapsch's insurer initially paid Kapsch's attorney fees for the class action, but it stopped doing so in May 2023, and Kapsch has paid its own fees since then." Kapsch filed a complaint against Gila alleging three counts: (1) breach of contract for failing to adequately perform obligations under the subcontractor agreement, (2) breach of duty under the subcontractor agreement to defend and indemnify Kapsch from claims arising out of Gila's work, and (3) declaratory judgment that Gila was obligated to indemnify and reimburse Kapsch for costs associated with the class action. Gila denied the allegations and filed counterclaims for withheld payments, accounting, and anticipatory repudiation. The trial court granted Kapsch's motion for summary judgment on the indemnification and declaratory judgment claims, denied Gila's motion for summary judgment on the breach of contract claim, and dismissed Gila's counterclaims. The trial court ruled that factual issues remained regarding the breach of contract claim. Judge Davis addressed Gila's argument that Kapsch's entire lawsuit should be dismissed because of failure to follow mandatory alternative dispute resolution provisions. The subcontractor agreement exempted disputes that "involve claims made by or asserted against third parties" from ADR provisions. The court concluded that Kapsch's claims involved third party class action claims and therefore were exempted from ADR requirements. However, Gila's counterclaims were not based on third party actions and therefore were subject to ADR provisions, which Gila had failed to follow. Regarding the breach of contract claim, Gila argued that Kapsch's claim was barred by the voluntary payment doctrine. Judge Davis rejected this argument because the subcontractor agreement explicitly reserved Kapsch's rights, stating that "no payment made hereunder by Kapsch will be construed to be acceptance or approval of that part of the Scope of Work" and that "no payment by Kapsch will be deemed a waiver by Kapsch of any obligation of Gila under this Subcontract Agreement." Gila also argued that Kapsch failed to provide notice and an opportunity to cure defects. The court determined that the subcontractor agreement did not require notice for the specific type of default alleged -- failure to comply with scope of work obligations. The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment on this claim, concluding that factual issues remained. Judge Davis addressed three separate indemnification provisions in the subcontractor agreement. The court concluded that Gila was required to defend and indemnify Kapsch under all three provisions without requiring separation of responsibility between the parties. However, the court agreed with Gila that Kapsch cannot recover costs incurred by its insurer in defending the class action. Applying New York law and the case Inchaustegui v. 666 5th Avenue Ltd. Partnership, the court determined that contract damages, unlike tort damages, are limited to the economic injury caused by the breach. Since Kapsch did not actually pay the costs that its insurer incurred while defending it, Kapsch cannot recover those amounts. The court ruled that Kapsch is entitled to recover only its own out-of-pocket expenses, such as attorney fees it paid itself or the $100,000 deductible it paid to its insurer. The court reversed the trial court's declaratory relief to the extent that it declared Gila was "obligated to reimburse Kapsch for its costs of defending the Class Action Cases to date." The court explained that such relief improperly awarded damages for past breach rather than declaring rights for future conduct. The court noted that "damages may not be recovered in a declaratory judgment action" and that the purpose of declaratory judgment is "to relieve against uncertainty and insecurity; to declare rights, status, and legal relations, but not to execute remedies or grant coercive relief." The court affirmed the dismissal of Gila's counterclaims based on its failure to comply with ADR provisions. Since Gila's counterclaims were not based on third party actions, they were subject to the mandatory ADR requirements that Gila had failed to follow. The court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment order in part and reversed it in part. Specifically, the court: -- Affirmed that Gila breached its indemnification duty to Kapsch; -- Reversed the ruling that Kapsch could recover costs incurred by its insurer; -- Reversed the declaratory relief ordering Gila to reimburse Kapsch for past defense costs; -- Affirmed the dismissal of Gila's counterclaims; and -- Affirmed the denial of summary judgment on the breach of contract claim. The judgment was rendered by Judge Jeffrey Davis with concurrence from Presiding Judge Rickman and Judge Gobeil. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HdRvZB HARBIN CLINIC: Dean Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as George Dean, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HARBIN CLINIC, LLC, NATIONWIDE RECOVERY SERVICE, INC., Case No. 25CV00863 was removed from the Superior Court of Floyd County, Georgia, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on June 26, 2025, and assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-00176-WMR. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges claims arising from a data breach that occurred when there was unauthorized access to the network of Nationwide Recovery Service, Inc., a vendor of Harbin Clinic. First, Plaintiff alleges a "nationwide class" of "all individuals whose Private Information was compromised in the Data Breach." Indeed, two related putative class-action lawsuits against Harbin Clinic are currently pending before this Court, allegedly arising from the same data breach.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Patrick Hill, Esq. Jonathan C. Krisko, Esq. ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A. 600 South Tryon Street, Suite 2300 Charlotte, NC 28202 Phone: (704) 377-2536 Email: phill@rbh.com jkrisko@rbh.com - and - Preetha Suresh Rini, Esq. ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A. 434 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1600 Raleigh, NC 27601 Phone: (919) 239-2600 Email: prini@rbh.com HARBIN CLINIC: Ellenburg Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ashlea Ellenburg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HARBIN CLINIC, LLC, NATIONWIDE RECOVERY SERVICE, INC., Case No. 25CV00924 was removed from the Superior Court of Floyd County, Georgia, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on June 26, 2025, and assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-00178-WMR. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges claims arising from a data breach that occurred when there was unauthorized access to the network of Nationwide Recovery Service, Inc., a vendor of Harbin Clinic. First, Plaintiff alleges a "nationwide class" of "all individuals whose Private Information was compromised in the Data Breach." Indeed, two related putative class-action lawsuits against Harbin Clinic are currently pending before this Court, allegedly arising from the same data breach.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Patrick Hill, Esq. Jonathan C. Krisko, Esq. ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A. 600 South Tryon Street, Suite 2300 Charlotte, NC 28202 Phone: (704) 377-2536 Email: phill@rbh.com jkrisko@rbh.com - and - Preetha Suresh Rini, Esq. ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A. 434 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1600 Raleigh, NC 27601 Phone: (919) 239-2600 Email: prini@rbh.com HARBIN CLINIC: Hudgins Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Laura Hudgins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HARBIN CLINIC, LLC, NATIONWIDE RECOVERY SERVICE, INC., Case No. 25CV00856 was removed from the Superior Court of Floyd County, Georgia, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on June 26, 2025, and assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-00174-WMR. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges claims arising from a data breach that occurred when there was unauthorized access to the network of Nationwide Recovery Service, Inc., a vendor of Harbin Clinic. First, Plaintiff alleges a "nationwide class" of "all individuals whose Private Information was compromised in the Data Breach." Indeed, two related putative class-action lawsuits against Harbin Clinic are currently pending before this Court, allegedly arising from the same data breach.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Patrick Hill, Esq. Jonathan C. Krisko, Esq. ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A. 600 South Tryon Street, Suite 2300 Charlotte, NC 28202 Phone: (704) 377-2536 Email: phill@rbh.com jkrisko@rbh.com - and - Preetha Suresh Rini, Esq. ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A. 434 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1600 Raleigh, NC 27601 Phone: (919) 239-2600 Email: prini@rbh.com HARBIN CLINIC: Rangel Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Steve Rangel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HARBIN CLINIC, LLC, NATIONWIDE RECOVERY SERVICE, INC., Case No. 25CV00960 was removed from the Superior Court of Floyd County, Georgia, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on June 26, 2025, and assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-00179-WMR. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges claims arising from a data breach that occurred when there was unauthorized access to the network of Nationwide Recovery Service, Inc., a vendor of Harbin Clinic. First, Plaintiff alleges a "nationwide class" of "all individuals whose Private Information was compromised in the Data Breach." Indeed, two related putative class-action lawsuits against Harbin Clinic are currently pending before this Court, allegedly arising from the same data breach.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Patrick Hill, Esq. Jonathan C. Krisko, Esq. ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A. 600 South Tryon Street, Suite 2300 Charlotte, NC 28202 Phone: (704) 377-2536 Email: phill@rbh.com jkrisko@rbh.com - and - Preetha Suresh Rini, Esq. ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A. 434 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1600 Raleigh, NC 27601 Phone: (919) 239-2600 Email: prini@rbh.com HARBIN CLINIC: Shutley Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Christian Shutley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HARBIN CLINIC, LLC, NATIONWIDE RECOVERY SERVICE, INC., Case No. 25CV00858 was removed from the Superior Court of Floyd County, Georgia, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on June 26, 2025, and assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-00175-WMR. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges claims arising from a data breach that occurred when there was unauthorized access to the network of Nationwide Recovery Service, Inc., a vendor of Harbin Clinic. First, Plaintiff alleges a "nationwide class" of "all individuals whose Private Information was compromised in the Data Breach." Indeed, two related putative class-action lawsuits against Harbin Clinic are currently pending before this Court, allegedly arising from the same data breach.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Patrick Hill, Esq. Jonathan C. Krisko, Esq. ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A. 600 South Tryon Street, Suite 2300 Charlotte, NC 28202 Phone: (704) 377-2536 Email: phill@rbh.com jkrisko@rbh.com - and - Preetha Suresh Rini, Esq. ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A. 434 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1600 Raleigh, NC 27601 Phone: (919) 239-2600 Email: prini@rbh.com HARBIN CLINIC: Stout Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Heather Stout, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HARBIN CLINIC, LLC, NATIONWIDE RECOVERY SERVICE, INC., Case No. 25CV00868 was removed from the Superior Court of Floyd County, Georgia, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on June 26, 2025, and assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-00177-WMR. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges claims arising from a data breach that occurred when there was unauthorized access to the network of Nationwide Recovery Service, Inc., a vendor of Harbin Clinic. First, Plaintiff alleges a "nationwide class" of "all individuals whose Private Information was compromised in the Data Breach." Indeed, two related putative class-action lawsuits against Harbin Clinic are currently pending before this Court, allegedly arising from the same data breach.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Patrick Hill, Esq. Jonathan C. Krisko, Esq. ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A. 600 South Tryon Street, Suite 2300 Charlotte, NC 28202 Phone: (704) 377-2536 Email: phill@rbh.com jkrisko@rbh.com - and - Preetha Suresh Rini, Esq. ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A. 434 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1600 Raleigh, NC 27601 Phone: (919) 239-2600 Email: prini@rbh.com HARLEY-DAVIDSON INC: Humpries Class Action Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robert Humphries, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Harley-Davidson Inc., Case No. 7:23-cv-05524-JDA (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin entered an order: -- granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss, and -- mooting the Plaintiff's consent motion for a status conference. The action is dismissed without prejudice. Under the facts and circumstances alleged in this case, the Court sees no effective relief it can provide and concludes that it is appropriate to exercise its discretion to dismiss this action on prudential mootness grounds. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, filed this suit following the Defendant's recall of over 65,000 defective motorcycles. The Plaintiff purchased his new 2022 Harley-Davidson FXLRS motorcycle in June 2022. On Aug. 22, 2023, the Defendant notified the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") that it was conducting a safety recall to correct a defect in which the fastener that secures the rear shock absorber adjuster may fracture, potentially allowing that adjuster to contact the rear tire. The Plaintiff's motorcycle is included in the recall. After the Plaintiff learned of the recall, he spent roughly two hours researching the defect and possible fixes. The Plaintiff filed this action on Oct. 30, 2023, and he filed an Amended Complaint on Jan. 25, 2024. The Amended Complaint asserts one cause of action for unjust enrichment. Harley-Davidson is an American motorcycle manufacturer. A copy of the Court's order dated July 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZGORpY at no extra charge.[CC] HEARTLAND DENTAL: Intercepts Patients' Sensitive Communications --------------------------------------------------------------- MEGAN LISOTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HEARTLAND DENTAL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and RINGCENTRAL, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-07518 (N.D. Ill., July 3, 2025) alleges that Heartland incorporated a RingCentral phone system and RingCentral AI product into call center services that it provides to its dental practice partners which means patients calling a local dental practice affiliated with Heartland had their calls listened to and analyzed by RingCentral and its sophisticated artificial intelligence algorithms. Accordingly, patients calling a local dental office are not informed that an unknown third-party (in this case, the provider of the telephone service, RingCentral) is listening in on the calls and analyzing them using artificial intelligence without the patients' knowledge and consent. As such, Heartland intercepted or procured another person to intercept sensitive communications between Plaintiff and the Class and their healthcare providers in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 2511. The Plaintiff has called her dental office, which is part of the Tru Family Dental chain and which utilizes Heartland's DSO services. Ms. Lisota's phone calls to Tru Family Dental offices were intercepted by RingCentral and the RingCentral AI product without her knowledge or consent. RingCentral listens to and analyzes phones calls in real time using its Artificial Intelligence product. For example, RingCentral's AI product transcribes and summarizes calls, conducts sentiment analysis to determine a caller's emotional tone, and generates keywords and phrases from the call, says the suit. Heartland is a dental support organization (DSO) that provides services related to non-clinical aspects of running a practice, such as billing, insurance, staffing, and marketing. Heartland employs a cloud-based contact center provider called Defendant RingCentral, Inc. RingCentral is an Internet-based telephone provider allowing businesses to place and receive phone calls and messages using RingCentral instead of a traditional telephone provide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaman Salahi, Esq. Nicole Cabañez, Esq. SALAHI PC 505 Montgomery Street, 11th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 236-2352 E-mail: yaman@salahilaw.com nicolec@salahilaw.com HENRIK VIBSKOV: Faces Jones Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- CLAY LEE JONES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. HENRIK VIBSKOV AMERICAS, INC., Case No. e 1:25-cv-05516 (S.D.N.Y., July 3, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.henrikvibskovboutique.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was injured when Plaintiff attempted multiple times, most recently on April 26, 2025, to access Defendant's Website from Plaintiff's home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant’s online goods, content, and services. The Defendant's Website offers products and services for online sale and general delivery to the public. The Website offers features which ought to allow users to browse for items, access navigation bar descriptions, inquire about pricing, and avail consumers of the ability to peruse the numerous items offered for sale.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com HIBASE 36W: Faces Liz Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- PEDRO LIZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hibase 36W, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05160 (S.D.N.Y., June 20, 2025) is a civil rights action against Hibase 36W for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://towanyc.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Plaintiff Liz became interested in the Defendant's website after deciding to dine at a traditional Japanese restaurant in New York City. On May 23, 2025, while searching on Google, he came across the Defendant's restaurant featured in the Michelin Guide. Encouraged by this positive feedback, the Plaintiff visited the Defendant's website with the intent to make a reservation. However, he was unable to complete the reservation due to multiple accessibility barriers. Specifically, the calendar component on the reservation page lacked clear instructions for use, and selected dates were not announced by his screen reader, leaving him uncertain as to whether his selections had been successfully made. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Hibase 36W's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Hibase 36W, Inc. operates the website that offers Japanese cuisine and access restaurant services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com INFOSYS LIMITED: Milito Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as John Milito, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INFOSYS LIMITED, a foreign profit corporation doing business as INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED; and DOES 1¬20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 25-2-16711-9 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of King, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on June 26, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01204-JNW. The Plaintiff asserts one claim against Infosys under the Equal Pay and Opportunities Act ("EPOA") for a purported violation of Wash. Rev. Code. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that "he and more than 40 Class members applied for job openings with Defendant for positions located in Washington where the postings did not disclose the wage scale or salary range being offered." The Plaintiff alleges that "some, if not all, of [Infosys's] job postings" lack pay information.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Paul Cipriani, Esq. Hannah M. Hamley, Esq. EMERY REDDY PLLC 600 Stewart St., Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206.442.9106 Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com paul@emeryreddy.com hannah@emeryreddy.com The Defendants are represented by: Kyle D. Nelson, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4700 Seattle, Washington 98104-4041 Phone: (206) 946-4910 Email: knelson@seyfarth.com INTERIOR DEFINE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hernandez Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. INTERIOR DEFINE, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-03699 (E.D.N.Y., July 3, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.interiordefine.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was injured when Plaintiff attempted multiple times, most recently on April 4, 2025, to access Defendant's Website from Plaintiff's home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant’s online goods, content, and services. The Defendant's Website offers products and services for online sale and general delivery to the public. The Website offers features which ought to allow users to browse for items, access navigation bar descriptions, inquire about pricing, and avail consumers of the ability to peruse the numerous items offered for sale. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com IROBOT CORP: Faces Savant Securities Suit Over Market Value Drop ---------------------------------------------------------------- VINAYAK SAVANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IROBOT CORPORATION, GLEN D. WEINSTEIN, GARY S. COHEN, JULIE ZEILER, and KARIAN WONG, Case No. 1:25-cv-05563 (S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2025) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired iRobot securities between Jan. 29, 2024 and March 11, 2025, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. iRobot designs, builds, and sells robots and home innovation products in the U.S., Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Japan, and internationally. The Company's portfolio of home robots and smart home devices features proprietary technologies for the connected home and advanced concepts in cleaning, mapping and navigation. iRobot is primarily known for its robot vacuum cleaner (RVC) products sold under the "Roomba" brand name. 3. While iRobot's Roomba was the first commercially successful RVC, iRobot's business has steadily declined over the past decade, apart from a brief sales bump during the COVID-19 pandemic. Competitors from China undercut the luxury-priced Roomba, while other consumer electronics firms like Samsung and SharkNinja introduced their own RVCs. By 2016, iRobot's market share had dropped to 64% in 2016, and then to only 46% by 2020. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that iRobot overstated the extent to which the Restructuring Plan would help the Company maintain stability after the termination of the Amazon Acquisition. After the end of the Class Period, in May 2025, iRobot experienced a short squeeze -- i.e., a rapid increase in the price of a stock owing primarily to an excess of short selling of a stock rather than underlying fundamentals -- after it was announced that U.S. tariffs on European Union imports would be delayed until July 2025. However, notwithstanding the increase in the Company’s stock price, market analysts noted that iRobot's underlying fundamentals remained highly concerning. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com JRPAC INC: Faces Jones Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- CLAY LEE JONES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. JRPAC, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-05517 (S.D.N.Y., July 3, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.spicesymphony.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was injured when Plaintiff attempted multiple times, most recently on April 26, 2025, to access Defendant's Website from Plaintiff's home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant’s online goods, content, and services. The Defendant's Website offers products and services for online sale and general delivery to the public. The Website offers features which ought to allow users to browse for items, access navigation bar descriptions, inquire about pricing, and avail consumers of the ability to peruse the numerous items offered for sale.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com KICKS CREW: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Jacobs Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- VALERIA JACOBS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. KICKS CREW, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-03719 (E.D.N.Y., July 4, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.kickscrew.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was injured when Plaintiff attempted multiple times, most recently on June 13, 2025, to access Defendant's Website from Plaintiff's home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. The Defendant's Website offers products and services for online sale and general delivery to the public. The Website offers features which ought to allow users to browse for items, access navigation bar descriptions, inquire about pricing, and avail consumers of the ability to peruse the numerous items offered for sale. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com KRAFT HEINZ FOODS: Daly Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as John Daly, Perry A. Bruno, and Melissa Furman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KRAFT HEINZ FOODS COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 2584-CV-01252 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on June 26, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-07185. The Plaintiffs allege that Kraft Heinz mislabels its Philadelphia Cheesecake Crumble products (the "Products") with the statement "No Artificial Preservatives." The Plaintiffs allege that this statement is false because the Products contain lactic acid, which Plaintiffs characterize as "artificial" and as a "chemical preservative." Based on that theory of mislabeling, Plaintiffs assert claims against Kraft Heinz for violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, common-law fraud, unjust enrichment, violations of the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act, violations of the California False Advertising Law, and violations of the California Unfair Competition Law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Dean N. Panos, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 353 N. Clark Street Chicago, IL 60654-3456 Phone: (312) 923-2765 Facsimile: (312) 527-0484 Email: dpanos@jenner.com - and - Alexander M. Smith, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 515 South Flower Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 239-2262 Facsimile: (213) 239-5199 Email: asmith@jenner.com KRISPY KREME: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Rodriguez Says ----------------------------------------------------------- OMAR RODRIGUEZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KRISPY KREME DOUGHNUTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00435 (W.D.N.C., June 20, 2025) seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it caused and will continue to cause Representative Plaintiff and thousands of other similarly situated persons in the massive and preventable cyberattack purportedly discovered by Defendant on November 29, 2024, by which cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected network and accessed the private information which was being kept under-protected. The suit alleges the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Representative Plaintiff's and/or Class Members' personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's information network, including, without limitation, names, dates of birth, financial account information, financial account access information and Social Security numbers. While Defendant claims to have discovered the breach as early as November 29, 2024, Defendant did not begin informing victims of the Data Breach until June 16, 2025 and failed to inform victims when or for how long the Data Breach occurred. As a result, Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party, says the suit. Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. is a global sweet treat brand known for its Original Glazed doughnut.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel R. Rhine, Esq. Ruth Sheehan, Esq. RHINE LAW FIRM, P.C. 1612 Military Cutoff Road, Suite 300 Wilmington, NC 28403 Telephone: (910) 772-9960 E-mail: jrr@rhinelawfirm.com ras@rhinelawfirm.com - and - Scott Edward Cole, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 E-mail: sec@colevannote.com KROGER LIMITED: Knox Suit Removed to S.D. Ohio ---------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Vickie Knox, and all others similarly situated v. KROGER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, II, Case No. A 2502645 was removed from the Common Pleas Court of Hamilton County, Ohio, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on June 26, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00435-JPH. The Complaint is a civil action alleging violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act, discrimination, and retaliation. The Complaint brought claims against Defendant under federal and state law. Specifically, the Complaint brings claims of a violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act, discrimination, and retaliation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Trisha Breedlove, Esq. SPITZ, THE EMPLOYEE'S LAW FIRM 1103 Schrock Road, Suite 307 Columbus, Ohio 43229 Email: Trisha.breedlove@spitzlawfirm.co The Defendants are represented by: Emily Gelhaus, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 201 E. Fifth Street, 26th Floor Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: (513) 898-0050 Fax: (513) 898-0051 Email: Emily.gelhaus@jacksonlewis.com KURA SUSHI: Anderson Alleges Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ DERRICK ANDERSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Kura Sushi USA, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-03451 (E.D.N.Y., July 7, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, Kurasushi.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The suit contends that the Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services Extra Butter provides to their non-disabled customers through its website. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Kura's policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the suit. Kurasushi.com provides to the public a wide array of services, price specials and other programs offered by Kura Sushi USA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. HORWITZ LAW, PLLC 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com LESTER'S DINER: Campbell Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Website ------------------------------------------------------------ ANDREE CAMPBELL, Plaintiff v. LESTER'S DINER OF FT. LAUDERDALE, INC., a Florida Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-61331-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 1, 2025) is a class action seeking for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case arises from Defendant's failure to provide an ADA compliant website. Plaintiff utilizes available screen reader software that allows individuals who are blind and visually disabled to communicate with websites. However, the Defendant's website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by blind and visually disabled individuals using keyboards and available screen reader software. Headquartered in Florida, Lester's Diner of Ft. Lauderdale, Inc. owns, operates, and/or controls four U.S. based restaurants that offer classic American diner, including all-day breakfast, hearty entrees, and homemade desserts. It also owns, controls and maintains the website, https://lestersdiner.com. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aleksandra Kravets, Esq ALEKSANDRA KRAVETS, ESQ. P.A. 865 SW 113 Lane Pembroke Pines, FL 33025 Telephone: (347) 268-9533 E-mail: ak@akesqpa.com MAGGY LONDON: Fabricates Fake Reference Price, Sanchez Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- MONICA SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MAGGY LONDON INTERNATIONAL, LTD., New York corporation, d/b/a WWW.MAGGYLONDON.COM, Case No. 25CU035451C (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., July 7, 2025) alleges that the Defendant advertises fictitious regular prices (and corresponding phantom discounts) on products sold through its website at www.maggylondon.com. Accordingly, the practice allows the Defendant to fabricate a fake "reference price," and present the actual price as "discounted," when it is not. The result is a sham price disparity that is per se illegal under California law. On May 13, 2025, the Plaintiff purchased "Adina by Maggy London Dress" from Defendant for the "discounted" price of $138.00, which Defendant compared to a "strike-through" reference price of $168.00, after visiting the website. The reference price described in the preceding paragraph was not the "prevailing market price" in the 90 days preceding the above access date. Likewise, the advertisement does not "clearly, exactly and conspicuously" state the date upon which the reference price was the prevailing market price. Indeed, in the past 90 days and beyond, Defendant was offering the exact same Product for a discounted price with a similar "phantom discount, asserts the suit. MAGGY LONDON INTERNATIONAL manufactures fashion apparels for women and girls.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste.800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com MARY ARNOLD: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hernandez Says -------------------------------------------------------------- DEVIN FERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. MARY ARNOLD TOYS, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-03688 (E.D.N.Y., July 3, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its s website, www.maryarnoldtoys.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was injured when Plaintiff attempted multiple times, most recently on March 31, 2025, to access Defendant's Website from Plaintiff's home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant’s online goods, content, and services. The Defendant's Website offers products and services for online sale and general delivery to the public. The Website offers features which ought to allow users to browse for items, access navigation bar descriptions, inquire about pricing, and avail consumers of the ability to peruse the numerous items offered for sale.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC rsalim@steinsakslegal.com One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 MDL 3114: 15 Suits Consolidated in AT&T Customer Data Breach Row ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers 15 cases from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to the Northern District of Texas and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Ada E. Brown for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multi-district litigation captioned "In re: AT&T Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation," MDL No. 3114. The putative class actions in the MDL present common factual questions concerning an alleged data security breach announced by AT&T in March 2024 concerning the personal information of over 70 million former and current AT&T customers released on the dark web. Plaintiffs in the 15 actions moved to vacate the conditional transfer order ("CTO") transferring their actions to MDL No. 3114. Defendant AT&T Mobility LLC opposed the motion and supports transfer but requested simultaneous separation and remand of the non-data breach claims asserted in 12 actions to the Southern District of Florida transferor court. In opposition to transfer, plaintiffs principally argued that federal subject matter jurisdiction is lacking and that transfer is improper while their motions for remand to state court are pending. However, the panel has held that such jurisdictional objections generally do not present an impediment to transfer, explaining that remand motions can be presented to and decided by the transferee judge. Plaintiffs also seek an order from the panel remanding their actions to state court. However, the panel does not have the authority to order remand of actions to state court. The panel ruled that the actions should be transferred in their entirety, without separation and remand of the non-data breach claims to the transferor court. The panel noted that last February 6, 2025, it considered transfer of similar actions to MDL No. 3114 and decided to discontinue use of separation and remand of non-data breach claims in this litigation due to the potential for inconsistent rulings on plaintiffs' motions for remand to state court. Since then, AT&T has continued to argue that the panel should order separation and remand of non-data breach claims on the ground that the likelihood of competing remand determinations is limited, as AT&T has been working with the transferor courts to ensure that remand orders are issued in appropriate circumstances. The panel rejected those arguments as there are over 20 substantially similar actions asserting data breach together with non-data breach claims and the number of such actions is growing. The growth in the number of actions and involved judges raises the risk of inefficiency and inconsistency. Thus, the potential for conflicting rulings on remand to state court remains significant, even though the transferee and transferor courts have not yet ruled on a contested remand motion. A full-text copy of the court's May 30, 2025 transfer order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3114-Transfer_Order-5-25.pdf MDL 3140: Daniels v. Pfizer Consolidated in Depo-Provera Case ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers the case captioned "Daniels v. Pfizer Inc., et al.," C.A. No. 3:25−00188 from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois to the Northern District of Florida and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge M. Casey Rodgers for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multi-district litigation styled as "In re: Depo-Provera (Depot Medroxyprogesterone Acetate) Products Liability Litigation," MDL NO. 3140. The Plaintiff in the Daniel action moved to vacate the order conditionally transferring the action to MDL No. 3140. Pfizer Inc., Pharmacia and Upjohn Company LLC, Pharmacia LLC, Greenstone LLC, Viatris Inc., and Prasco, LLC Prasco Laboratories opposed the motion, and support transfer. The actions in the MDL share factual questions arising from allegations that Depo-Provera (depot medroxyprogesterone acetate) -- an injectable contraceptive -- causes certain users to develop meningiomas, a type of brain tumor. The Plaintiff in Daniels alleges that she developed multiple intracranial meningiomas as a result of using depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (Depo-Provera). The Plaintiff argued that federal subject matter jurisdiction over her action is lacking, and her pending motion for remand to state court should be decided before transfer. The panel notes that it has routinely held that such jurisdictional objections generally do not present an impediment to transfer. Transfer is, thus, appropriate despite the alleged inconvenience to plaintiff, who resides in Illinois. The panel ruled that it looks to the overall convenience of the parties and witnesses in the litigation as a whole, not just those of a single plaintiff or defendant in isolation. Moreove, because transfer is for pretrial purposes only, plaintiffs typically need not travel to the transferee court and can be deposed where they live, the panel adds. A full-text copy of the court's June 10, 2025 transfer order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3140-Transfer_Order-5-25.pdf MINERAL POINT: Faces James Class Over Tribal Lending Business ------------------------------------------------------------- HEATHER JAMES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ERIC LOCHEN; MINERAL POINT CONSULTING SERVICES; CREDITSERVE, INC.; ERIC WELCH; JAY MCGRAW; SHANE THIN ELK; LORI BAKER; CHARLIE TITUS, JR.; LINDBERG CHARLIE; JONATHAN DAVID, SR.; and JOHN DOES 1-40, Case No. 4:25-cv-00024 (D. Alaska, July 3, 2025) is a case about a group of clever schemers who came together to circumvent usury laws in order to make online, short-term, small-dollar loans that carry interest rates exceeding 700% -- loans that are patently illegal in most states. Accordingly, the scheme not only takes advantage of vulnerable consumers, but it also exploits Native American tribes. As alleged, the Non-Tribal Defendants have convinced the Tribal Defendants to let them use the Native Village of Minto's name as a front for numerous predatory lending enterprises, including one that operates under the name Minto Financial d/b/a Minto Money. In this so-called "rent-a-tribe" model, the Tribe serves as the face of the scheme. The Non-Tribal Defendants, in turn, attempt to cloak themselves in the Tribe's sovereign immunity, thereby (supposedly) placing them beyond the reach of usury laws, says the suit. On its website, Minto Money purports to be a tribal lending business that is owned by Benhti Economic Development Corporation (BEDCO), which is "a sovereign economic arm, enterprise and instrumentality of, and created under the laws of and for the benefit of, the Native Village of Minto, a federally recognized sovereign American Indian tribe in Alaska."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Michelle Drake, Esq. John G. Albanese, Esq. Ariana B. Kiener, Esq. Marika K. O'Connor Grant, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205 Minneapolis, MN 55413 Telephone: (612) 594-5999 Facsimile: (612) 584-4470 E-mail: emdrake@bm.net jalbanese@bm.net akiener@bm.net moconnorgrant@bm.net MISONO FOOD: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hernandez Says -------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MISONO FOOD LTD., D/B/A BUON'ITALIA, Case No. 1:25-cv-03717 (E.D.N.Y., July 3, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its s website, www.buonitalia.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was injured when Plaintiff attempted multiple times, most recently on Nov. 20, 2024, to access Defendant's Website from Plaintiff's home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. The Defendant's Website offers products and services for online sale and general delivery to the public. The Website offers features which ought to allow users to browse for items, access navigation bar descriptions, inquire about pricing, and avail consumers of the ability to peruse the numerous items offered for sale.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC rsalim@steinsakslegal.com One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 MOSHY GAMING: Faces Hurst Suit Over Alleged Illegal Online Casino ----------------------------------------------------------------- AMY HURST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MOSHY GAMING LLC, d/b/a MOOZI CASINO, Case No. 3:25-cv-00491 (M.D. Ala., July 3, 2025) arises out of the Defendant's operation of an illegal online casino in violation of Alabama law. Through Moozi Casino, users can access and play casino games, including jackpots, slots, roulette, baccarat, and Megaways titles. Some of these games are even hosted by live dealers in real-time, further mimicking the experience of a physical casino. Accordingly, the Chance Games offered on Moozi Casino are unequivocally games of chance. Their outcomes are determined primarily, if not exclusively, by randomization-rendering them indistinguishable from the games found in traditional, brick-and-mortar casinos, says the suit. The Defendant owns and operates Moozi Casino with website at https://moozi.com/lobby.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David L. Selby, II, Esq. Matthew J. Ford, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP 3000 Riverchase Galleria, Suite 905 Birmingham, AL 35244 Telephone: (205) 988-9253 Facsimile: (205) 733-4896 E-mail: dselby@baileyglasser.com mford@baileyglasser.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 1925 Century Park E No. 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com NISWI LLC: Faces Wood Class Suit Over Usurious Interest Rates ------------------------------------------------------------- ADAM WOOD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. NISWI, LLC, dba LENDUMO, Case No. 4:25-cv-00046-GNS (W.D. Ky., June 11, 2025) alleges that the Defendant employs a scheme to charge customers illegal usurious interest rates of up to nearly 800%. According to the complaint, the Defendant represents that Lendumo is a tribal lending entity that is wholly owned by the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, a sovereign nation located within the United States of America. In reality, the Defendant operates a "rent-a-tribe" scheme in order to circumvent state usury laws, including the laws of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, says the suit. On its website, Lendumo claims to help borrowers "get back on track" despite having had "credit troubles in the past."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amanda M. Lockaby Esq. Matthew M. Lockaby Esq. Abigail C. Wearden LOCKABY PLLC 476 East High Street, Suite 200 Lexington, KY 40507 Telephone: (859) 263-7884 Facsimile: (859) 406-3333 E-mail: mlockaby@lockabylaw.com - and - Matthew J. Langley, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (773) 554-9354 E-mail: matt@almeidalawgroup.com NORDVPN SA: Sasgen Sues Over Illegal Automatic Subscription Renewal ------------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL SASGEN, on behalf of himself and sll others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORDVPN S.A., AND TEFINCOM S.A. d/b/a NORDVPN, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-06822 (N.D. Ill., June 20, 2025) is a class action lawsuit challenging Nord Security's use of deceptive and illegal automatic renewal tactics to trick consumers into paying for unwanted subscriptions for internet privacy and security products in violation of the Illinois Automatic Contract Renewal Act and the common law. According to the complaint, Nord Security intentionally misleads consumers into thinking they can subscribe for a discrete period of time. The truth is, however, that the Nord Subscriptions automatically renew and the Company's "disclosures" regarding the ongoing charges are hidden from consumers both before and after purchase. Further, Nord Security intentionally makes the Nord Subscriptions difficult to cancel and fails to provide adequate notice of material changes to those subscriptions. This too violates the Illinois ARL and the common law, says the suit. The Plaintiff enrolled in a Nord Subscription that he did not know would automatically renew and was then charged multiple times for additional years of that subscription that he did not want. Due to the Company's deceptive and unlawful negative option practices, many consumers who sign up for Nord Security's product offerings including NordVPN, NordPass, and NordLocker ultimately end up paying for Nord Subscriptions that they do not want, the Plaintiff alleges. Nordvpn S.A. is a Panamanian corporation incorporated under the laws of Panama.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe St., Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - J. Burkett McInturff, Esq. WITTELS MCINTURFF PALIKOVIC 305 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (914) 775-8862 E-mail: jbm@wittelslaw.com OAK HEARTH: Faces Perzel Class Suit Over Automatic Club Enrollment ------------------------------------------------------------------ Daniel Perzel, and Ronnie Jo Perzel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Oak Hearth, LLC, Case No. 27-CV-25-12578 (Minn. State Ct., July 7, 2025) challenges the Defendant's illegal automatic enrollment and automatic renewal in its Oak+ "membership club" scheme, failure to provide simple mechanisms for customers to cancel their "membership club" enrollment, unlawful retention of customers' credit card information, and charging of customers without their consent. The Plaintiffs bring this action for Defendant's violations of the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Minnesota Plastic Card Security Act, the Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act, the Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. When customer places an order with Defendant, Defendant omits material information regarding its automatic enrollment of customers in membership program, and fails to disclose that it automatically renews the membership each month without notice to the customer and without the customers' express consent, asserts the suit. The Defendant operates an online marketplace that sells variety of home goods, including decor, cooking products, home accessories, beauty, and electronic goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anne T. Regan, Esq. Nathan D. Prosser, Esq. Brian W. Nelson, Esq. HELLMUTH JOHNSON, PLLC 8050 West 78t Street Edina, MN 55439 Telephone: (952) 941-4005 E-mail: aregan@hjlawfirm.com nprosser@hjlawfirm.com bwnelson@hjlawfirm.com P's & Q's BRAND: Faces Battle Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ ANDRE BATTLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. P's & Q's Brand, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06830 (N.D. Ill., June 20, 2025) is a civil rights action against P's & Q's Brand for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://psandqs.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On March 5, 2025, while navigating the website to buy new sneakers, the Plaintiff encountered a negative online experience due to significant accessibility barriers. He found unlabeled links that appeared after filtering the products, which caused confusion and made it difficult for him to understand their purpose or interact with them effectively. He notes that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate heading hierarchy, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, inaccessible contact information, unclear labels for interactive elements, lack of alt-text on graphics, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in P's & Q's Brand's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. P's & Q's Brand, Inc. operates the website that offers menswear, accessories, and lifestyle goods, including T-shirts, hoodies, sweaters, sweatshirts, sneakers, slippers, bags, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com PICCOLA BUSSOLA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hernandez Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ DEVIN FERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. LA PICCOLA BUSSOLA REST, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-03693 (E.D.N.Y., July 3, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.stevespiccolabussola.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was injured when Plaintiff attempted multiple times, most recently on April 10, 2025, to access Defendant's Website from Plaintiff's home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant’s online goods, content, and services. The Defendant's Website offers products and services for online sale and general delivery to the public. The Website offers features which ought to allow users to browse for items, access navigation bar descriptions, inquire about pricing, and avail consumers of the ability to peruse the numerous items offered for sale.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC rsalim@steinsakslegal.com One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 POLITICO LLC: Wiretaps Web Users' Private Info, Shah Says --------------------------------------------------------- VISHAL SHAH, an individual, on behalf of himself, the general public, and those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. POLITICO LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-05213-VKD (N.D. Cal., June 20, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for invasion of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion, common law fraud, deceit and/or misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, trespass to chattels, and violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. When consumers visit Defendant's website, www.politico.com, the Defendant displays to them a popup cookie consent banner. The Defendant's cookie banner discloses that the Website uses cookies but expressly gives users the option to control how they are tracked and how their personal data is used. The Defendant assures visitors that they can opt out of the collection and sale of their personal information by clicking on Defendant's "Do Not Sell My Information" link and rejecting cookies by toggling off "Performance Cookies" and "Online Behavioural Advertising" cookies. Like most Internet websites, the Defendant designed the Website to include resources and programming scripts from third parties that enable those parties to place cookies and other similar tracking technologies on visitors' browsers and devices and/or transmit cookies along with user data. Unlike other websites, Defendant's Website offers consumers a choice to browse without being tracked, followed, and targeted by third party data brokers and advertisers. However, Defendant's promises are outright lies, designed to lull users into a false sense of security. Even after users reject all performance and advertising cookies, the Defendant surreptitiously enables several third parties – including Google LLC, Microsoft Corp., Amazon.com, Inc., Yahoo, Inc., and others -- to place and/or transmit cookies that track users' website browsing activities and eavesdrop on users' private communications on the Website, the suit says. Politico LLC is a global news and information company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Todd Kennedy, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com todd@gutridesafier.com PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Faces Madison Class Suit Over PSA Deduction ----------------------------------------------------------------- DEBRA MADISON, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY and PROGRESSIVE GULF INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:25-cv-00489-CWR-ASH (S.D. Miss., July 3, 2025) alleges that Progressive has developed an established unfair business practice to underpay its customers' motor vehicle total loss claims. According to the complaint, Progressive's uniform insurance contracts require payment of the Actual Cash Value of a total loss motor vehicle. However, utilizing a specialized customizable software program purchased from Mitchell International Inc., called the Work Center Total Loss program (WCTL), Progressive instead applies a blanket deduction to all of its customers' vehicle total loss claims it calls a "projected sold adjustment" (PSA deduction) to reduce the amount it has to pay. The deduction is based on bogus data that Progressive does not disclose to the insurance customer. As the Mitchell WCTL software is customizable, the unfair application of the PSA deduction is optional. Progressive chose to engage in the practice of applying the PSA deduction nationwide, including Mississippi, in or around 2010, asserts the suit. The ACV of a vehicle is universally understood as the value of a vehicle before the accident causing the total loss. Industry standards require the use of comparable vehicles listed for sale in the local market (the comparable vehicle method) or the use of recognized published regional values from recognized industry groups like the National Auto Dealers Association Pricing Guidebook or Kelley Blue Book. The Plaintiff was insured under a policy of insurance issued by the Defendant. The Defendant is doing business in the State of Mississippi and licensed with the Mississippi Department of Insurance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Caroline Crawley Commer, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CAROLINE CRAWLEY COMMER 16323 Main Street Louisville, MS 39339 Telephone: (662) 773-5093 Facsimile: (662) 773-8262 E-mail: boomoore22@yahoo.com - and - Jay Aughtman, Esq. Joseph "Jay" H. Aughtman, Esq. AUGHTMAN LAW FIRM, LLC 1772 Platt Place Montgomery, AL 36117 Telephone: (334) 215-9873 Facsimile: (334) 213-5663 E-mail: jay@aughtmanlaw.com - and - Aaron C. Hemmings, Esq. Kelly A. Stevens, Esq. HEMMINGS & STEVENS, P.L.L.C 5540 McNeely Drive, Suite 202 Raleigh, NC 27612 Telephone: (919) 277-0161 Facsimile: (919) 277-0162 E-mail: ahemmings@hemmingsandstevens.com kstevens@hemmingsandstevens.com SALVATION ARMY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Lewis Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Lewis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Salvation Army National Corporation, d/b/a The Salvation Army, Case No. 1:25-cv-01104 (E.D. Va., July 3, 2025) alleges that in May 2025, an unknown actor gained access to Defendant's inadequately protected computer systems and as a result, the Plaintiff and the Class Members had their personal identifiable information (PII), including their names and Social Security numbers, exposed (the "Data Breach"). Due to Defendant's negligence, cybercriminals obtained everything they need to commit identity theft and wreak havoc on the financial and personal lives of thousands of individuals. The class action seeks to redress Defendant's unlawful, willful and wanton failure to protect the personal identifiable information of thousands of individuals that was exposed in a major data breach of Defendant’s network in violation of its legal obligation. The Plaintiff and members of the class were or are employees or volunteers of Defendant. In carrying out its business, the Defendant obtains, collects, uses, and derives a benefit from the PII of Plaintiff and the Class. As such, the Defendant assumed the legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion, says the suit. The Salvation Army National Corporation, d/b/a The Salvation Army is an international Christian organization known for its evangelical and charitable work.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee A. Floyd, Esq. Justin M. Sheldon, Esq. BREIT BINIAZAN, PC 2100 East Cary Street, Suite 310 Richmond, VA 23223 Telephone: (804) 351-9040 E-mail: Lee@bbtrial.com Justin@bbtrial.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq. Federman & Sherwood, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com jaw@federmanlaw.com SCRAMBLERS BRANDS: Drummond Sues Over Disability Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------------- JONATHAN DRUMMOND, Plaintiff v. SCRAMBLERS BRANDS FRANCHISE DEVELOPMENT, LLC., Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-01186 (M.D. Fla., July 1, 2025) is a class action seeking for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff utilizes available screen reader software that allows individuals who are blind and visually disabled to communicate with websites. However, the Defendant's website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by blind and visually disabled individuals using keyboards and available screen reader software. Scramblers Brands Franchise Development, LLC is an Ohio for-profit corporation that owns, operates, and/or controls a US-based chain of 28 restaurants and an adjunct website, https://scramblersrestaurants.com, which allows users to locate a nearby restaurant using the website's locator tool, discover contact information and operating hours for restaurant locations. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aleksandra Kravets, Esq. ALEKSANDRA KRAVETS, ESQ. P.A. 865 SW 113 Lane Pembroke Pines, FL 33025 Telephone: (347) 268-9533 E-mail: ak@akesqpa.com SEAMORE'S ON ICE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Anderson Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ DERRICK ANDERSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SEAMORE'S ON ICE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03462 (E.D.N.Y., June 20, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.seamores.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The complaint alleges that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate heading hierarchy, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, lack of alt-text on graphics, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Seamore's on Ice LLC operates the website that offers contemporary American coastal cuisine.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com SOUTHWOOD FINANCIAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Rivers Says --------------------------------------------------------------- DEVON RIVERS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SOUTHWOOD FINANCIAL LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01122 (E.D. Va., July 7, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard personal identifiable information, including, but not limited to, names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, and other account information. Prior to and through March 25, 2025, the Defendant stored the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members, unencrypted, in an Internet-accessible environment on Defendant's network. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. The Defendant collected the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members and stored it, unencrypted, on Defendant’s internet-accessible network. The Plaintiff and Class Members relied on this sophisticated Defendant to keep their PII confidential and securely maintained, to use this information for business purposes only, and to make only authorized disclosures of this information. Plaintiff and Class Members demand security to safeguard their PII, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff brings this nationwide class action on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2), 23(b)(3), and 23(c)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Nationwide Class that Plaintiff seeks to represent is defined as follows: "All individuals whose PII was accessed and/or acquired in the data incident that is the subject of the Notice of Data Incident that Defendant sent to Plaintiff and Class Members on or around June 27, 2025." Excluded from the Classes are the following individuals and/or entities: Defendant and Defendant's parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers and directors, and any entity in which Defendant has a controlling interest; all individuals who make a timely election to be excluded from this proceeding using the correct protocol for opting out; any and all federal, state or local governments, including but not limited to their departments, agencies, divisions, bureaus, boards, sections, groups, counsels and/or subdivisions; and all judges assigned to hear any aspect of this litigation, as well as their immediate family members. According to its website, Defendant partners with private student loan lenders to address defaulted student loans and shepherd borrowers to financial stability. Prior to and through March 25, 2025, Defendant obtained the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven T. Websters, Esq. WEBSTER BOOK LLP 2300 Wilson Blvd., Suite 728 Arlington, VA 22201 Telephone: (888) 987-9991 E-mail: swebster@websterbook.com - and - Patrick A. Barthle, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP Florida Bar No. 99286 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 229-4023 Facsimile: (813) 222-4708 E-mail: pbarthle@ForThePeople.com - and - Ryan D. Maxey, Esq. MAXEY LAW FIRM, P.A. 107 N. 11th St. #402 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 448-1125 E-mail: ryan@maxeyfirm.com TAL EDUCATION: Bid to Dismiss 2022 Securities Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- TAL Education Group disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the annual period ending February 28, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 16, 2025, that the 2022 securities class suit dismissal motion is pending before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On February 4, 2022, a complaint of purported securities class action was filed against the Company and certain of its current and former executives in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "2022 Class Action"). The complaint alleges that the Company made misrepresentations and misleading disclosures between April 26, 2018 and July 22, 2021 about Chinese laws governing the tutoring industry and the Company's compliance with them. On April 7, 2022, the Court endorsed an application the Company filed to stay its obligation to respond to the Initial Complaint until after the Court appoints a lead plaintiff. On October 12, 2022, the Court appointed two co-lead plaintiffs. On October 19, 2022, the co-lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On February 10, 2023, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 27, 2023, the lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss. On April 26, 2023, the Company filed a reply to the lead plaintiff’s opposition. On October 2, 2023, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss in its entirety and dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety without prejudice. After requesting for and obtaining an extension from the Court, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on November 20, 2023. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on January 19, 2024. On February 15, 2024, the lead plaintiff filed the opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss. On March 15, 2024, the Company filed its reply to lead plaintiff's opposition. The Court has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss. TAL Education Group to is an offshore holding company that offers comprehensive tutoring services to K-12 students covering core academic subjects as well as learning products, contents, technologies, services and other learning resources for learners and customers. TD BANK: Faces $9.9MM Choe Class Action Suit in S.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TD Bank N.A. The case is captioned as Choe v. TD Bank N.A., Case No. 1:25-cv-04923-VSB-RWL (S.D.N.Y., Filed June 11, 2025), The suit alleges violation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act demanding $9.9MM in damages. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Vernon S. Broderick. TD Bank is an American national bank and a subsidiary of TD Bank Group, a Canadian multinational banking and financial services company. The Defendants include Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, New York Attorney General, New York State Department of Financial Services, United States Attorney General, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.[BN] Plaintiff Jerry Choe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, appears pro se. Jerry Choe, Esq. 5 E 22nd Street New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (917) 880-5888 E-mail: jerry1@xenecore.com THERMOS LLC: Valenzuela Suit Removed to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Sonya Valenzuela, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THERMOS L.L.C., a Delaware entity, d/b/a WWW.THERMOS.COM, Case No. 25CU025187C was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on June 26, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01633-H-BLM. The State Court Action alleges that Thermos is liable for violations of California's False Advertising Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act related to product pricing on the Thermos website.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Timothy K. Branson, Esq. Holly L.K. Heffner, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI 101 W. Broadway Suite 2000 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 696-6700 Facsimile: (619) 696-7124 Email: tbranson@grsm.com hheffner@grsm.com TOWER HEALTH SYSTEM: Brennan Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty --------------------------------------------------------------- Dennis Brennan, Lauren Bradt, and Debra Werner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TOWER HEALTH SYSTEM, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF TOWER HEALTH SYSTEM, THE FIDUCIARY COMMITTEE OF TOWER HEALTH SYSTEM, and JOHN DOES 1-20, Case No. 5:25-cv-03062 (E.D. Pa., June 16, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), against the Plan's fiduciaries and the Defendants for breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence, failure to monitor fiduciaries and violation of ERISA's prohibited transactions. The Plaintiffs allege that during the putative Class Period, Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Plan, as that term is defined under ERISA, breached the duties it owed to the Plan, to Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plan by, inter alia, failing to pay reasonable fees for RKA services with respect to the Plan, and failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio, initially and on an ongoing basis, with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of performance. The Defendants breached their fiduciary duty of prudence by selecting and/or maintaining a guaranteed investment contract ("GIC") in the Plan with lower crediting rates compared to available similar or identical investments with higher crediting rates. The crediting rate is the guaranteed rate of return for the investment fund. Among other imprudent investments, Defendants allowed substantial assets in the Plan to be invested in a separate account GIC with Lincoln Financial Group Trust Company (the "Lincoln GIC"), that provided significantly lower rates of return than comparable stable value funds that Defendants could have made available to Plan participants, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs participated in the Plan during their employments. Tower Health is the Plan sponsor and a named fiduciary with a principal place of business being Sixth Avenue and Spruce Street, West Reading, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. James A. Maro, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Phone: (610) 890-0200 Fax: (717) 232-3080 Email: markg@capozziadler.com jamesm@capozziadler.com UNITED STATES: Crawford Sues Over Illegal Execution Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- CHARLES CRAWFORD, JASON KELLER, BLAYDE GRAYSON, ALAN WALKER, WILLIE MANNING, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NATHAN "BURL" CAIN ET. AL., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-479-DPJ-ASH (S.D. Miss., July 1, 2025) alleges violations and threatened violations of Plaintiffs' rights to due process and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. As of July 1, 2022, the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioners may select any of the four authorized execution methods, regardless of the availability of the other authorized methods, and without being constrained by the previously required order of methods. Accordingly, this civil action alleges that the Miss. Laws 2022, Ch. 414 (H.B. No. 1479), together with Defendants' execution protocols and execution practices, both individually and together, violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of the Plaintiffs and of the class of persons who are now, or who may be in the future, held in the custody of Mississippi Department of Corrections under sentence of death, and who are not currently plaintiffs in Jordan, et al., v. Cain, et al., No. 3:15-cv-295-HTW-LGI in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. The MDOC is the state agency charged with the incarceration, care, custody, and treatment of all state prisoners, including prisoners sentenced to death. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James W. Craig, Esq. Emily M. Washington, Esq. Jack M. Stephens, Esq. THE RODERICK & SOLANGE MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER 4400 South Carrollton Ave. New Orleans, LA 70119 Telephone: (504) 620-2259 Facsimile: (504) 208-3133 E-mail: jim.craig@macarthurjustice.org emily.washington@macarthurjustice.org jack.stephens@macarthurjustice.org UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS: O'Flanagan Files Suit in D. Mass. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. The case is styled as Kelliann O'Flanagan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, Case No. 1:25-cv-11840-PBS (D. Mass., June 26, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. The University of Massachusetts Dartmouth -- https://www.umassd.edu/ -- is a public research university in Dartmouth, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 800 S. Gay ST, Ste. 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: cturner@milberg.com VALLEY FINE FOODS: Joseph Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Valley Fine Foods Company, LLC. The case is styled as Avery Loyn Joseph, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Valley Fine Foods Company, LLC, Case No. CU25-05569 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 17, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment." Valley Fine Foods -- https://valleyfine.com/ -- is a food manufacturing company and home of the Three Bridges, Artisola & Pasta Prima brands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com VILLAGE CARE: Rahman Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA, NYLL ----------------------------------------------------------------- DESIREE RAHMAN, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, v. VILLAGE CARE SENIOR SERVICES CORP., VILLAGE CARE OF NEW YORK, INC., and EMMA DEVITO, Case No. 1:25-cv-05560 (S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime and regular wages due to an illegal, skewed rounding policy that resulted in a shortfall, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff further alleges, pursuant to the WARN Act, that she and Class Members are entitled to recover damages from Defendants as a result of Defendants' failure to provide Plaintiffs and Class Members with required written notice. The Plaintiff brings claims for relief as a collective action pursuant to the FLSA, on behalf of all hourly, non-managerial employees employed by Defendants in New York State. The Defendant is a community-based, not-for-profit organization serving people with chronic care needs, seniors and individuals in need of continuing care.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Taimur Alamgir, Esq. TA LEGAL GROUP PLLC 205 E Main St, Suite 3-2 Huntington, NY 11743 Telephone: (914) 552-2669 E-mail: tim@talegalgroup.com WELLBOTS INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Mercedez Says -------------------------------------------------------------- LUIS MERCEDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. WELLBOTS, INC, Case No. 1:25-cv-05534 (S.D.N.Y., July 3, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its s website, www.wellbots.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was injured when Plaintiff attempted multiple times, most recently on January 15, 2025, to access Defendant's Website from Plaintiff's home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. The Defendant's Website offers products and services for online sale and general delivery to the public. The Website offers features which ought to allow users to browse for items, access navigation bar descriptions, inquire about pricing, and avail consumers of the ability to peruse the numerous items offered for sale.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC rsalim@steinsakslegal.com One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 WEXFORD HEALTH: Bid to Correct Docket in Spurlock Suit Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN SPURLOCK; HEATHER SMITH; and SHAWN ZMUDZINSKI, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INCORPORATED, Case No. 3:23-cv-00476 (S.D.W. Va.), the Hon. Judge Robert C. Chambers entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to correct docket. The Court directs the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented parties. The Defendant's motion fails for at least two independent reasons. First, the Plaintiffs did reference Exhibits 24, 25, and 26 and attached those exhibits to their motion. Second, federal courts in the Fourth Circuit do not simply seal exhibits until a motion is made to unseal them. Finally, the Court is not inclined to seal documents that have previously been unsealed. Judges "do not have the power, even were we of the mind to use it if we had, to make what has thus become public private again." On July 2, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to correct Docket asking this Court to seal documents previously unsealed pursuant to this Court's June 6, 2025, memorandum opinion & order. On March 24, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification and a partially redacted memorandum in support. Wexford is an American healthcare services company. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion & order dated July 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ii99VI at no extra charge.[CC] WWL VEHICLE SERVICES: Brien Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against WWL Vehicle Services Americas, Inc. The case is styled as Holly O'Brien, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. WWL Vehicle Services Americas, Inc., Case No. 2025CUOE045866 (Cal. Super. Ct., Ventura Cty., June 18, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment." WWL Vehicle Services Americas, Inc. -- https://www.walleniuswilhelmsen.com/ -- is a logistics and marine services provider specializing in the automotive industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com ********* 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 ***