250718.mbx

250718.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, July 18, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 143 Headlines 23ANDME INC: Plaintiffs Can File Claims as Part of Ch. 11 Case ACCENTURE PLC: Suit over Hotel Data Breach Ongoing ADVENTIST HEALTH: Faces Khodadadi Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif. AFLAC INC: Faces Russell Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info AFLAC INC: Fails to Protect Personal and Health Info, Rustin Says AFLAC INC: O'Connor Alleges Unauthorized Exposure of Personal Info AHOLD DELHAIZE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Begley Alleges AHOLD DELHAIZE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, LeClair Suit Says AIM DISTRIBUTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sielaff Alleges ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Agrees to Settle Antitrust Suit for $31.75MM ALLSTATE FIRE: Court Partially Stays Dorazio Proceedings AMAZON.COM INC: Heavy Metals' Suit Raises Risks for Rice Retailers AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Class Cert Discovery in Medal Partly OK'd AMERICAN INCOME: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Harris Says APPLE INC: Restricts Access to Wi-Fi Calling Services, Inza Alleges ARCADIA CARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Adams Suit Alleges ARCOSA EPI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, White Suit Alleges ARIZONA: Asks for Dismissal of Medicaid Fraud Class Action Suit ASHLYNN MARKETING: Court Dismisses Nationwide Class Claims ATLANTA RESTAURANT: McAdory Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA BAREWEB INC: Lewis Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. BARRETT BUSINESS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Aguilera Alleges BECHTEL CORPORATION: Jones Sues to Recover Unpaid Compensation BENQ AMERICA: Removes Naquin Suit to C.D. Calif. BLACKBERRY LIMITED: Hearing on Settlement OK Set for July 30 BNB FORMULA: Misrepresents Coaching Program, Fernandez Suit Alleges BORN PRIMITIVE: Lewis Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. BRACEABILITY INC: Lewis Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. BRAY INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Menard Says BUFFY INC: Lewis Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. CARDIOLOGY ASSOCIATES: Bailey Files Suit in E.D. Virginia CAREFUSION RESOURCES: Mendez Suit Removed to S.D. California CARGO THERAPEUTICS: M&A Investigates Sale to Concentra Biosciences CASA TUA: Marte Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL CENTENE CORP: Faces Securities Suit Over Common Stock Drop CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Mendez Suit Removed to W.D. Kentucky CORE SCIENTIFIC: M&A Investigates Sale to CoreWeave Inc. CROWN FIELD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rajbhandari Alleges CUSTOM CALIFORNIA: Mendez Suit Removed to C.D. California DADELAND STATION: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property DENNIS YU: Filing for Class Certification in Miller Due August 7 DINGHY SHOP: Agnone Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website DOYON LIMITED: Johnson Sues Over Failure to Secure Customers' Info DRIVESMART AUTO CARE: Connor Files TCPA Suit in D. New Jersey E.R.S. SECURITY: Lim Suit Seeks Non-Exempt Employees' Unpaid Wages ECKERT SEAMANS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Williams Says EDUCATIONAL CREDIT: Kincaid Class Action Remanded to State Court EFFORTLESS OFFICE: Russo Sues Over Failure to Protect Info EISENHOWER HEALTH: Patients May be Eligible to Privacy Suit Deal EL AL: Stock Prices Fall Due to $238.5MM Class-Action Suit ERIE INDEMNITY: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Atta Suit Alleges FALLSBURG BAGELS: Faces Marcos Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. FAT ROSIE'S: Martinez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Bartenders FERGUSON ENTERPRISES: CMC in Bozzini Suit Continued to Sept. 18 FIRELANDS REGIONAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Blevins Says FLORIDA LEAK: Etayem Sues Over Unpaid OT & Retaliatory Discharge FLORIDA: Wild Sues Over Lack of Appointment Facilities FORD MOTOR: Benson Sues Over Defective Ford Vehicles GEICO CASUALTY: Flack Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama GLOBAL BLOOD: Oxbryta Settlement Discussions Set for Sept. 2025 GROVE CITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Zirkle Suit Alleges GUACA-MOLE-TEXMEX-MIM: Herrera Sues Over Disability Discrimination HENKEL US: Carroll Suit Moved to N.D. New York HIMS & HERS: Artificially Inflated Stock Price, Sookdeo Suit Says HIMS & HERS: Yaghsizian Sues Over Decline of Common Stock Price HOMEOWNER SOLUTION: Griffin Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Michigan INDEPENDENCE CORRUGATED: Howard Sues Over Unpaid Overtime INFINITUM MEDIA: Faces Lipkin Class Suit Over Telemarketing Calls INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTH: Class Cert Bid Filing Due March 2, 2026 IROBOT CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due September 5 JEN-COAT INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Burton Suit Alleges JP BODEN: Advertises Fake Prices and Discounts, Rodriguez Claims KENZI WANG: Reassignment Order Setting CMC Entered in INI Suit KLC CLEANING: Faces Gonzalez Suit Over Unpaid Overtime KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Hamilton Bid for Class Cert Partly OK'd KRISPY KREME: Fails to Protect Highly Sensitive Data, Schug Says KRISPY KREME: Mullins Files Suit Over Data Breach LA JAMOTECA INC: Herrera Sues Over Disability Discrimination LEGALSHIELD LEGAL: Hunter Suit Removed to N.D. California LEMONADE INC: Klein Sues Over Invasion of Privacy LINQTO INC: Faces Maxwell Suit Over Deceptive Marketing Scheme LOVING ARMS: Ware Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Caregivers LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Sept. 16 MAINLINE HEALTH: Austin Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Arkansas MAINLINE HEALTH: Moore Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Arkansas MASONITE CORP: Removes Ortiz Suit to S.D. Calif. MAZDA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Belied Audio System MCCOLLISTER'S GLOBAL: Turners Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA MCKESSON MEDICAL-SURGICAL: King Sues Over Unpaid Overtime MERCATO ITALIANO: Lopez Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL META PLATFORMS: Faces Class Suit Over Stock Investment Scams Ads METHODE ELECTRONICS: Continues to Defend Common Stocks-Related Suit METHODE ELECTRONICS: Continues to Defend Salem Class Suit in Ill. MICHIGAN: Court Certifies Edenville Dam Failure Class Action MINDBODYGREEN LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Battle Says NAPHCARE INC: Nigg Suit Removed to W.D. Washington NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Ghebari Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois NCAA: Class Notice Approved in Ray Lawsuit NEW JERSEY: Hubbard Appeals Ruling in Civil Rights Suit to 3rd Cir. NEW YORK: Consumer Rights' Class Suit Settlement Gets Prelim. OK NORTH CAROLINA: Asanov Appeals Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit NORTH SHORE: Fails to Pay Wages, Chowdhury Suit Alleges NORTHBAY HEALTHCARE: Final Breach Settlement Hearing Set Oct. 29 NUCOR CORPORATION: Sweat Files Suit in W.D. North Carolina NUNA BABY: Faces Medema Class Suit Over Defective Car Seats OHIO: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Funding Plan of Browns Stadium ONESPAN INC: Jackson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website PEABODY ENERGY: Underpays Outby Workers, Jenkins Suit Claims PERFECTFIT365: Frankle Sues Over Gummies' Creatine Monohydrate Ads PHH MORTGAGE: Faces Allison Suit Over Data Privacy Violations PHH MORTGAGE: Faces Allison Suit Over Data Privacy Violations PHILADELPHIA, PA: McNeil Appeals Court Order in Sourovelis Suit PREMIER AGENCY REAL: Lipp Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Appeals Court Blocks Auto Claims Class Suit PROHEALTH PARTNERS: Llanas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. RADICALMEDIA LLC: Tehrani Files TCPA Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. RAISING CANE'S: Herrera Sues Over Disability Discrimination REVTCO INVESTMENTS: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property S.T.E.A.M. ACADEMY: Hernandez Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages SAFE HARBOR: Faces Class Suit Over Deceptive Billing Practices SONY CORP: May Face Class Action Over Photo Editing App SOUTHWOOD FINANCIAL: Fails to Protect Sensitive Data, Wetzel Says SOUTHWOOD FINANCIAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Young Says ST. TAMMANY: Baquer Suit Stayed Pending OK of Reconsideration Bid STEAMED LLC: Zhang Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA TANCEUTICALS LLC: Faces Senior Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website TANYA TAYLOR: Senior Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website TC HEARTLAND: Can Obtain Discovery of Garcia Medical Records TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Scheme to Block Generic Competition TRANSDEV ALTERNATIVE: Steins Removes Suit to C.D. Calif. TREE TOP: Faces Borowsky Suit Over Mislabeled Apple Juice ULTIMATE GUITAR: Teilmann Sues Over Auto Renewal of Subscriptions UNION PACIFIC: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment vs Mayer UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Denies Wilderness Therapy Claim, T.W. Suit Says UNITED STATES: Tags Immigrants' Class-Action Motion Improper URW COMMUNITY: Burton Sues Over OD Fees on Debit Card Transactions VAIL RESORTS: Bisaillon Suit Transferred to D. Colorado VENTURE LOGISTICS: Final Breach Settlement Hearing Set Sept. 19 VIRGINIA MASON: Fails to Prevent Drug Diversion of Employees VOLVO CARS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Defective Electric Cars WATERSTREET CO: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Alejnikov Says WEST VIRGINIA: Appeals Court Dismisses Inmates' Class Suit WESTMORE BEAUTY: Senior Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind WHITEPAGES INC: Bid to Dismiss Carrera Suit Tossed WVMF FUNDING: Court Overrules Objection to Denial of Bifurcation WYNDHAM VACATION: Arroyo Suit Removed to N.D. California XPLR INFRASTRUCTURE: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ZILLOW HOME: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Simmons Suit Claims Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Returns $3M Plaintiff Verdict in Talc Trial ********* 23ANDME INC: Plaintiffs Can File Claims as Part of Ch. 11 Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Anke E, writing for The Pulse, reports that class action lawsuits can either be good or bad, depending on which side you are on. Typically, it is better to be on the plaintiff's side, as you might not only get some justice but some extra cash as well. This July, one group of people may receive up to $1,500, thanks to a new data breach settlement. Find out whether you qualify to claim from this settlement. A genetic testing company based in San Francisco, California, made some headlines after an unfortunate incident. The company, 23andMe, offers customers ancestry information and health risk information based on their DNA. Between May 1 and October 1, 2023, almost 7 million customers became victims of a data breach. The breach was revealed in October 2023, indicating that customers' data was exposed, including ancestry reports, names, relationship labels, and the percentage of DNA shared with relatives. The data breach led to multiple class action lawsuits, but 23andMe denied any wrongdoing. The company eventually agreed to a $30 million settlement in September 2024 to resolve all the allegations. This separate settlement would mainly benefit residents of states with genetic privacy laws that provide for statutory damages, such as: -- Alaska -- California -- Oregon -- Illinois According to TechCrunch, on March 23, 2025, the company filed for bankruptcy protection in the US, placing the settlement on hold. As per Forbes, when a company files for Chapter 11 protection under the US Bankruptcy Code, the company can restructure its finances and operations. This can be done by selling some or all of its assets whilst continuing operations. While it may be on hold, anyone belonging to a particular group can still claim from the settlement. This group of people will be eligible to claim. You can claim from this $30 million data breach settlement if you are deemed eligible. You must meet the following criteria to be eligible to claim: -- You received a data breach notice from 23andMe about the data breach in October 2023 -- You suffered from documented losses due to the breach -- You experienced related issues due to the breach -- You filed a valid claim form by the deadline As seen with many other data breach settlements, it is important to provide documentation as proof of any losses experienced due to the breach. This documentation includes credit monitoring charges, identity theft expenses, and bank fees. The following amounts can be claimed: -- Up to $1,500 for documented losses -- Up to $500 for undocumented losses If you experienced documented losses, you can file a claim as part of the bankruptcy case, however, if the breach resulted in related issues, including issues with DNA test results or telehealth services, you can file a claim under the General Bar Date Package. Ensure that you file a valid claim form by the deadline of July 14, 2025. You can expect your payout on this date If you have concerns regarding your personal data that remains with the firm following the 2023 data breach and the bankruptcy protection claim, you are not alone. The California Attorney General Rob Bonta advised customers to prompt 23andMe to: -- "Delete your data and destroy any samples of genetic material held by the company." Seeing as the company will continue business as usual as it restructures its finances and operations, the best thing would be to follow the advice. According to Forbes, you can delete your genetic data and account by logging into your 23andMe account. You should download any data you wish to keep and then delete the data section. When it comes to personal data, rather be safe than sorry. Check to see if you could benefit from other class action lawsuits. For more information about this settlement, you can visit Top Class Actions and get informed about how to file a claim. Disclaimer: You should not submit false or inflated claims under penalty of perjury, as class‑action claim forms historically required declarations signed "under penalty of perjury" to ensure authenticity. Submitting a fraudulent claim not only carries legal exposure -- including potential civil and criminal sanctions -- but also harms other eligible class members by diluting the available settlement pool. [GN] ACCENTURE PLC: Suit over Hotel Data Breach Ongoing -------------------------------------------------- Accenture PLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 22, 2025, that Accenture was named in a putative class action lawsuit filed by consumers of Marriott International, Inc. Marriott in the U.S. District court for the District of Maryland on July 24, 2019. The complaint alleges negligence by the company and seeks monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and other related relief, relating to a data security incident involving unauthorized access to the reservations database of Starwood Worldwide Resorts, Inc., which was acquired by Marriott on September 23, 2016. On October 27, 2020, the court issued an order largely denying Accenture's motion to dismiss the claims against the company. On May 3, 2022, the court issued an order granting in part the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, which the company is appealing. On August 17, 2023, the appeals court vacated the class certification and remanded the case to the district court for consideration of, among other things, the class action waiver signed by Starwood customer plaintiffs. On November 29, 2023, the district court reinstated the classes previously certified by the court in May 2022. The company has filed a petition to appeal. On June 3, 2025, the appeals court again reversed the class certification and declined to order another remand to the district court on those certification issues. Accenture plc is an Irish-American professional services company based in Dublin, specializing in information technology services and consulting. ADVENTIST HEALTH: Faces Khodadadi Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- JULIET KHODADADI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADVENTIST HEALTH dba GLENDALE ADVENTIST MEDICAL CENTER, a California Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV18267 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act including failure to pay wages including overtime, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest breaks, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse business expenses, and failure to accurately pay sick pay. The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendants as a surgical technician since June 1995. Adventist Health, doing business as Glendale Adventist Medical Center, is a company that operates as a hospital and medical center in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. Gregory Mauro, Esq. Michael Calvo, Esq. Lauren Falk, Esq. Ava Issary, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 387-7200 Facsimile: (949) 387-6676 Email: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com Lauren@jameshawkinsaplc.com Ava@jameshawkinsaplc.com AFLAC INC: Faces Russell Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------ PRINCESS RUSSELL, on behalf of herself individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AFLAC INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-00195-CDL (M.D. Ga., June 23, 2025) arises from a recent cyberattack resulting in a data breach of sensitive information in the possession and custody and/or control of Defendant. The data breach resulted in unauthorized disclosure, exfiltration, theft, and dissemination on the dark web of Defendant's clients' current and former employees' highly personal information, including, on information and belief, names, Social Security numbers, insurance claims information and other demographic data. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Class had their most sensitive personal information accessed, exfiltrated, and stolen, causing them to suffer ascertainable losses in the form of the loss of their privacy from having their sensitive information disseminated on the dark web and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the data breach. Accordingly, Plaintiff, on her own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, brings this lawsuit seeking injunctive relief, damages, and restitution, together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, the calculation of which will be based on information in Defendant's possession.    Aflac Incorporated is a supplemental health insurance company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Raina Borrelli, Esq.    STRAUSS BORELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N Michigan Ave, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 AFLAC INC: Fails to Protect Personal and Health Info, Rustin Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- HELEN RUSTIN, on behalf of herself individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AFLAC INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-00190-CDL (M.D. Ga., June 23, 2025) arises from the Defendant's inadequate cybersecurity policies and procedures including its failure to implement reasonable and industry standard data security practices to properly secure, safeguard, and adequately destroy Plaintiff and Class Members' sensitive personal information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. According to the complaint, the Defendant's inadequate data security allowed a targeted cyberattack by a threat actor known to target insurance carriers such as Aflac to compromise sensitive information entrusted to Defendant that, upon information and belief, contained personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and other individuals, that was compromised in a cyber incident in June 2025. The data incident was a direct result of Defendant's failure to adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect Plaintiff and Class Members' private information which it was hired and/or paid to protect, says the suit. Through this complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of herself, and all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was accessed during the data incident. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks remedies including, but not limited to, compensatory damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief including improvements to Defendant's data security systems, future annual audits, as well as long-term and adequate credit monitoring services funded by Defendant, and declaratory relief. Aflac Incorporated is a supplemental health insurance company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Benjamin Finley, Esq. N. Nickolas Jackson, Esq. THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C. 200 13th Street Columbus, GA 31901 Telephone: (706) 322-6226 Facsimile: (706) 322-6221 E-mail: bfinley@thefinleyfirm.com njackson@thefinleyfirm.com AFLAC INC: O'Connor Alleges Unauthorized Exposure of Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOHN O'CONNOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AFLAC INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-00189-CDL (M.D. Ga., June 23, 2025) arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class members' personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's information network. As a provider of insurance services, AFLAC knowingly obtains sensitive customer and employee PII and has a resulting duty to securely maintain such information in confidence. According to the complaint, AFLAC breached its duty to protect the sensitive PII entrusted to it. As such, Plaintiff brings this Class action on behalf of Plaintiff and other individuals whose PII was accessed and exposed to unauthorized third parties during a data breach of Defendant's system which was announced when AFLAC began providing electronic notices to its customers on or about June 20, 2025. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, brings claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of an implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment, seeking actual and putative damages, with attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses, and appropriate injunctive and declaratory relief. AFLAC is one of the largest providers of supplemental health insurance in the U.S. for medical expenses that are not covered by a primary provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James M. Evangelista, Esq. EVANGELISTA WORLEY, LLC 10 Glenlake Pkwy South Tower, Suite 130 Atlanta, GA 30328 Telephone: (404) 205-8400 Facsimile: (404) 205-8395 E-mail: Jim@ewlawllc.com - and - Rachele R. Byrd, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, LLP 750 B Street, Suite 1820 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 239-4599 Facsimile: (619) 234-4599 E-mail: byrd@whafh.com - and - Jon Tostrud, Esq. TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, PC 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 278-2600 Facsimile: (310) 278-2640 E-mail: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com acarter@tostrudlaw.com - and - Erik Langeland, Esq. ERIK H. LANGELAND, P.C. 733 Third Avenue, 16th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 354-6270 E-mail: elangeland@langelandlaw.com - and - James F. Woods, Esq. Annie E. Causey, Esq. WOODS LONERGAN One Grand Central Place 60 East 42nd St., Suite 1410 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 684-2500 E-mail: jwoods@woodslaw.com acausey@woodslaw.com AHOLD DELHAIZE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Begley Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ MARY BEGLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AHOLD DELHAIZE USA SERVICES, LLC; FOOD LION, LLC; and GIANT FOOD, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00546-TDS-LPA (M.D. Cal., July 1, 2025) is a class action arising out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendants between November 5 and 6, 2024, which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information and protected health information (collectively, the "Private Information") of Plaintiff and other current and former employees of Defendants, the putative class members. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Data Breach resulted from Defendants' failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' Private Information with which they were entrusted for as a condition of obtaining employment. The Defendants maintained the Private Information in a reckless manner. In particular, the Private Information was maintained on Defendants' computer network in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks. Upon information and belief, the mechanism of the Data Breach and potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was a known risk to Defendants, and thus Defendants was on notice that failing to take steps necessary to secure the Private Information from those risks left that property in a dangerous condition, says the suit. Ahold Delhaize USA Services, LLC owns and operates online non-food, drugstores, and liquor stores. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah A. Knox, Esq. HUNTER & EVERAGE, PLLC Post Office Box 25555 Charlotte, NC 28229 Telephone: (704)-377-9157 Facsimile: (704)-377-9160 Email: sak@hunter-everage.com - and - Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq. EKSM, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd, Suite 200 Houston, TX 77066 Telephone: (713) 244-6363 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 Email: jellzey@eksm.com AHOLD DELHAIZE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, LeClair Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN LECLAIR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AHOLD DELHAIZE USA SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:25-CV-578 (M.D.N.C., July 9, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard current and former employees' highly valuable personally identifiable information including names, postal and email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, government-issued identification numbers (e.g., Social Security, passport, and driver’s license numbers), financial account information and employment-related information. Accordingly, during the employment onboarding process, the Plaintiff and Class Members are required to directly or indirectly entrust Ahold with their PII, which Ahold uses in order to perform its regular employment practices. Ahold therefore knowingly collects and stores sensitive PII of its employees and former employees, and has a resulting duty to secure such information from unauthorized access and exfiltration. The Plaintiff contends that this type of personal and sensitive data is highly targeted and sought after by hackers who seek to exploit that data for nefarious purposes. In the wrong hands, these types of sensitive data may be wielded to cause significant harm to individuals including Plaintiff and the Class members. Ahold is a grocery retail brand on the East Coast, consisting of over 2,000 local brands stores, such as Food Lion, Giant, Hannaford, Stop & Shop, and The Giant Company.s[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan A. Valente, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 E-mail:teamvalente@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com - and - Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Patrick D. Donathen, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Ave., 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: gary@lcllp.com patrick@lcllp.com AIM DISTRIBUTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sielaff Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ JENNELL SIELAFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AIM DISTRIBUTION SERVICES LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00911-BHL (E.E. WI., June 27, 2025) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff Sielaff was employed by the Defendant as warehouse shipping associate. Aim Distribution Services Llc is an active carrier, broker in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. Aim Distribution Services Llc transports general freight, and more. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Agrees to Settle Antitrust Suit for $31.75MM -------------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that Align Technology has agreed to a $31.75 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims that it violated antitrust laws by entering into an agreement with SmileDirectClub to suppress competition in the direct-to-consumer dental aligner market. The SmileDirectClub class action settlement benefits individuals who purchased, paid for and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price for SmileDirectClub aligners acquired for personal use between Oct. 22, 2017, and Aug. 18, 2022. Align Technology is a medical device company that designs and manufactures the Invisalign system of clear dental aligners. SmileDirectClub is a teledentistry company that sells clear aligners to straighten teeth. Align Technology is the parent company of the Invisalign system, while SmileDirectClub sells its own aligners. According to the class action lawsuit, Align Technology entered into an anticompetitive agreement with SmileDirectClub to suppress competition in the direct-to-consumer aligner market. The plaintiffs argue that this agreement violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. Align Technology has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $31.75 million to resolve the antitrust allegations. Under the terms of the Align Technology settlement, class members can receive a cash payment. Class members who are identified in SmileDirectClub's records as purchasers will receive an automatic pro rata cash payment. Those who are not identified in these records may file a claim form for a pro rata cash payment. According to the settlement website, each class member is estimated to receive between $40 and $60 but no less than $10. Actual payment amounts may be higher or lower depending on the number of valid claims filed. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Oct. 30, 2025. The final approval hearing for the SmileDirectClub class action settlement is scheduled for Nov. 20, 2025. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Oct. 27, 2025. Who's Eligible Consumers who purchased, paid for or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price of SmileDirectClub aligners for personal use between Oct. 22, 2017, and Aug. 18, 2022. Potential Award Up to $60 Proof of Purchase N/A NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 10/27/2025 Case Name Snow v. Align Technology Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-03269-VC, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Final Hearing 11/20/2025 Settlement Website SDCAlignerSettlement.com Claims Administrator Snow v. Align Class Action Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 2830 Portland, OR 97208-2830 info@SDCAlignerSettlement.com (888) 788-8304 Class Counsel Steve W. Berman HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP Defense Counsel Karma Giulianelli Mark Levine BARTLIT BECK James Pearl Thomas Counts PAUL HASTINGS [GN] ALLSTATE FIRE: Court Partially Stays Dorazio Proceedings -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brian Dorazio, v. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 2:23-cv-00017-KML (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Krissa Lanham entered an order granting in part and denying in part the motion to stay. The Court further entered an order that: -- within 30 days of this order Allstate shall provide the plaintiff with a list of class members; -- within 45 days of this order the plaintiff shall file a proposed form of notice for approval; -- Within five days of the plaintiff filing the proposed form of notice Allstate may file its objections to the form of notice; -- no later than July 7, 2025, Allstate shall file a statement of no more than two pages identifying flaws in the proposed revisions to the class definition; -- Allstate shall file notice within three days of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals acting on Allstate's Rule 23(f) Petition; and -- the deadline for dispositive and Daubert motions will be reset after resolution of Allstate's Rule 23(f) petition. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company seeks a stay of "all further proceedings" pending resolution of its Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f) petition seeking review of the class certification order. Only a partial stay is appropriate. Allstate has not established entitlement to the complete stay it seeks because it has not shown a significant likelihood of success, that it will suffer irreparable injury, or that the public interest supports granting a stay. Despite that, allowing remaining proceedings in this case while the Rule 23(f) petition is pending would be an inefficient use of the parties' and court's resources. Even if there is only a remote chance that Allstate might prevail in its Rule 23(f) petition, a more limited stay than Allstate seeks is appropriate. Allstate must turn over class lists and the parties must prepare and file their proposed notice plan. The notice plan, however, will not be implemented until the Rule 23(f) petition is resolved. The deadlines for summary judgment motions and Daubert motions will be reset after the Rule 23(f) petition is resolved. Finally, Dorazio proposes minor changes to the class definition. Those changes appear acceptable as they do not have a substantive impact on the propriety of class certification and appear unlikely to impact the Rule 23(f) petition. Allstate is required to file a brief statement of no more than two pages identifying any flaws in the proposed changes to the class definition. Allstate offers auto, home, renters, condo, motorcycle, life, and roadside insurance services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CyJskR at no extra charge.[CC] AMAZON.COM INC: Heavy Metals' Suit Raises Risks for Rice Retailers ------------------------------------------------------------------ A recently filed class action lawsuit in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington underscores growing legal risks for retailers and distributors of rice products in the United States. Plaintiffs in Wright et al. v. Amazon.com Inc. allege that certain rice products sold through Amazon.com contain dangerously high levels of toxic heavy metals, including arsenic and cadmium, posing particular harm to young children and pregnant women. Asserting claims under Washington's Consumer Protection Act and state law fraudulent concealment, plaintiffs allege that Amazon sold certain of these rice products to an intended consumer audience that includes children and pregnant women, with no warning or disclosure on the packaging or on its point-of-sale webpage that high levels of arsenic and cadmium are associated with increased risks of bladder, lung, and skin cancers, as well as neurodevelopmental harm in early-life exposures. Plaintiffs also allege that certain information regarding the presence of heavy metals in these rice products was in the "exclusive possession" of Amazon, and that Amazon actively concealed this information from its consumers. The Wright complaint cites to widely publicized reports from Healthy Babies Bright Futures (HBBF) and to testing conducted by private research firms Brooks Applied Labs and Abt Global (formally Abt Associates), which had recently detected arsenic in 145 samples of rice purchased from grocery and retail stores across the United States (with one-fourth of those samples exceeding the FDA's limit of 100 ppb for infant rice cereal). Some of the samples that HBBF reported as containing high levels of arsenic and cadmium include well-known brands sold by Amazon, Safeway, and Whole Foods Market. Industry groups, including the USA Rice Federation, have emphasized that US-grown rice contains some of the lowest arsenic levels globally, and that the relative contribution of rice to dietary arsenic is smaller than that of fruits and vegetables collectively. However, critics, including those at HBBF, argue that because rice is a single, frequently consumed product, it may represent the most significant individual food-based source of arsenic and other heavy metals exposure in the American diet. The FDA has publicly stated that it is not possible to completely prevent arsenic or cadmium from entering the food supply. In fact, outside of the FDA's limit for infant rice cereal and the agency's general "Closer to Zero" policy aimed at reducing childhood exposure to contaminants from foods, the FDA has not set enforceable limits for arsenic or cadmium in general rice products. However, the FDA continues to monitor heavy metal levels through its Total Diet Study and can take steps to prevent products from entering, or remaining, in the US market if the agency determines that the level causes a food to be unsafe. Mayer Brown has experience in areas and industries that may be affected by ongoing litigation and regulatory action concerning heavy metals in food products, including product liability and mass torts, consumer litigation and class actions, and food and beverage law. Should you have any questions or require legal guidance, Mayer Brown's experienced team can help clients take proactive steps, including the identification of litigation risks, regulatory evaluation and risk assessment, government action and involvement, commercial engagement, evaluation of alternative options in the industry, and reputational and governance advisement. [GN] AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Class Cert Discovery in Medal Partly OK'd -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANITA MEDAL, ESTHER YOO, GAYLE HAYES, and ANTOINETEE STANIEWICZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-01975-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John H. Chun entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion re: Parties' Local Rule 37 joint submission: -- The motion is denied as moot as to the discovery requests outlined in the parties' joint submission, concerning unpurchased products. -- The motion is denied as moot as to the discovery requests outlined in the parties' joint submission, concerning safety and efficacy. -- The motion is denied as moot as to the discovery requests outlined in the parties' joint submission, concerning Amazon's document storage and retention. -- The motion is denied without prejudice as to Requests for Production Nos. 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and Interrogatory No. 20. -- The motion is granted as to the discovery requests related to information concerning putative class members (Requests for Production Nos. 3, 10 and Interrogatory No. 1), subject to an appropriate protective order. The Court agrees with the Plaintiffs that the discovery they seek is relevant to developing evidence in support of their class certification motion. As to the Plaintiffs' discovery requests concerning document storage and retention, they have withdrawn their requests without waiving their right to request such information later in the discovery process. As to the Plaintiffs' discovery requests concerning unpurchased dietary supplements and product safety, Amazon has represented that it intends to comply with the Court's June 11th Order and will provide Plaintiffs with amended, supplemental discovery responses. Given that the parties are in accord and there is no live controversy as to these issues, the Court denies the motion as moot as to these discovery requests. The Plaintiffs allege that Amazon "systematically omit[s] and/or promote[s] and sell[s]" dietary supplements in its online marketplace with structure/function claims that "lack mandatory disclaimers from product labels." They say that dietary supplements sold on Amazon "follow the identical labeling and advertising protocol -- that is they systematically lack label and package requisite disclaimers despite lack of government review and approval with respect to their efficacy and safety." Amazon operates an e-commerce marketplace and lists various products online for consumers to purchase, including dietary supplements. A copy of the Court's order dated July 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JrVIWi at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICAN INCOME: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Harris Says ------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS HARRIS, on behalf of G.H., a minor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN INCOME LIFE INSURANCE CO., Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-00262 (W.D. Tex., June 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment, in alternative. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the sensitive personal information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach reported on or about October 7, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. American Income Life Insurance Co. is a life insurance company based in Waco, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 984-0000 Facsimile: (212) 686-0114 Email: malmstrom@whafh.com - and - Kent A. Bronson, Esq. BRONSON LEGAL LLC 1216 Broadway, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (609) 255-1031 Email: bronsonlegalny@gmail.com APPLE INC: Restricts Access to Wi-Fi Calling Services, Inza Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD INZA, MICHAEL INZA, and VOIP-PAL.COM INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. APPLE INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01970 (D.D.C., June 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The case arises from the Defendants' joint implementation and enforcement of system-level restrictions that denied U.S. smartphone users access to standalone Wi-Fi Calling services. Through API restrictions, firmware manipulation, default dialer controls, and anticompetitive certification regimes, the Defendants unlawfully suppressed all standalone Wi-Fi Calling alternatives, including those developed by VoIP-Pal, while falsely convincing consumers that Wi-Fi Calling could only be available as a bundled feature of paid carrier plans. As a result, consumers are denied the ability to choose non-carrier voice alternatives that could operate over Wi-Fi or data-only networks at a fraction of the cost of bundled carrier plans. VoIP-Pal.com Inc. is a publicly traded technology company, with its principal place of business in Waco, Texas. Apple Inc. is a technology company based in Cupertino, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Travis Pittman, Esq. HOLMES, PITTMAN & HARAGUCHI, LLP 1140 3rd St. NE Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 329-3558 Email: jpittman@hphattorneys.com - and - Sean Parmenter, Esq. PARMENTER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, PLLC 1401 21st St, Suite #10724 Sacramento, CA 95811 Telephone: (925) 482-6515 Email: sean@parmenterip.com ARCADIA CARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Adams Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- MYMOREE ADAMS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARCADIA CARE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07398 (N.D. Ill., July 1, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Adams was employed by the Defendants as a certified nursing assistant. Arcadia Care, Inc. is an Illinois-based care company providing a full range of top-tier nursing services for therapy or specialized care needed. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Salas, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com msalas@flsalaw.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin Anderson, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Email: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Eq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com ARCOSA EPI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, White Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- RYAN WHITE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARCOSA EPI, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00714(W.D. Mich., June 27, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff White was employed by the Defendant as mason. ARCOSA EPI, LLC provides infrastructure-related products and solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com ARIZONA: Asks for Dismissal of Medicaid Fraud Class Action Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Camryn Sanchez of KJZZ reports that Arizona is asking a Maricopa County Superior Court judge to dismiss a class-action lawsuit filed against the state on behalf of 7,000 alleged victims of Medicaid fraud. Starting in 2019, a loophole in the state's Medicaid agency -- known as AHCCCS -- allowed bad actors to defraud the state out of an estimated $2.8 billion. Perpetrators primarily targeted Native Americans and, through the American Indian Health Program, charged AHCCCS for addiction treatment services that were never actually provided. Victims were held in fake sober living homes across the state, mainly in Maricopa County. Some claim they were given drugs, starved, forbidden from leaving and assaulted. The plaintiffs estimate 2,000 people died. The plaintiffs allege the state engaged in gross negligence by letting that happen for years. Meanwhile, the state is asking Judge John Blanchard to throw the case out without a trial. Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes and Go. Katie Hobbs first announced the fraud scheme to the public and their plans to crack down on it early in 2023. Since then, the state has passed new laws to mitigate Medicaid fraud and AHCCCS has implemented new policies. The Attorney General's Office has also prosecuted dozens of bad actors. Some investigations took place under former Gov. Doug Ducey's administration, but they've continued under Hobbs' and Mayes' leadership. The plaintiff's argument For the plaintiffs, attorney Dane Wood told the judge that AHCCCS had a duty obligating the agency to protect the individuals who were harmed in fraudulent sober living homes that made billions of dollars in taxpayer money. "This scheme required people and money, and AHCCCS knew this since 2019," Wood said in oral arguments . . . "This is not about money; this is not about anti-fraud . . . This is about people being harmed, which is exactly what happened here." Wood cited AHCCCS' own Fee-For-Service Provider Billing Manual, which states: "AHCCCS will terminate participation in the program by providing 24 hours written notice when: It is determined that the health or welfare of a member is endangered, that the provider fails to comply with federal and state laws and regulations." Wood said Medicaid doesn't just give out free money — it must be attached to regulations. "Week after week they were providing millions of dollars . . . Attached to that money is oversight," he said. And the actions AHCCCS and the state have taken in the last two years to mitigate Medicaid fraud are not enough to absolve the state of liability, Wood said. He noted that the problem is still ongoing. "They could have and should have addressed this all the way back in 2019," he said. Wood declined to comment to KJZZ after the oral argument. The state's argument Attorney Andy Gaona argued that Arizona shouldn't be liable for the harm perpetuated by criminals who defrauded AHCCCS. "The criminal conduct of providers who defrauded AHCCCS and harmed many of our State's most vulnerable people is an undeniable human tragedy," the state wrote in its motion for dismissal. "But that tragedy does not entitle Plaintiffs to set aside more than a hundred years of legal precedent and impose potentially limitless liability on the State, which did not perpetrate the criminal or tortious conduct that harmed Plaintiffs." Gaona said that just because AHCCCS provides a benefit to the public, that doesn't mean it has a duty to the harmed individuals, and he argued that although AHCCCS has the discretion to terminate providers who are causing harm, the state is not required to. Gaona highlighted the changes AHCCCS has made since the fraud started as a reasonable response. Gaona also argued that several of the plaintiffs are too late to file suit because they're time barred. Gaona said no other case has ever gone forward with the liability framework the plaintiffs are trying to establish here and accused the plaintiffs of performing mental gymnastics to attach a real degree of responsibility to the state. Gaona declined to comment to KJZZ after the oral argument. [GN] ASHLYNN MARKETING: Court Dismisses Nationwide Class Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.J., C.D., C.B., and D.F., individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. ASHLYNN MARKETING GROUP, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00311-GPC-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Gonzalo Curiel entered an order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' nationwide class claims without leave to amend and striking the Plaintiffs' nationwide class allegations. The Court denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss on all other grounds. The Court found that Plaintiffs cannot sustain a nationwide class because common issues of law do not predominate due to significant variances in the 50 states' consumer protection and fraudulent omission laws. The Plaintiffs cannot plead around this shortcoming. Accordingly, the Court denies the Plaintiffs leave to amend the consolidated class action complaint (CCAC). The Court finds that the Plaintiff D.F. has sufficiently alleged a fraudulent omission under New York law. Accordingly, the Court denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' New York's Consumer Protection from Deceptive Acts and Practices Act ("NYDAPA") and New York False Advertising Act ("NYFAA") Claims. Accordingly, the Court denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff D.F.'s common law fraudulent omission claim under New York law because Plaintiff D.F. adequately pleads that Defendant owed him a duty to disclose. The Plaintiffs bring a "class action lawsuit against the Defendant for false, misleading, deceptive, and negligent sales practices regarding its kratom powder, capsule, and liquid extract products." On Feb. 16, 2024, the Plaintiffs initiated this putative class action. On April 2, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint. On May 16, 2024, the Defendant moved to dismiss the FAC. On Sept. 20, 2024, the Court granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss in part and denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss in part. On April 2, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Class Action Complaint, individually and on behalf of three putative classes, alleging that the Defendant failed to warn consumers of the potentially addictive nature of its products, which contain dried leaves from a plant called kratom. The Plaintiffs bring a putative class action on behalf of the following three classes: "All persons nationwide who, within the applicable statute of limitations period, up to and including the date of final judgement in this action, purchased Krave Botanicals kratom products (the "Class")"; "All persons in California who, within the applicable statute of limitations period, up to and including the date of final judgment in this action, purchased Krave Botanicals kratom products (the "California Class")"; "All persons in New York who, within the applicable statute of limitations period, up to and including the date of final judgment in this action, purchased Krave Botanicals kratom products (the "New York Class")." The Defendant is "a kratom product manufacturer and distributor." A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GqqyPQ at no extra charge.[CC] ATLANTA RESTAURANT: McAdory Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- TIANKA MCADORY v. ATLANTA RESTAURANT PARTNERS, LLC; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV20236 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 9, 2025) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated aggrieved employees seeking to recover statutory minimum wage for all hours worked and for "off the clock" work under the California Labor Code. The aggrieved employees include all non- exempt, hourly employees who worked for the Defendant at their various locations/restaurants in the State of California during the relevant PAGA period. The Plaintiff started working at Atlanta Restaurant on or around 2015. The Plaintiff was classified as an hourly, non-exempt employee. Her latest rate of pay was $18.50 per hour while she worked at "Slapfish" restaurant at the LAX Airport. ATLANTA RESTAURANT PARTNERS functions within the food industry. The Company specializes in the sale of food and beverage concessionaires.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harout Messrelian, Esq. MESSRELIAN LAW INC. 101 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 1450 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 484-6531 Facsimile: (818) 956-1983; E-mail: hm@messrelianlaw.com BAREWEB INC: Lewis Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bareweb, Inc. The case is styled as Adam Lewis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bareweb, Inc., Case No. CACE25009810 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., July 2, 2025). Bareweb, Inc. -- https://www.barenecessities.com/ -- is an apparel retailer specializing in women's intimate apparel, lingerie, and swimwear.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Phone: (202) 709-5744 Fax: (866) 893-0416 Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com BARRETT BUSINESS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Aguilera Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- KARINA AGUILERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC., NATERA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 25CV126068 (Cal. Sup., Alameda Cty., June 9, 2025) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. Barrett Business Services, Inc. provides outsourced solutions addressing the costs and complexities of employment related issues for businesses. The Company provides payroll processing, employee benefits and administration, worker's compensation coverage, risk management and workplace safety programs, and human resource administration services. [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 Telephone: (818) 293-5623 Facsimile: (888) 850-1310 Email: Roman@OLFLA.com Nidah@OLFLA.com BECHTEL CORPORATION: Jones Sues to Recover Unpaid Compensation -------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BECHTEL CORPORATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-01095 (E.D. Va., July 2, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid compensation and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (the "WARN Act"). The Defendant violated the WARN Act when it terminated Plaintiff and the Class Members without providing sufficient (or any) advance written notice. The Plaintiff and the Class Members were employees of The Defendant and were terminated without cause on June 2025, as part of or as the reasonably expected consequence of a mass layoff, which was effectuated by the Defendant on or about that date. The Defendant failed to "give as much notice as practicable" of Plaintiff and the Class Members' termination. In fact, the Defendant gave no advance written notice to Plaintiff and the Class Members before it engaged in a mass layoff. In violation of the WARN Act, the Defendant failed to provide as much written notice as was practicable and also failed to provide a statement of the basis for reducing the notification period to zero days advance notice. The Defendant's failure to provide its employees with any advance written notice had a devastating economic impact on Plaintiff and the Class Members. As a consequence, Plaintiff and the Class Members are entitled to recover from the Defendant their respective compensation and benefits for 60 days, no part of which has been paid, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Bechtel in Texas during the relevant time period. Bechtel is an industrial construction company operating throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harris D. Butler, Esq. Craig J. Curwood, Esq. Zev H. Antell, Esq. Paul M. Falabella, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Phone: (804) 648-4848 Fax: (804) 237-0413 Email: harris@butlercurwood.com craig@butlercurwood.com zev@butlercurwood.com paul@butlercurwood.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Carter T. Hastings ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Phone: 361-452-1279 Facsimile: 361-452-1284 Email: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com BENQ AMERICA: Removes Naquin Suit to C.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------ The Defendant in the case of JONATHON NAQUIN, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees, Plaintiff v. BENQ AMERICA CORP.; and DOES 1 through 25, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange (Case No. 30-2025-01479226-CU-OE-CXC) to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 25, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-01371. The case is assigned to Monica Ramirez Almadani and referred to Magistrate Autumn D Spaeth. BENQ America Corp. provides visual display solutions. The Company offers projectors, monitors, and digital displays for home, corporate, education, government, house of worship, gaming, and digital signage applications. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Daniel Parker Jett, Esq. Michelle Covington, Esq. Matthew Walters, Esq. FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY, LLP 550 South Hope Street, Suite 2200 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2627 Telephone: (213) 615-7000 Facsimile: (833) 264-2083 Email: DJett@fmglaw.com Michelle.Covington@fmglaw.com Matthew.Walters@fmglaw.com BLACKBERRY LIMITED: Hearing on Settlement OK Set for July 30 ------------------------------------------------------------ BlackBerry Limited disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 25, 2025, that the parties to a March 17, 2017 putative employment class action filed against the company in the Ontario Superior court of Justice (Parker v. BlackBerry Limited) attended a pre-trial conference on December 4, 2024. At a further pretrial conference on January 24, 2025, the parties reached a settlement in principle for approximately $2.8 million or CDN $4.0 million inclusive of all fees and costs. On February 18, 2025, the parties settled the matter for CDN $4.0 million inclusive of all fees and costs, subject to Court approval. On March 10, 2025, the company paid the settlement amount into a trust held by the plaintiffs' counsel. A settlement approval hearing is scheduled for July 30, 2025. The Statement of Claim alleges that actions the company took when certain of its employees decided to accept offers of employment from Ford Motor Company of Canada amounted to a wrongful termination of the employees' employment with the company. The claim seeks (i) an unspecified quantum of statutory, contractual, or common law termination entitlements, (ii) punitive or breach of duty of good faith damages of CAD$20 million, or such other amount as the court finds appropriate, (iii) pre- and post- judgment interest, (iv) attorneys' fees and costs, and (v) such other relief as the court deems just. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify the class action on May 27, 2019. The company commenced a motion for leave to appeal the certification order on June 11, 2019. The court denied the motion for leave to appeal on September 17, 2019. The company filed its Statement of Defense on December 19, 2019. The parties participated in a mediation on November 9, 2022, which did not result in an agreement. BlackBerry Limited provides intelligent security software and services to enterprises and governments based in Canada. BNB FORMULA: Misrepresents Coaching Program, Fernandez Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- VANESSA FERNANDEZ and RYAN RODRIGUES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BNB FORMULA, LLC, AFFIRM HOLDINGS, INC., COPE AMERICAS, LLC, and TRUEACCORD CORP., Defendants, Case No. CACE-25-009400 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th Jud. Cir., Broward Cty., June 25, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and the Florida Consumers Collections Practice Act, breach of contract, promissory estoppel, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and injunctive relief. The case arises from BNB's practice of misrepresenting the services included in the purchase of its coaching program, with multiple services described as part of the program actually require an undisclosed additional fee. The Plaintiffs relied on the representations to their detriment when they decided to purchase the coaching program, with the belief they were receiving all the promised services without any additional costs or interest. As a result of BNB's unfair business practices, the Plaintiffs and the Class suffered damages. BNB Formula, LLC is a company that sells real estate investment courses, with its principal address in South Carolina. Affirm Holdings, Inc. is a financing company, with its principal address in California. Cope Americas, LLC is a payment services provider, with its principal address in Collier County, Florida. Trueaccord Corp. is a third-party collection services provider, with its principal address in Kansas. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eduardo A. Maura, Esq. M. Julia Solivan, Esq. AYALA LAW, P.A. 2490 Coral Way, Ste. 401 Miami, FL 33145 Telephone: (305) 570-2208 Email: eduardo@ayalalawpa.com jsolivan@ayalalawpa.com BORN PRIMITIVE: Lewis Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Born Primitive, LLC. The case is styled as Adam Lewis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Born Primitive, LLC, Case No. CACE25009823 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., July 2, 2025). The is stated as "Other." Born Primitive -- https://bornprimitive.com/ -- offers an extensive collection of patriot inspired workout clothing for men and women.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Phone: (202) 709-5744 Fax: (866) 893-0416 Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com BRACEABILITY INC: Lewis Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against BraceAbility, Inc. The case is styled as Adam Lewis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BraceAbility, Inc., Case No. CACE25009849 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., July 2, 2025). BraceAbility, Inc. -- https://www.braceability.com/ -- is an e-commerce website focused on providing the latest and most affordable orthopedic braces, supports, and supplies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Phone: (202) 709-5744 Fax: (866) 893-0416 Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com BRAY INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Menard Says -------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER MENARD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BRAY INTERNATIONAL INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-03192 (S.D. Tex., July 9, 2025) alleges that cybercriminals were able to breach the Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity, failed to adequately monitor its agents, contractors, vendors, and suppliers in handling and securing the personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff, and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII/PHI -- rendering it an easy target for cybercriminals. On May 13, 2025, Bray discovered it had lost control over its computer network and the highly sensitive personal information stored on its computer network in a data breach perpetrated by cybercriminals (Data Breach). The Data Breach has impacted several thousands of current and former employees.  Following an internal investigation, Defendant learned that, on as early as April 17, 2024, cybercriminals had gained unauthorized access to employees' PII and PHI, including but not limited to their names, Social Security numbers, credit card information, and medication information, says the suit. The Plaintiff is a former employee and Data Breach victim. Bray manufactures flow control and automation products and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 (fax) E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina 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 BUFFY INC: Lewis Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. -------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Buffy, Inc. The case is styled as Adam Lewis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Buffy, Inc., Case No. CACE25009842 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., July 2, 2025). Buffy -- https://buffy.co/ -- is creating natural home goods that help restore the planet.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Phone: (202) 709-5744 Fax: (866) 893-0416 Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com CARDIOLOGY ASSOCIATES: Bailey Files Suit in E.D. Virginia --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cardiology Associates of Fredericksburg, Ltd. The case is styled as Lorri Bailey, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cardiology Associates of Fredericksburg, Ltd., Case No. 3:25-cv-00489-REP (E.D. Va., June 26, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Declaratory Judgement. Cardiology Associates -- https://www.fredcardio.com/ -- focuses on delivering the highest quality of personalized service in the diagnosis and treatment of cardiovascular disease.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven T. Webster, Esq. WEBSTER BOOK LLP 2300 Wilson Blvd., Suite 728 Arlington, VA 22201 Phone: (888) 987-9991 Email: swebster@websterbook.com CAREFUSION RESOURCES: Mendez Suit Removed to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Jessica Mendez, an individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. CAREFUSION RESOURCES, LLC a Delaware Corporation; BECTON DICKINSON AND COMPANY, a New Jersey Corporation, and does 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 25CU026069C was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on July 2, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01691-TWR-MMP. The Complaint purports to assert claims against Defendants for: Failure to Pay Wages for All Hours Worked at Minimum Wage in Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages for Daily Overtime Worked and/or Failure to Pay Overtime Wages at the Proper Overtime Rate of Pay in Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Authorize or Permit Meal Periods in Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Authorize or Permit Rest Periods in Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Provide Complete and Accurate Wage Statements in Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Timely Pay All Earned Wages and Final Paychecks Due at Time of Separation of Employment in Violation of Labor Code; and Unfair Business Practices, in Violation of Business and Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Spencer C. Skeen, Esq. Eric M. Fox, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92122 Phone: 858-652-3100 Facsimile: 858-652-3101 Email: spencer.skeen@ogletree.com eric.fox@ogletree.com CARGO THERAPEUTICS: M&A Investigates Sale to Concentra Biosciences ------------------------------------------------------------------ Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2024 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. The firm is headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and is investigating CARGO Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: CRGX) related to its sale to Concentra Biosciences, LLC for $4.379 in cash per CARGO share, plus one non-transferable contingent value right, representing the right to receive: (i) 100% of the closing net cash of CARGO in excess of $217.5 million; and (ii) 80% of the net proceeds from the sale, license, or other disposition of either (a) CRG-022, a CDRR CAR T-cell therapy, or (b) CRG-023, a CD19/CD20/CD22 tri-specific CAR T therapy, or (c) the Allogeneic Platform, that occurs within 2 years following the closing. Is it a fair deal? NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] CASA TUA: Marte Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL -------------------------------------------------------------- JAVIER MARTE and ANDY MORENO : on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CASA TUA NYC, LLC, JIL JANITORIAL SERVICES & SOLUTIONS, LLC, MIKY GRENDENE, LETICIA GRENDENE, and WILKIN ALEJANDRO LEONARDO, Case No. 1:25-cv-05650 (S.D.N.Y., July 9, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law. Although Plaintiffs worked at Casa Tua, their employer was technically JIL, a staffing agency that had a contract with Casa Tua to provide workers for dishwashing and other cleaning jobs at the restaurant. Casa Tua paid JIL for the services provided by Marte and other workers, and then JIL paid the workers their wages, assert the suit. The Plaintiffs are former employees of the Corporate Defendants. The Defendants operate restaurant business.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert Wisniewski, Esq. ROBERT WISNIEWSKI P.C. 17 State Street, Suite 820 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 267-2101 CENTENE CORP: Faces Securities Suit Over Common Stock Drop ---------------------------------------------------------- BROCK LUNSTRUM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CENTENE CORPORATION, SARAH M. LONDON, and ANDREW LYNN ASHER, Case No. 1:25-cv-05659 (S.D.N.Y., July 9, 2025) is a federal securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Centene securities between Dec. 12, 2024, to June 30, 2025, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws. Accordingly, the Defendants provided investors with material information concerning Centene's expected revenue guidance and adjusted diluted EPS for fiscal year 2025. The Defendants' statements included, among other things, confidence in the Company's enrollment and morbidity rates, as well as strong retention rates in Centene's Medicare business. The Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of Centene's enrollment and morbidity rates. Investors began to question the veracity of Defendants' public statements on July 1, 2025, when Centene issued a press release withdrawing 2025 guidance. Particularly, following an analysis of the 2025 Health Insurance Marketplace, Centene's overall market growth across 22 states, or 72% of the Company's marketplace membership, was lower than expected. In pertinent part, the Company stated that this preliminary analysis resulted in a reduction of its previously issued guidance to approximately $1.8 billion or an adjusted diluted EPS of $2.75. Investors and analysts reacted immediately to Centene's revelation. The price of Centene's common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $56.65 per share on July 1, 2025, Centene's stock price fell to $33.78 per share on July 2, 2025, a decline of 40.4%, says the suit. The Plaintiff purchased Centene common stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation of the Defendants' fraud. Centene Corporation is an American for-profit healthcare company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: aapton@zlk.com CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Mendez Suit Removed to W.D. Kentucky ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Richard Wookey, for himself, and on behalf of a class of similarly-situated persons v. Charter Communications (DE) Inc. and Charter Communications Operating, LLC, Case No. 25-CI-004351 was removed from the Jefferson County Circuit Court in Louisville, Kentucky, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky on July 2, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00408-RGJ. On June 6, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint ("FAC"). The Plaintiff alleges that Charter "currently charges customers in the Louisville market a 'Broadcast TV Surcharge' of approximately $28 per month." The Plaintiff further alleges that the BTS "is not a 'pass-through fee' or mandated by any government entity" and "is actually a source of profit for Spectrum."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Steven T. Clark, Esq. STOLL KEENON OGDEN 400 West Market Street, Suite 2700 Louisville, KY 40202 Phone: (502) 568-5788 Facsimile: (502) 333-6099 Email: steven.clark@skofirm.com - and - Roman P. Wuller, Esq. Mark A. Mattingly, Esq. Nicholas T. Schnell, Esq. THOMPSON COBURN LLP One U.S. Bank Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101 Phone: (314) 552-6000 Facsimile: (314) 552-7000 Email: rwuller@thompsoncoburn.com mmattingly@thompsoncoburn.com nschnell@thompsoncoburn.com CORE SCIENTIFIC: M&A Investigates Sale to CoreWeave Inc. -------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2024 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. The firm is headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and is investigating Core Scientific, Inc. (NASDAQ: CORZ) related to its sale to CoreWeave, Inc. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, each outstanding share of Core Scientific common stock will be converted into the right to receive 0.1235 shares of CoreWeave Class A common stock. Core Scientific shareholders will own less than 10% of the combined company. Is it a fair deal? NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: RELATED NEWS: Trump signs law regulating fentanyl as a Schedule I drug, bringing harsher penalties 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] CROWN FIELD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rajbhandari Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- AADITYA RAJBHANDARI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CROWN FIELD SERVICES LLC; and SHMULIE SCHOCHET, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-03648 (E.D.N.Y., July 1, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Rajbhandari was employed by the Defendants as a facility coordinator. Crown Field Services LLC is engaged in the business of commercial facilities maintenance coordination. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Farnworth, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 CUSTOM CALIFORNIA: Mendez Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Richard Soriano, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CUSTOM CALIFORNIA CRAFT BEER, LLC doing business as GOLDEN ROAD BREWING, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV15540 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 July 2, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-06050. In his first cause of action, Plaintiff alleges that "Defendants caused Plaintiff to work hours in a workweek but did not properly compensate Plaintiff at least minimum wage for such hours." The Complaint continues that "Defendants therefore, in addition to owing minimum wages to Plaintiff also owe liquidated damages."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Spencer C. Skeen, Esq. Tim L. Johnson, Esq. Andrew J. Deddeh, Esq. Brett R. Tengberg, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92122 Phone: 858-652-3100 Facsimile: 858-652-3101 Email: spencer.skeen@ogletree.com tim.johnson@ogletree.com andrew.deddeh@ogletree.com brett.tengberg@ogletree.com DADELAND STATION: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property ------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Brito, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals v. DADELAND STATION ASSOCIATES, LTD.; BERKOWITZ DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.; HIME ENTERPRISES, LLC; SUBWAY 29366, INC., and MICHAELS STORES, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-22982-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 2, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendants' Commercial Property being inaccessible to people who are disabled. Although over 33 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendants' property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property and the businesses named herein located within the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property, and businesses named herein located within the Commercial Property, and wishes to continue his patronage and use of each of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a paraplegic (paralyzed from his T-6 vertebrae down) and requires the use of a wheelchair to ambulate. DADELAND STATION ASSOCIATES, LTD. and BERKOWITZ DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC., own, operate, manage and/or are in control of the Commercial Property, the common areas, walkways, paths of travel, and its general parking lot(s), including the parking spots specific to the businesses therein.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 553-3464 Primary Email: aquezada@lawgmp.com Secondary Email: jacosta@lawgmp.com. - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Phone: (305) 350-3103 Primary Email: rdiego@lawgmp.com Secondary Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com DENNIS YU: Filing for Class Certification in Miller Due August 7 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA T. MILLER, v. DENNIS YU, Case No. 9:25-cv-80391-DMM (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge William Matthewman entered a pretrial scheduling order and order referring case to mediation: The case is set for trial before U.S. District Judge Middlebrooks at the United States District Court, 701 Clematis Street, Second Floor, Courtroom 7, West Palm Beach, Florida, during the two-week trial period commencing Jan. 26, 2026, at 9:00 a.m., with a calendar call set for Jan. 21, 2026, at 1:15 p.m. at 701 Clematis Street, Second Floor, Courtroom 7, West Palm Beach, Florida. The parties shall adhere to the following schedule, which shall not be modified absent compelling circumstances. Any motions to modify this schedule shall be directed to the attention of U.S. District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks. July 15, 2025 Discovery Plan shall be filed. July 24, 2025 Joinder of Additional Parties and Amend Pleadings. Aug. 7, 2025 Any motions for class certification shall be filed. Aug. 21, 2025 The Plaintiff(s) shall provide opposing counsel with a written list with the names and addresses of all expert witnesses intended to be called at trial and only those expert witnesses listed shall be permitted to testify. Nov. 13, 2025 All discovery shall be completed. Dec. 29, 2025 Joint Pretrial Stipulation shall be filed. A copy of the Court's order dated July 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=n7gBff at no extra charge.[CC] DINGHY SHOP: Agnone Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------- Pasquale Agnone, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Dinghy Shop, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-03361 (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 Dinghy Shop provides to their non-disabled customers through https://www.dinghyshop.com (hereinafter "Dinghyshop.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, Dinghyshop.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 Dinghy Shop'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. Dinghy Shop provides to the public a website known as Dinghyshop.com which provides consumers with access to an array of watersports gear and accessories 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 DOYON LIMITED: Johnson Sues Over Failure to Secure Customers' Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ BRIAN JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DOYON, LIMITED, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00136 (D. Alaska, June 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach in April 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Doyon, Limited is a utility provider, headquartered in Fairbanks, Alaska. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Cooley, Esq. Katherine Elsner, Esq. EHRHARDT, ELSNER & COOLEY 215 Fidalgo Ave., Suite 201 Kenai, AK 99611 Telephone: (907) 283-2876 Email: josh@907legal.com katie@907legal.com - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. Danielle L. Perry, Esq. Lisa A. White, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 Email: gmason@masonllp.com dperry@masonllp.com lwhite@masonllp.com DRIVESMART AUTO CARE: Connor Files TCPA Suit in D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Drivesmart Auto Care Inc. The case is styled as Jay Connor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Drivesmart Auto Care Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-12171-ZNQ-JTQ (D.N.J., June 26, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. DriveSmart Auto Care -- https://drivesmart.auto/ -- is a leading provider of extended vehicle protection services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas A. Moschella, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS A. MOSCHELLA, JR. 278 Brick Blvd. Brick, NJ 08723 Phone: (732) 451-2283 Fax: (732) 475-6082 Email: jah@moschellalaw.com E.R.S. SECURITY: Lim Suit Seeks Non-Exempt Employees' Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ NOREEN LIM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. E.R.S. SECURITY ALARM SYSTEMS, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV18335 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act including failure to pay wages including overtime, failure to timely pay wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest breaks, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse business expenses, and failure to accurately pay sick pay. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt employee from approximately October 2016 through approximately November 2022. E.R.S. Security Alarm Systems, Inc. is a manufacturer of security systems, doing business in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason W. Rothman, Esq. Saima A. Gipson, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, PC 1460 Westwood Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 438-5555 Facsimile: (310) 300-1705 Email: jason@tomorrowlaw.com saima@tomorrowlaw.com ECKERT SEAMANS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Williams Says ------------------------------------------------------------ LARA WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00964 (W.D. Pa., July 8, 2025) arises out of the Defendant's recent data security incident that occurred on April 17, 2025, in which cybercriminals exploited known vulnerabilities in the Defendant's computer network systems to gain access to and steal data Defendant obtained, collected, and maintained; causing Defendant to disclose the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and Class Members to unauthorized third parties. In the ordinary course of becoming a part of the Wheeling University Alumni group current and/or former Wheeling University students ("the putative class members") are encouraged and/or are obligated to provide Wheeling University with their Private Information to obtain enrollment in the school and gain access to the Wheeler Jesuit Alumni benefits and community. The Private Information included but is not limited to the Plaintiff's and Class Member's "name and social security number," the suit says. The Plaintiff seeks remedies including, but not limited to, compensatory damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief including improvements to Defendant’s data security systems, future annual audits, and adequate credit monitoring services funded by the Defendant. Mrs. Williams and Class Members are each and all alumni of Wheeling Jesuit University. Eckert Seamans is a Pennsylvania domestic restricted professional limited liability company that offers legal services and representation for entities and individuals. As a full-service national law firm with approximately 275 lawyers across a network of 15 offices, Eckert Seamans provides its clients with proactive, solution-oriented business and litigation counsel. Wheeling University is a private accredited higher learning institution located in Wheeling, West Virginia. The alumni of Wheeling University count for more than 11,000 today.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob U. Ginsburg, Esq. KIMMEL & SILVERMAN PC 30 E. Butler Ave. Ambler, PA 19002 Telephone: (267) 468-5374 E-mail: jginsburg@creditlaw.com - and - Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. EKSM, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd. Ste 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 E-mail: lmontgomery@eksm.com EDUCATIONAL CREDIT: Kincaid Class Action Remanded to State Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHEILA KINCAID; individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, v. EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, an unknown business entity; ECMC GROUP, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-00863-TLN-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Troy L. Nunley entered an order granting stipulation to remand action to state court. The action, Eastern District of California Case No. 2:21−CV−00863−TLN−JDP, is remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, Case No. 34-2021-00295336; and in the event the Sacramento Superior Court does not enter a judgment and order granting final approval of the Parties' settlement and the Parties file a stipulation to remove the case again to this Court, the Court shall reopen the current case. On Feb. 26, 2021, the Plaintiff filed her original class action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento, Case No. 34-2021-00295336 (the “State Court Action”), asserting the following ten causes of action on a classwide basis: (1) Unpaid Overtime; (2) Unpaid Meal Period Premiums; (3) Unpaid Rest Period Premiums; (4) Unpaid Minimum Wages; (5) Final Wages Not Timely Paid; (6) Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment; (7) Non-Compliant Wage Statements; (8) Failure to Keep Requisite Payroll Records; (9) Unreimbursed Business Expenses; and (10) Violation of California Business & Professions Code sections 17200 et seq. On May 12, 2021, the Defendants removed the State Court Action to this Court. On May 20, 2022, the Parties participated in a private mediation and were unable to settle this case. On March 29, 2024, the Court certified a class in this case. Educational is a student loan guarantor for the Federal Family Education Loan Program. A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PdtZqw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. Arby Aiwazian, Esq. Tara Zabehi, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265-1020 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 E-mail: edwin@calljustice.com arby@calljustice.com tara@calljustice.com - and - Jill J. Parker, Esq. S. Emi Minne, Esq. PARKER & MINNE, LLP 700 S. Flower Street, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (310) 882-6833 Facsimile: (310) 889-0822 E-mail: jill@parkerminne.com emi@parkerminne.com The Defendants are represented by: Carla J. Hartley, Esq. DILLINGHAM & MURPHY, LLP 155 Sansome Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 397-2700 Facsimile: (415) 397-3300 E-mail: cjh@dillinghammurphy.com ccc@dillinghammurphy.com EFFORTLESS OFFICE: Russo Sues Over Failure to Protect Info ---------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPHINE RUSSO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EFFORTLESS OFFICE ENTERPRISES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01145 (D. Nev., June 25, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, violation of the Nevada Consumer Fraud Act, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach from May 9, 2024, to July 23, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Effortless Office Enterprises, LLC is an information technology (IT) services and consulting provider based in Las Vegas, Nevada. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan R. Ring, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 3100 W. Charleston Blvd., Ste. 208 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Telephone: (725) 235-9750 Email: nring@stranchlaw.com - and - Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com EISENHOWER HEALTH: Patients May be Eligible to Privacy Suit Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ema Sasic of Palm Springs Desert Sun reports that Eisenhower Health patients may be eligible to cash compensation after a settlement was reached in a class-action lawsuit against the Rancho Mirage health care provider. A class-action lawsuit against Eisenhower Health was filed in 2023 relating to alleged disclosure of patients' personal information without their consent. Plaintiffs B.K. and N.Z. alleged that Eisenhower allowed unauthorized third parties, including Meta Platforms, to intercept users' clicks, communications on, and visits to Eisenhower's website and its MyChart patient portal. The Rancho Mirage health organization denies the claims and allegations in the lawsuit, according to the settlement. The complaint B.K. and N.Z. vs. Eisenhower Medical Center was filed in United States District Court Central District of California in October 2023. On Nov. 1, 2024, the parties filed a joint notice of settlement, and a motion for preliminary approval of the class-action settlement was filed on June 4. The final approval hearing will be held at 9 a.m. Monday, Oct. 20, in Courtroom 1 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Eastern Division, located at 3470 12th St. in Riverside. The agreement states there is a settlement fund of $875,000 to pay for any cash compensation to settlement class members, among other expenses, such as taxes and court-approved attorneys' fees and costs. Eisenhower Health accused of 'disregarding' patient privacy Plaintiffs B.K. and N.Z. alleged that Eisenhower Health disregarded the privacy rights of millions of visitors to and users of its websites "by intentionally, willfully, recklessly and/or negligently failing to implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that the Users' personally identifiable information and protected health information was safeguarded." The 2023 complaint alleges that Eisenhower, without users' authorization or informed consent, installed Facebook's Meta Pixel and other third-party tracking technology on its websites and patient portal system in order to intercept and send private information to third parties, such as Facebook and/or Google. Meta Pixel is a piece of code on a website that can help businesses and companies better understand the effectiveness of their ads and the actions people take on their website, like visiting a page or adding an item to their cart, according to Meta. The complaint claims that Pixels collect users' confidential and private health information, such as details about their medical conditions, treatments, providers and appointments, and send it to Facebook without prior, informed consent. The plaintiffs allege that Eisenhower encouraged them and other class members to use various digital tools through its websites "in order to gain additional insights into its Users, improve its return on marketing dollars and, ultimately, increase its revenue. In exchange for installing the Pixels, Facebook provides (Eisenhower) with analytics about the advertisements it has placed as well as tools to target people who have visited its Web Properties." Eisenhower Health spokesperson Lee Rice said in an email that because the case is an ongoing legal matter, Eisenhower does not have additional comments beyond what is publicly available in the settlement notice. Attorneys for the plaintiffs did not respond to The Desert Sun's request for comment. The complaint alleged 14 causes of action against Eisenhower, including violations of the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act, invasion of privacy under the California constitution, breach of implied contract, negligence and others. Over the next several months, Eisenhower and the plaintiffs went back and forth on amending and repleading a number of the claims before they filed a joint notice of settlement on Nov. 1, 2024. Both sides agreed to settle the lawsuit to avoid the cost, delay and uncertainty of litigation, according to a website for the settlement. The settlement agreement filed June 4 outlined the necessary next steps that Eisenhower needed to take in order to notify class-action members of the settlement case. Members either received an email or postcard notice. Who is eligible to file a claim People who logged into Eisenhower's MyChart patient portal, submitted an online form and/or scheduled a laboratory appointment on www.eisenhowerhealth.org between Jan. 1, 2019, and May 3, 2023, are eligible to file a claim as a settlement class member. All settlement class members who submit a valid claim form will receive a pro rata share of the cash compensation, which is subject to proration. The settlement fund is $875,000, minus plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, service awards to the class representatives and administration costs. Participating members will receive payments via electronic methods or physical check. How to file a claim and by when The website www.emcwebsettlement.com has been established for class-action members to submit their claims. Members have a number of options available to them regarding this settlement: -- Submit a valid claim form: Submitting a valid claim form is the only way that you can receive cash compensation. It may be submitted online or by mail to the settlement administrator, postmarked no later than Oct. 2 -- Object to the settlement: Write to the court with reasons why you do not agree with the settlement by Sept. 2 -- Go to the final fairness hearing: You may ask the court for permission for you and/or your attorney to speak about your objection at the final approval hearing on Oct. 20 -- Opt out of the settlement: Write to the settlement administrator to provide notice that you do not wish to receive any payment, benefit from the settlement or be bound by it. This is the only option that allows you to be part of any other lawsuit against the defendant about the legal claims in this case. Do this by Sept. 2 -- Do nothing: You will not get any compensation from this settlement, and you will give rights to be part of any other lawsuit against the defendant about the legal claims in this case Those who choose to file a claim will need their claim ID to proceed. If you received an email notice, your ID is located at the very top. If you received a postcard notice, your ID is located on the front of the postcard above your name. If you cannot locate your claim ID, email info@emcwebsettlement.com. Claims by mail can be sent to the Eisenhower Medical Center Settlement Administrator at P.O. Box 3274, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 70821. When payments are expected to be issued Payments will be issued after the court grants final approval of the settlement, which is tentatively scheduled for Oct. 20, and after the time for appeals has ended and any appeals have been resolved. For more information, visit www.emcwebsettlement.com [GN] EL AL: Stock Prices Fall Due to $238.5MM Class-Action Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- ynetnews.com reports that the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange traded lower on Tuesday, July 8, with red screens across all major indices. The TA-35 was down about 1%, the TA-90 had dropped around 2%, and the TA-125 was down by approximately 1.3%. Meanwhile, El Al shares have plunged by more than 6%, following a report the airline submitted to the stock exchange regarding a request to certify a class-action lawsuit against it and eight other airlines. The lawsuit is estimated at over 800 million shekels ($238.5 million). El Al said in a statement: "The request is based on the claim that the respondent airlines are violating the 2012 Aviation Services Law (Compensation and Assistance for Flight Cancellations or Changes in Conditions), by failing to provide assistance services, as defined by the law, to eligible passengers." The group seeking certification was defined as "any customers of the respondent airlines whose flights were canceled or significantly delayed from June 13, 2025, until the date the request was submitted, and who did not receive the required assistance." The alleged damage per class member was estimated at approximately 5,500 shekels, bringing the total estimated claim against the nine airlines to about 825 million shekels. The plaintiffs did not specify how much of that amount is attributed specifically to El Al. The company stated it will review the claims and submit its response to the court. [GN] ERIE INDEMNITY: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Atta Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- LORI VAN ATTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ERIE INDEMNITY CO. and ERIE INSURANCE CO., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00878 (W.D. P.A., June 25, 2025) is a class action arises out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant, which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information and protected health information (collectively, the "Private Information") of Plaintiff and other current and former customers and/or employees of Defendant, the putative class members. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Data Breach resulted from Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' Private Information with which they were entrusted for either insurance coverage or employment or both. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information that they collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information was subjected to unauthorized access by an unknown third party and precisely what specific type of information was accessed. Erie Indemnity Company is the management company for the Erie Insurance Exchange. The Company is also involved in the property and casualty insurance business through its wholly-owned subsidiaries and through its management of Flagship City Insurance Company. Erie Indemnity sells auto, home, life, and business insurance in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob U. Ginsburg, Esq. KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, P.C. 30 E. Butler Ave. Ambler, PA 19002 Telephone: (267) 468-5374 Email: jginsburg@creditlaw.com teamkimmel@creditlaw.com - and - Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. EKSM, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd. Ste 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Email: lmontgomery@eksm.com FALLSBURG BAGELS: Faces Marcos Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------- SOCRATES RIVERA MARCOS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FALLSBURG BAGELS, LLC (d/b/a FALLSBURG BAGELS), SHLOIME PERLSTEIN, and YOCHONON KLITNICK, Case No. 1:25-cv-03498 (E.D.N.Y., June 23, 2025) is an action on behalf of the Plaintiff, and other similarly situated individuals, for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and for violations of the New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The complaint alleges the Defendants' failure to pay proper minimum and overtime wages, provide with a written wage notice, provide with an accurate wage statement, and pay on a regular weekly basis. Plaintiff Marcos was employed by Defendants as a sandwich maker at Fallsburg Bagels from approximately January 15, 2025 until on or about June 1, 2025. The Defendants own, operate, or control a kosher bakery, located in Brooklyn, New York the name "Fallsburg Bagels." [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 FAT ROSIE'S: Martinez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Bartenders -------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID MARTINEZ-AGUILAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FAT ROSIE'S OPCO, LLC and JOSE MALDONADO, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-07036 (N.D. Ill., June 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages and failure to pay wages for all hours worked in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Protection Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a bartender from December 1, 2023, to May 3, 2025. Fat Rosie's OPCO, LLC is a restaurant owner and operator doing business in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon A. Thomas, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BRANDAN A. THOMAS 1 Glenlake Parkway, N.E., Suite 650 Atlanta, GA, 30328 Telephone: (678) 862-9344 Email: brandon@overtimelaimslawyer.com FERGUSON ENTERPRISES: CMC in Bozzini Suit Continued to Sept. 18 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERA BOZZINI and ADRIAN GONZALES, individually and representative of a Putative Class of Participants and Beneficiaries, on behalf of the FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, LLC, 40l(K) RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN f/k/a FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC, 401 (K) RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN, v. FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, LLC, f/k/a FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC.; RETIREMENT PLAN COMMITTEE OF FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, LLC 40l(K) RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN; AND DOES 1-50, Case No. 3:22-cv-05667-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin entered an order as follows: 1. The July 9, 2025 deadline for the Parties' Case Management Statement is continued to Sept. 11, 2025, at 12 p.m.; 2. The July 16, 2025, Case Management Conference is continued to Sept. 18, 2025 at 10 a.m. Ferguson is a wholesale distributor and supplier of plumbing products. A copy of the Court's order dated July 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hheavr at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James Alan Clark, Esq. Renee Parras Ortega, Esq. TOWER LEGAL GROUP, P.C. 11335 Gold Express Drive, Suite 105 Gold River, CA 95670 Telephone: (916) 361-6009 Facsimile: (916) 361-6019 E-mail: james.clark@towerlegalgroup.com renee.ortega@towerlegalgroup.com - and - Paul Sharman, Esq. THE SHARMAN LAW FIRM LLC 11175 Cicero Drive, Suite 100 Alpharetta, GA 30022 Telephone: (678) 242-5297 E-mail: paul@sharman-law.com - and - Peter A. Muhic, Esq. MUHIC LAW LLC 923 Haddonfield Rd, Ste 300 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Telephone: (856) 242-1802 E-mail: peter@muhiclaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Andrew W. Russell, Esq. Heidi E. Siegmund, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS, LLP 1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-1501 Telephone: (310) 315-8200 Facsimile: (310) 315-8210 E-mail: arussell@mcguirewoods.com hsiegmund@mcguirewoods.com FIRELANDS REGIONAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Blevins Says ----------------------------------------------------------- SUZANNE BLEVINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIRELANDS REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER d/b/a FIRELANDSHEALTH (N.D. Ohio, June 25, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Blevins was employed by the Defendant as a direct care patient facing employee. Firelands Regional Medical Center provides healthcare services. The Company offers behavioral health, breast care, dialysis, digestive health, pulmonary and pain relief, endocrine and diabetic, and wound care services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel I. Bryant, Esq. BRYANT LEGAL, LLC 4400 N. High St., Suite 310 Columbus, OH 43214 Telephone: (614) 704-0546 Facsimile: (614) 573-9826 Email: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com - and - Esther E. Bryant, Esq. BRYANT LEGAL, LLC 3450 W Central Ave., Suite 370 Toledo, OH 43606 Telephone: (419) 824-4439 Facsimile: (419) 932-6719 Email: Ebryant@bryantlegalllc.com - and - Ryan A. Winters, Esq. Joseph F. Scott, Esq. Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC Telephone: (216) 912-2221 Facsimile: (440) 846-1625 11925 Pearl Rd., Suite 308 Strongsville, OH 44136 Email: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com FLORIDA LEAK: Etayem Sues Over Unpaid OT & Retaliatory Discharge ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANAS ETAYEM and CHRISTOPHER MANNING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLORIDA LEAK DETECTION COMPANY, LLC, d/b/a JOHN'S PLUMBING, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-61272 (S.D. Fla., June 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages and retaliatory discharge in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Florida Leak Detection Company, LLC, doing business as John's Plumbing, is a leak detection company based in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan S. Minick, Esq. JONATHAN S. MINICK, PA 169 E. Flagler St., Suite 1600 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (786) 441-8909 Facsimile: (786) 523-0610 FLORIDA: Wild Sues Over Lack of Appointment Facilities ------------------------------------------------------ ALEXANDRA R. WILD, a minor, by and through JENNIFER T. SASSONE, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES; MIAMI DADE COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR; and BROWARD COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR, Defendant, Case No. CACE-25-0093 70 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., June 25, 2025) alleges that the Plaintiff and the Class were forced to wait in unreasonably long lines or to camp out overnight at the Defendants' facilities due to appointment shortages and appointment scalping. Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles provides oversight and services in partnership with the various 67 Florida county tax collectors for the issuance of driver licenses. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Pizzo, Esq. 6625 Miami Lakes Drive-Suite 316 Miami Lakes, FL 33014 Telephone: (786) 594-3948 Email: mpizzi@pizzilaw.com FORD MOTOR: Benson Sues Over Defective Ford Vehicles ---------------------------------------------------- EDWARD BENSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY; and CAMEL GROUP (USA) BATTERY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-11980-SJM-DRG (S.D. Pa., July 1, 2025) is an action seeking to remedy various violations of law in connection with Defendants' manufacturing, marketing, advertising, selling, warranting, and servicing of 1) 2021-2023 Ford Bronco Sport; or 2) 2022-2023 Ford Maverick ("Class Vehicles") equipped with a 12-volt battery powered by Camel Group Battery ("Class Batteries"). According to the complaint, the Class Vehicles have malfunctions regarding their batteries. Specifically, the defective 12-volt batteries (manufactured by Camel Group Battery of China), have an internal weld and cast-on-strap susceptible to failure which could cause sudden power loss and stalling, says the suit. Ford Motor Company designs, manufactures, and services cars and trucks. The Company also provides vehicle-related financing, leasing, and insurance through its subsidiary. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stuart A. Carpey, Esq. CARPEY LAW, P.C. 600 W. Germantown Pike, Suite 400 Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 Telephone: (610) 834-6030 Email: scarpey@carpeylaw.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com GEICO CASUALTY: Flack Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Margaret Flack, as personal representative of the Estate of Edward Cooper, on behalf of the Estate and all others similarly situated v. GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, Case No. 01-CV-2025-902112.00 was removed from the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on July 2, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01064-JHE. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts two counts against Defendant: breach of contract and bad faith insurance practices. The Plaintiff's claims stem from allegations that Defendant refused "to pay mandatory costs incurred in the replacement of a total loss vehicle such as Sales Tax, Ad Valorem Tax and Regulatory Fees (collectively, the "Purchasing Fees") for total loss vehicles."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: J. David Moore, Esq. JONES WALKER LLP 420 20th Street North, Suite 1100 Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: (205) 244-5287 Email: dmoore@joneswalker.com GLOBAL BLOOD: Oxbryta Settlement Discussions Set for Sept. 2025 --------------------------------------------------------------- Irvin Jackson of About Lawsuits, reports that a federal judge has appointed a mediator to oversee negotiations in an Oxbryta class action lawsuit, in hopes of the parties reaching a settlement agreement to resolve claims over the recalled sickle cell disease treatment before trial gets underway in August 2027. Oxbryta (voxelotor) was first introduced by Global Blood Therapeutics in late 2019, after the medication was granted accelerated approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Oxbryta was promoted as the first drug to treat the root cause of sickle cell disease, by improving hemoglobin levels in the body and helping the blood cells retain more oxygen. Pfizer subsequently acquired Global Blood Therapeutics for $5.4 billion in 2022, and continued to promote the treatment as safe and effective. However, following a large number of reports involving users experiencing painful sickle cell complications and deaths due to vaso-occlusive crises (VOC), Pfizer announced a global Oxbryta recall in September 2024, acknowledging that the risks associated with the treatment outweigh any potential benefits. VOCs occur when the red blood cells block blood flow, and the tissues become deprived of oxygen. This can cause an inflammatory response, which can lead to symptoms like pain in the chest, back and limbs, as well as fever. Patients often have to be hospitalized and can suffer kidney failure and stroke. Additionally, many patients die following a vaso-occlusive event. The Oxbryta class action lawsuit was filed in December 2024, seeking damages for former users who were prescribed the treatment since November 1, 2019. In the intervening months, several other Oxbryta lawsuits have been filed by individuals who experienced severe side effects from the recalled drug, but the class action claim seeks damages even for those who have not been injured, claiming that the manufacturers placed a desire for profits over the health and welfare of those with sickle cell disease. U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson has been assigned to oversee the litigation and scheduled an early trial date in the Oxbryta lawsuit, indicating that the class action claims will go before a jury on August 16, 2027. Following a case management conference held on June 26, Judge Thompson issued a court order (PDF) appointing retired Judge Philip S. Gutierrez to serve as a mediator in the claim, and ordered the parties to begin Oxbryta settlement talks on September 9, 2025. According to a joint statement (PDF) submitted by the parties on June 18, the litigation is still in its early stages, with no discovery process having yet begun. There are at least three similar Oxbryta lawsuits filed in various federal courts, and eight complaints pending in California state court, according to lawyers involved in the class action. The Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on a pending motion to dismiss filed by Pfizer. The drug maker maintains that the complaint lacks sufficient factual detail to support allegations of fraud, breach of warranty and deceptive marketing, and that it does not meet the legal standards required to proceed under federal rules. [GN] GROVE CITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Zirkle Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- AMANDA ZIRKLE, individually and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GROVE CITY PA OPCO, LLC d/b/a ORCHARD MANOR NURSING and REHABILITATION, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00899 (W.D. P.A., June 27, 2025) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Grove City PA OPCO, LLC d/b/a ORCHARD MANOR NURSING and Rehabilitation provides non-acute medical and skilled nursing care services, therapy and social services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lori M. Griffin, Esq. Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC The Heritage Building, Suite 250 34555 Chagrin Boulevard Moreland Hills, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 696-5000 Facsimile: (216) 696-7005 Email: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com GUACA-MOLE-TEXMEX-MIM: Herrera Sues Over Disability Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------------ Oscar Herrera, on behalf of others similarly situated v. GUACA-MOLE-TEXMEX-MIM LLC, d/b/a GUACA-MOLE, a Florida limited liability company, Case No. 1:25-cv-22974-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 2, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant owns, controls, maintains, and/or operates an adjunct website, https://guaca-mole-texmex.com (the "Website"). One of the functions of the Website is to provide the public information on the locations of Defendant's physical restaurants. The Website also sells to the public its food and beverage products and thus acts as a critical point of sale and ordering for Defendant's food and beverage products that are made in and also available for purchase in and from Defendant's physical restaurants. In addition, the Website allows users to arrange in restaurant pickup of Defendant's food and beverages ordered online and sign up for an emailer/newsletter to receive exclusive offers, benefits, promotions, invitations, and discounts for use online and in the physical restaurants. The Plaintiff utilizes available screen reader software that allows individuals who are blind and visually disabled to communicate with company websites. However, 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. These access barriers, one or more of which were experienced by Plaintiff, are severe and pervasive and, as confirmed by Plaintiff's expert, include the following (with reference to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines ("WCAG"), says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been a blind and visually disabled person who has been medically diagnosed with complete blindness as a result of trauma to both eyes. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls four restaurants selling food and beverage products, including the restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rodenck V. Hannah, Esq. RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A. 4800 N. Hiatus Road Sunrise, FL 33351 Phone: 954/362-3800 Facsimile: 954/362-3779 Email: rhannah@rhannahlaw.com - and - Pelayo Duran, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO 6355 NW. 36th Street, Suite 307 Virginia Gardens, FL 33166 Phone: 305/266-9780 Facsimile: 305/269-8311 Email: duranandassociates@gmail.com HENKEL US: Carroll Suit Moved to N.D. New York ---------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled JUSTIN CARROLL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HENKEL US OPERATIONS CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00402, was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York on June 25, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:25-cv-06334-EAW to the proceeding. The Case is assigned to the Hon. Elizabeth A. Wolford. Henkel US Operations Corp manufactures adhesives, sealants, and cleaners. The Company offers laundry detergents, fabric softeners, dishwashing products, toothpaste, deodorants, soaps, adhesives, pastes, coatings, and lubricants. Henkel serves the automotive, electronics, energy, furniture, and building and construction industries worldwide. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Troy L. Kessler, Esq. Garrett Kaske, Esq. KESSLER MATURA P.C. 534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 499-9100 Email: tkessler@kesslermatura.com gkaske@kesslermatura.com - and - Raphael Katri, Esq. Law Offices of Raphael A. Katri 8549 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 940-2034 Email: rkatri@gmail.com HIMS & HERS: Artificially Inflated Stock Price, Sookdeo Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL SOOKDEO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HIMS & HERS HEALTH, INC., ANDREW DUDUM, and OLUYEMI OKUPE, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-05315 (N.D. Cal., June 25, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Hims' business, operations, and prospects in order to trade Hims securities at artificially inflated prices between April 29, 2025, and June 22, 2025. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Hims was engaged in the "deceptive promotion and selling of illegitimate, knockoff versions of Wegovy that put patient safety at risk;" (2) as a result, there was a substantial risk that the company's collaboration with Novo Nordisk would be terminated; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants' positive statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the truth emerged, the company's share price fell $22.24, or 34.6 percent, to close at $41.98 per share on June 23, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the company's securities, the Plaintiff and Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Hims & Hers Health, Inc. is a company that operates a telehealth platform, with its principal executive offices located in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 Email: clinehan@glancylaw.com - and - Frank R. Cruz, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 914-5007 HIMS & HERS: Yaghsizian Sues Over Decline of Common Stock Price --------------------------------------------------------------- ARA YAGHSIZIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HIMS & HERS HEALTH, INC., ANDREW DUDUM, and OLUYEMI OKUPE, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-05321 (N.D. Cal., June 25, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Hims' business, operations, and prospects in order to trade Hims securities at artificially inflated prices between April 29, 2025, and June 23, 2025. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: the communication between Hims and the pharmaceutical company Novo Nordisk A/S (Novo) would facilitate a long-term collaboration that would ensure continued access to the weight-loss drug Wegovy for Hims subscribers; (2) Novo approved of Hims' offerings of compounded semaglutide products under the "personalization" exception; (3) branded Wegovy would be offered alongside compounded semaglutide options on the Hims platform, thereby expanding user choice; and (4) the Defendants made positive statements about the Novo partnership and Hims users' ongoing access to Wegovy alongside compounded semaglutide products. When the truth emerged, the price of Hims common stock declined by $22.24 per share, or over 34 percent, from $64.22 per share on June 20, 2025, to close at $41.98 per share on June 23, 2025. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the company's securities, the Plaintiff and Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Hims & Hers Health, Inc. is a company that operates a telehealth platform, with its principal executive offices located in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob A. Walker, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 400 Concar Drive San Mateo, CA 94402 Telephone: (650) 781-0025 Email: jake@blockleviton.com HOMEOWNER SOLUTION: Griffin Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Michigan ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Homeowner Solution Pros Inc. The case is styled as Sherri Griffin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Homeowner Solution Pros Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-00712 (W.D. Mich., June 26, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Homeowner Solution Pros Inc. offers to assist homeowners and contractors settle insurance claims, close jobs, settle claims, and assist with getting there work done.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com INDEPENDENCE CORRUGATED: Howard Sues Over Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------- Deyvionta Howard, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. INDEPENDENCE CORRUGATED, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00941-JPS (E.D. Wis., July 2, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws ("WWPCL") for unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid straight time (regular) and/or agreed upon wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem appropriate. The Defendant operated an unlawful compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate Plaintiff and all other current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours worked and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, by: shaving time (via electronic timeclock rounding) from Plaintiff's and all other hourly-paid, non-exempt employees' weekly timesheets for pre-shift and post shift hours worked and/or work performed, to the detriment of said employees and to the benefit of Defendant, in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL; and failing to include all forms of non-discretionary compensation, such as monetary bonuses, incentives, awards, and/or other rewards and payments, in said employees' regular rates of pay for overtime calculation purposes, in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee in the position of Operator on March 3, 2025. The Defendant is a manufacturer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Phone: (262) 780-1953 Fax: (262) 565-6469 Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com INFINITUM MEDIA: Faces Lipkin Class Suit Over Telemarketing Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALANA LIPKIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INFINITUM MEDIA LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-11950-PBS (D. Mass., July 9, 2025) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Accordingly, the Defendant made multiple telemarketing calls to the Plaintiff's personal cellular telephone for the purpose of selling solar energy products to Plaintiff. The Defendant made these calls despite Plaintiff having registered her telephone number on the national do-not-call registry more than 20 years ago on December 14, 2004. The Defendant was particularly reckless because Plaintiff told the callers she was not interested in their solicitations, but the calls continued regardless. The Defendant is a for-profit business that operates a full-stack lead generation & appointment setting solutions company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel D. Smith, Esq. Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. Brittany S. Scott, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 867 Boylston Street, 5th Floor, Ste. 1520 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 377-7404 E-Mail: joel@skclassactions.com yeremey@skclassactions.com brittany@skclassactions.com INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTH: Class Cert Bid Filing Due March 2, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KERRI SHEEHY, DEAN BEACOM, and TAYLOR ARCHULETA, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTH CARE, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00914-RMR-SBP (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Susan B. Prose entered a scheduling order as follows: The Parties agree to exchange initial disclosures on or before July 3, 2025. The deadline for joinder of parties and amendment of pleadings: Aug. 29, 2025. Discovery Cut-off: Jan. 19, 2026. The Plaintiffs will file their motion for class certification on or before March 2, 2026. The parties shall designate all experts and provide opposing counsel and any pro se parties with all information specified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) on or before Nov. 17, 2025. The parties shall designate all rebuttal experts and provide opposing counsel and any pro se party with all information specified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) on or before Dec. 15, 2025. The case arises from Defendant's employment of Plaintiffs and others similarly situated ("others") in the Defendant's four hospitals and multiple other facilities in Colorado. In addition, the Plaintiff Kerri Sheehy asserts individual claims arising from unequal payment based on sex for substantially similar work. The Plaintiff Kerri Sheehy has been employed by a hospital that is part of the Defendant's health system as an hourly nurse since June 2022 through the present and is domiciled in Colorado. The Plaintiff Dean Beacom has been employed by a hospital that is part of the Defendant's health system as an hourly nurse since approximately 2011 through the present and is domiciled in Colorado. Intermountain operates as a hospital. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gBb4jr at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew H. Turner, Esq. MILSTEIN TURNER, PLLC 1490 Lafayette St. #304 Denver, CO. 80218 Telephone: (303) 305-8230 E-mail: andrew@milsteinturner.com - and - Laura B. Wolf, Esq. SPARK JUSTICE LAW LLC 3435 S. Inca Street, Suite C-113 Englewood, CO 80110 Telephone: (303) 802-5390 Facsimile: (303) 848-3003 E-mail: laura@spark-law.com The Defendant is represented by: Rebecca M. Lindell, Esq. Jason N.W. Plowman, Esq. OGLETREE DEAKINS 2000 South Colorado Boulevard Tower Three, Suite 900 Denver, CO 80222 Telephone: (303) 764-6800 Facsimile: (303) 831-9246 E-mail: rebecca.lindell@ogletree.com jason.plowman@ogletree.com IROBOT CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due September 5 ---------------------------------------------------------------- A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against iRobot Corporation ("iRobot" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: IRBT). The lawsuit alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse information about iRobot's business, operations, and prospects, including allegations that: (i) iRobot overstated the extent to which the Restructuring Plan would help the Company maintain stability after the termination of the Amazon Acquisition; (ii) as a result, it was unlikely that iRobot would be able to profitably operate as a standalone company; and (iii) accordingly, there was substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern. If you purchased shares of iRobot between January 29, 2024 and March 11, 2025, and experienced a significant loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832, or by visiting the firm's website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/irobot/ for more information. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is September 5, 2025. Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law firm for 2021, 2022, and 2023, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content. CONTACT: Corey Holzer, Esq. (888) 508-6832 (toll-free) cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN] JEN-COAT INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Burton Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ AARON BURTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JEN-COAT, INC.; and PROAMPAC INTERMEDIATE, INC. Case No. 25-cv-898 (E.D. WI, June 25, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Burton was employed by the Defendants as a operator. Jen-Coat, Inc. doing business as Prolamina, provides specialty coating and laminating products. The Company manufactures and supplies extrusion coated and laminated, metallized, and adhesive laminated packaging structures for food packaging, health care, and industrial markets. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. James A. Walcheske, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-Mail: sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com JP BODEN: Advertises Fake Prices and Discounts, Rodriguez Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- REBEKA RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JP BODEN & CO. LTD, a foreign business corporation, d/b/a WWW.BODEN.COM, Defendant, Case No. 25CU033388C (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., June 25, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of California Business and Professions Code and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of advertising fictitious regular prices and corresponding phantom discount on products sold through its website, www.boden.com. According to the complaint, the Defendant is fabricating a fake "reference price," and presenting the actual price as "discounted," when it is not. As a result of the Defendant's illegal practice, the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers suffered damages. JP Boden & Co. Ltd is an online retailer that sells products nationwide and in California. [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 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com KENZI WANG: Reassignment Order Setting CMC Entered in INI Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as INTERDATA NETWORK, INC., et al., v. KENZI WANG, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-03798-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge James Donato entered a reassignment order setting Case Management Conference (CMC) to August 21, 2025. Kenzi is an entrepreneur and investor. A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XGbkB0 at no extra charge.[CC] KLC CLEANING: Faces Gonzalez Suit Over Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------ JUAN CARLOS NUNEZ GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KLC CLEANING PRO SERVICES LLC, MUROD KADIROV, DAVRON SAYDAHMEDOV, and LASZLO KISS, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-12026 (D.N.J., June 23, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Maryland Wage and Hour Law. According to the complaint, Defendant KLC Cleaning regularly requires hourly workers to work more than 40 hours per week but are paid a fixed sum of compensation per day, regardless of the precise number of hours worked. Specifically, the Defendants failed to pay overtime at time and a half the employee's regular rate as required by the FLSA for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Plaintiff Gonzalez resides in Camden County, New Jersey, and was hired by the Defendants to clean the Wegmans supermarket from approximately February 2024 to the present. KLC Cleaning provides cleaning services to commercial clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Goodman, Esq. Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq. Samuel H. Datlof, Esq. WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON 1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 656-3600 E-mail: lgoodman@wwdlaw.com rhancock@wwdlaw.com sdatlof@wwdlaw.com - and - Kate Brown, Esq. SOLOW, HARTNETT & GALVAN 1601 Walnut Street, Suite 1200 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 330-5244 E-mail: kate@shglawpa.com KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Hamilton Bid for Class Cert Partly OK'd -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BENNIE HAMILTON, ANTHONY KILLION, KRISTOPHER KACZANOWSKI, LEROY COKER, DARRELL BROWN, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons, and the general public, v. KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION, INC. dba Arizona Knight Transportation Inc.; KNIGHT PORT SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 5:21-cv-01859-MEMF-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration regarding order granting in part motion for class certification and granting request for judicial notice. The Court will issue an amended order granting in part motion for class certification and granting request for judicial notice, appointing Nathan & Associates, APC as class counsel along with Righetti Glugoski, P.C. The Plaintiffs' ex parte application to shorten time is denied as moot. Knight is a truckload carrier offering dry van, refrigerated, intermodal and brokerage services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=by00Nw at no extra charge.[CC] KRISPY KREME: Fails to Protect Highly Sensitive Data, Schug Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- SEBASTIAN SCHUG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KRISPY KREME DOUGHNUT CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00439 (W.D.N.C., June 23, 2025) is a class action arising from Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information and protected health information about its current and former employees. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. On information and belief, cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class' PII/PHI. In short, Defendant's failures placed the Class' PII/PHI in a vulnerable position -- rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the suit. The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim, having received a breach notice. He brings this class action on behalf of himself, and all others harmed by Defendant's misconduct. Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corporation is a corporation that produces and sells doughnuts and related food products throughout the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Wilkerson, Esq. WILKERSON JUSTUS PLLC P.O. Box 54 Asheville, NC 28804 Telephone: (828) 316-6902 E-mail: dwilkerson@wilkersonjustus.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 KRISPY KREME: Mullins Files Suit Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------- ROBERT MULLINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KRISPY KREME DOUGHNUT CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00444 (W.D.N.C., June 23, 2025) seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it caused Plaintiff and similarly situated persons in the preventable data breach of Defendant's inadequately protected computer network. As part of its business, the Defendant obtained and stored the personal information of Plaintiff and Class members. By taking possession and control of Plaintiff's and Class members' personal information, Defendant assumed a duty to securely store and protect it. The Defendant breached this duty and betrayed the trust of Plaintiff and Class members by failing to properly safeguard and protect their personal information, thus enabling cybercriminals to access, acquire, appropriate, compromise, disclose, encumber, exfiltrate, release, steal, misuse, and/or view it. Due to Defendant's negligence and failures, cyber criminals obtained and now possess everything they need to commit personal identity theft and wreak havoc on the financial and personal lives of thousands of individuals, for decades to come. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of the Class and seeks actual damages and restitution. The Plaintiff also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, including significant improvements to Defendant's data security systems and protocols, future annual audits, the Defendant-funded long-term credit monitoring services, and other remedies as the Court sees necessary and proper. Krispy Kreme is a multinational doughnut and coffee-house restaurant chain. In 2024, Krispy Kreme reported $1.67 billion in net revenue.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana Smith, Esq. Tyler J. Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com - and - A. Brooke Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Will Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Telephone: (405) 389-4989 E-mail: abm@murphylegalfirm.com LA JAMOTECA INC: Herrera Sues Over Disability Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------ Oscar Herrera, on behalf of others similarly situated v. LA JAMOTECA INC., a Florida for-profit corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-22961-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 2, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant owns, controls, maintains, and/or operates an adjunct website, https://www.lajamoteca.com (the "Website"). One of the functions of the Website is to provide the public information on the locations of Defendant's physical stores. Defendant also sells to the public its merchandise through the Website, which acts as a critical point of sale for Defendant's merchandise also available for purchase in, from, and through Defendant's physical stores. In addition, the Website allows the public to arrange in-store pickup and return and from-store delivery of merchandise purchased online and sign up for an emailer account to receive exclusive offers, coupons, promotions, benefits, invitations, and discounts for use both online and in the physical stores. The Plaintiff utilizes available screen reader software that allows individuals who are blind and visually disabled to communicate with company websites. However, 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. These access barriers, one or more of which were experienced by Plaintiff, are severe and pervasive and, as confirmed by Plaintiff's expert, include the following (with reference to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines ("WCAG"), says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been a blind and visually disabled person who has been medically diagnosed with complete blindness as a result of trauma to both eyes. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls two retail stores selling gourmet products, including the store Plaintiff intended to patronize in the near future located at 359 Miracle Mile, Coral Gables, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rodenck V. Hannah, Esq. RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A. 4800 N. Hiatus Road Sunrise, FL 33351 Phone: 954/362-3800 Facsimile: 954/362-3779 Email: rhannah@rhannahlaw.com - and - Pelayo Duran, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO 6355 NW. 36th Street, Suite 307 Virginia Gardens, FL 33166 Phone: 305/266-9780 Facsimile: 305/269-8311 Email: duranandassociates@gmail.com LEGALSHIELD LEGAL: Hunter Suit Removed to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Wesley Hunter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LEGALSHIELD LEGAL SERVICES, INC, DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 25CV122162 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on June 27, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-05399-LJC. In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts the following 11 causes of action against Defendant, both individually and on behalf of purportedly similarly situated individuals: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Timely Pay Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Unlawful Deduction of Wages; Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses; Failure to Maintain Time and Payroll Records; Failure to Provide Accurate Wage and Itemized Statements; Failure to Timely Pay All Wages Due Upon Separation from Employment; and Violations of the California Business and Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Adam R. Rosenthal, Esq. Luke J. Bickel, Esq. Hallie Aylesworth, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations 12275 El Camino Real, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92130-4092 Phone: 858.720.8900 Facsimile: 858.509.3691 Email: arosenthal@sheppardmullin.com lbickel@sheppardmullin.com haylesworth@sheppardmullin.com LEMONADE INC: Klein Sues Over Invasion of Privacy ------------------------------------------------- Gregory Klein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LEMONADE, INC., a Delaware corporation, and LEMONADE INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC, a New York limited liability company, Case No. 1:25-cv-05490 (S.D.N.Y., July 2, 2025), is brought against the Defendants' violation of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) for negligence and invasion of privacy regarding the Plaintiff's driver's license numbers and other PI obtained by Defendants. Despite knowing that driver's license numbers can only be used and disclosed for specific enumerated purposes, Defendants knowingly and willfully designed and implemented a feature on their Quote Platform through which an individual's driver's license number would auto populate in the Quote Platform or otherwise become viewable by the public. This was possible after only a bare minimum of publicly available information was entered about an individual (i.e., name, address, etc.). And the auto-populated driver's license number was then visible to users of Defendants' Quote Platform, despite the fact that such users had no permissible purpose to access or view driver's license numbers and Defendants made no attempt to verify that those auto populated driver's license numbers were shown to only the individuals to whom they belonged. By knowingly and intentionally designing and implementing the auto population feature on their Quote Platform, Defendants knowingly and intentionally obtained, used, and disclosed Plaintiff's and Class Members' driver's license numbers (and other PI) on their Quote Platform. Defendants' decision made driver's license numbers and other PI easily accessible to anyone who entered a prospective customer's basic information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was sent a letter by Lemonade in April 2025, informing Plaintiff that Lemonade disclosed Plaintiff's driver's license number to unauthorized third parties through Lemonade's Quote Platform. The Defendants are a provider of private passenger automobile insurance policies (among other types of insurance policies) and offer coverages to automobile insureds throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa R. Clark, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 521 5th Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Phone: (917) 336-0171 Facsimile: (917) 336-0177 Email: mclark@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 Email: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Alyssa Brown, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Phone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 Email: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com abrown@ahdootwolfson.com LINQTO INC: Faces Maxwell Suit Over Deceptive Marketing Scheme -------------------------------------------------------------- Lori Raffa Maxwell and Anthony Deluccia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. William Sarris, Case No. 1:25-cv-05643 (S.D.N.Y., July 9, 2025) is a class action against Defendant Sarris, the founder and former CEO of Linqto, Inc., alleging his involvement in a deceptive marketing scheme by lowering the minimum investment thresholds thus capitalizing and leveraging XRP holders' loyalty and desire to own Ripple shares. During the Class Period, Sarris made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business operations, the availability of SPV shares related to the Ripple series, Linqto's financial condition, and compliance practices. Sarris orchestrated a scheme of rewarding accredited investors with Linqto Bucks and/or XRP air drops from his personal Uphold Account, reducing the costs of SPV unit shares for accredited investors while using fraudulent and deceptive marketing, creating FOMO by claiming very limited Ripple series availability, and causing non-accredited investors to pay even higher mark-ups. This action is brought solely against Sarris in his individual capacity for his personal fraudulent conduct and intentional violations, independent of Linqto's corporate actions. The Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, rescission, and disgorgement for Sarris's violations, which affected both accredited and non-accredited investors who relied on his misrepresentations and omissions. In sum, Sarris made millions while innocent investors have or will experience significant financial harm, asserts the suit. Linqto, Inc. is a financial technology online platform[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John E. Deaton, Esq. DEATON LAW FIRM LLC 450 North Broadway East Providence, R[ 02914 Telephone: (401) 351-6400 E-mail: all-deaton@deatonlawfirm.com LOVING ARMS: Ware Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Caregivers ----------------------------------------------------------------- GERALDINE WARE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOVING ARMS LLC and APRIL WEBSTER, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01156 (W.D. Tenn., June 25, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and for breach of contract under Tennessee state law. The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid caregiver. Loving Arms LLC is a home care services provider, with its principal office in Jackson, Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq. Joshua Autry, Esq. Cooper Mays, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 Email: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com jautry@jsyc.com cmays@jsyc.com LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Sept. 16 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDON GRAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA INC. d/b/a LENSCRAFTERS, Case No. 8:24-cv-00160-MRA-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Monica Ramirez Almadani entered an order granting stipulation regarding first request to extend the pre-trial scheduling order as follows: 1. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be due on Sept. 16, 2025. 2. Class certification expert disclosures (initial) shall be due on Sept. 16, 2025. 3. The Defendant's opposition to class certification shall be due on Nov. 15, 2025. 4. Class certification expert disclosure (rebuttal) shall be due on Nov. 15, 2025. 5. The Plaintiff's reply motion for class certification shall be due on Jan. 6, 2026. 6. Hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be on Feb. 15, 2026. 7. Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off shall be on March 10, 2026. 8. Expert discovery cut-Off shall be on May 18, 2026. 9. Settlement conference completion deadline shall be on July 20, 2026. 10. Final pre-trial conference shall be on Aug. 24, 2026, at 3:00 p.m. Luxottica offers prescription glasses and sunglasses. A copy of the Court's order dated July 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TRGbGo at no extra charge.[CC] MAINLINE HEALTH: Austin Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Arkansas -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mainline Health Systems Inc. The case is styled as Wilson Austin, on behalf of himself and his minor children J.P. 1 and J.P. 2, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Acre Mortgage & Financial, Inc., Case No. 4:25-cv-00646-BSM (E.D. Ark., June 27, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Mainline Health -- https://www.mainlinehealth.net/ -- is proud to provide the communities of Southeast Arkansas with quality medical and dental care at 28 primary and in-school clinics.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. JENNINGS & EARLEY PLLC 500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 110 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 247-6267 Email: chris@jefirm.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 A venida Ponce De Leon, Suite 205, # I 0518 San Juan, PR 00907 Phone: (215) 789-4462 MAINLINE HEALTH: Moore Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Arkansas ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mainline Health Systems Inc. The case is styled as Jasmine Moore, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Acre Mortgage & Financial, Inc., Case No. 4:25-cv-00647-DPM (E.D. Ark., June 27, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Mainline Health -- https://www.mainlinehealth.net/ -- is proud to provide the communities of Southeast Arkansas with quality medical and dental care at 28 primary and in-school clinics.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. JENNINGS & EARLEY PLLC 500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 110 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 247-6267 Email: chris@jefirm.com MASONITE CORP: Removes Ortiz Suit to S.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------ The Defendant in the case of JOSE ORTIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MASONITE CORPORATION; MASONITE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego (Case No. 25CU022088C) to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on June 25, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01628-GPC-MSB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Gonzalo P Curiel and referred to Magistrate Michael S Berg. Masonite International Corporation manufactures residential and commercial doors. Masonite offers interior, entry, patio doors through a network of local dealers and home improvement retailers. Masonite International serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Michael D. Thomas, Esq. Sherry S. Hamilton, Esq. Philip M. Duclos, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 885-1360 Facsimile: (949) 885-1380 Email: Michael.Thomas@jacksonlewis.com Sherry.Hamilton@jacksonlewis.com Philip.Duclos@jacksonlewis.com MAZDA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Belied Audio System ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges Mazda Motor of America has misled consumers by falsely representing on the window stickers affixed to certain 2025 Mazda3 models that the vehicles are equipped with an eight-speaker audio system and high-definition (HD) radio. The 52-page Mazda lawsuit claims that the 2025 vehicles at issue, in fact, are equipped with only six speakers and standard radio, in contrast to what's stated on each car's federally mandated Monroney label, a window sticker meant to provide consumers with key information about a vehicle's performance characteristics, engine and transmission data, environmental and safety ratings, interior specifications and other features. The class action suit against Mazda alleges the automaker has falsely advertised the audio features of the following vehicle models: -- 2025 Mazda3 2.5 S Sedan; -- 2025 Mazda3 2.5 S Hatchback; -- 2025 Mazda3 2.5 S Select Sport Sedan; -- 2025 Mazda3 2.5 S Select Sport Hatchback; -- 2025 Mazda3 2.5 S Preferred Sedan; and -- 2025 Mazda3 2.5 S Preferred Hatchback. According to the case, the sound system misrepresentations are significant given that HD radio provides additional digital features and clearer audio quality than standard radio. What's more, an eight-speaker audio system creates a more immersive listening experience and affords consumers more control when balancing audio from front to back, the complaint explains. The data featured on a Monroney sticker, which, by law, must be prominently displayed on the window of every new vehicle offered for sale or lease in the United States, is specifically designed to inform car shoppers' purchasing decisions, the lawsuit stresses. The filing contends that Mazda customers reasonably expected their vehicles to contain eight speakers and HD radio as advertised and argues that they would not have paid a premium price, or bought or leased the cars at all, had they known these features were missing. The plaintiff, an Illinois resident who purchased a 2025 Mazda3 2.5 S Hatchback in March of this year, says he discovered the vehicle lacked HD radio and two rear speakers when he was searching through the infotainment system and attempting to alter his sound settings. The consumer claims that balancing his vehicle's sound to the rear speakers resulted in "no sound at all" coming from the car. The plaintiff alleges that after contacting the Mazda dealer about the missing features, he received an email from a representative admitting to the misrepresentations and acknowledging the presence of "typos" on the window sticker of his vehicle model. Mazda has tried to conceal the issue, lawsuit asserts The class action suit claims that Mazda, in an apparent bid to "cover up" its conduct, has quietly replaced the Monroney labels on the vehicles at issue with window stickers that no longer bear the sound system misrepresentations. Mazda also "secretly" updated the online versions of the labels in late March 2025, the case charges. The complaint contends that although Mazda is aware that its marketing was deceptive, the company has failed to issue any recalls, reimburse customers, fix or add the advertised features when requested or take other corrective action. Who's covered by the Mazda3 lawsuit? The case looks to represent all consumers in the United States and its territories who purchased and/or leased any of the 2025 model-year Mazda3 vehicles listed on this page. I have a Mazda3. How do I join the lawsuit? There's normally nothing you need to do to join or add your name to a class action lawsuit when it's first filed. If the lawsuit reaches a class action settlement, people covered by the deal -- known as class members -- will typically be notified directly with instructions on what to do next. Remember, it can take months or even years for a class action lawsuit to be resolved. If you own or lease any of these Mazda3 vehicles, or just want to keep up with class action lawsuit and class action settlement news, sign up for ClassAction.org's free weekly newsletter. [GN] MCCOLLISTER'S GLOBAL: Turners Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- GAYLORD TURNER, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. MCCOLLISTER'S GLOBAL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-12930 (D.N.J., July 8, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly Shift Lead from January 2019 through December 2024. Additional putative Collective members were or are employed by Defendant in different states as hourly employees during the past three years, asserts the suit. The Defendant is a transportation and logistics services company that operates in multiple states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas Conlon, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5297 E-mail: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com - and - Jesse L. Young, Esq. Ethan C. Goemann, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Telephone: (269) 250-7500 E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com egoemann@sommerspc.com MCKESSON MEDICAL-SURGICAL: King Sues Over Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------- Alvin King, and other similarly situated employees v. MCKESSON MEDICAL-SURGICAL INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00502 (E.D. Va., July 2, 2025), is brought as a result of Defendant's practices and policies of failing to include bonuses and/or other remuneration earned by Plaintiff in their regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating their overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees frequently worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. The Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours in a work week and frequently worked between 50 to 60 hours per week. The Defendant was/is required to include the bonuses, incentives and/or other remuneration for meeting safety and other established metrics in Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees' regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating overtime compensation. The Defendant failed to include the bonuses, incentives, and/or other remuneration paid to Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees in the regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating their overtime compensation. As a result of Defendant's failure to include the bonuses, incentives, and/or other remuneration in the calculation of overtime compensation, Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were denied significant amounts of overtime compensation, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant between August 2018 and May 2024 as bulk delivery truck driver. The Defendant is a medical distributor of medical supplies, medical equipment, and other clinical resources.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory William Klein, Esq. KLEIN, ROWELL & SHALL, PLLC 1294 Diamond Springs Road Virginia Beach, VA 23455 Phone: 757-432-2500 Fax: 757-432-2100 Email: greg@krslaw.com - and - Lori M. Griffin, Esq. Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC 34555 Chagrin Boulevard, Ste. 250 Moreland Hills, Ohio 44022 Phone: 216-696-5000 Facsimile: 216-696-7005 Email: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com MERCATO ITALIANO: Lopez Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL -------------------------------------------------------------- RONNY FRANCISCO LOPEZ SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. MERCATO ITALIANO INC. d/b/a TERRONE IZZERIA & RESTAURANT and SANTA CHIARA CAFFE, CHRISTIANO ROSSI, VINCENZO MARRONE, and ADRIANA DE MARTINO, Case No. 1:25-cv-03818 (E.D.N.Y., July 9, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Defendants employed Plaintiff to work as a non-exempt dishwasher, food preparer/kitchen worker, gelato maker, and stock person at the Restaurant from on or about April 30, 2024, through on or about June 24, 2025. The Defendant owns and operates an Italian restaurant doing business as "Terrone Pizzeria & Restaurant," located at 5203 Center Boulevard, Long Island City, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 60 East 42nd Street, 40th Floor New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com META PLATFORMS: Faces Class Suit Over Stock Investment Scams Ads ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that Meta Platforms has knowingly allowed ads for investment scams to run on its platforms, using its sophisticated ad-targeting technology to push the content to vulnerable Facebook and Instagram users. The 30-page lawsuit contends that although Meta has invested heavily in developing its ad-serving capabilities, it has taken no meaningful action to prevent fraudulent advertisements from infesting its platforms. The filing alleges that Meta, as reported by company personnel, has "deliberately turned a blind eye" to the multitude of scam ads and "continued to court business from known scammers," who the suit says sometimes impersonate celebrities, well-known investors and legitimate financial advisory firms to lure unsuspecting consumers into fraud schemes. According to the class action suit, the plaintiffs were victimized by an investment scam perpetrated by an "organized criminal network" operating out of China, Taiwan and Malaysia. In January 2025, the scammers, using Meta's ad-targeting tools, recommended that users purchase shares of China Liberal Education Holdings Ltd. (CLEU), a penny stock then listed on the NASDAQ. Although CLEU publicly reported that it had 29 million outstanding shares, the lawsuit says, the company secretly issued 240 million additional shares to the CLEU scammers in a private offering in December 2024. The scammers, who ran the scheme through WhatsApp groups, told victims to buy CLEU shares at specific price points while their co-conspirators, holding the 240 million secretly issued shares, "entered sell orders at matching price points," thereby liquidating their payload of shares "in exchange for the victims' cash," the case explains. In the early hours of January, 30, 2025, the suit continues, the market became aware of CLEU's issuance of secret shares, and the stock value immediately collapsed. "Plaintiffs estimate total losses to the proposed Class to be in excess of $300 million," the lawsuit reads, alleging that the scammers would not have accomplished their scheme on such a large scale and with such efficiency if not for Meta's advertising tools. The scam took place between January 22 and 30, 2025, the filing says. During that time period, victims were allegedly targeted by advertisements created and distributed through Meta's Flexible Format and Dynamic Creative advertising tools, which are designed to optimize the format and reach of ads for maximum engagement, the case states. The lawsuit claims that Meta is aware of the numerous scam, illicit and low-quality product advertisements that apparently comprise as much as 70% of the advertisements on its platforms. According to the suit, approximately 97% of Meta's revenue comes from advertising. Per the lawsuit, Meta's terms of service specifically forbid "content that attempts to scam or defraud users and/or businesses by means of . . . [offering] investment opportunities where the opportunity is of a 'get-rich-quick' nature and/or claims that a small investment can be turned into a large amount . . . [or] investment opportunities where returns on investment are guaranteed risk-free." In spite of this, the case says, Meta has continued to allow fraudulent ads such as those for CLEU to freely exist on its platforms. "While scam ads cause untold financial harm to Meta's customers, Meta has little incentive to intervene because it receives revenues regardless of whether the ad is part of a scam," the complaint summarizes. In the case of the CLEU scam, the lawsuit alleges that Meta's user demographic data collection employed in its ad-targeting technology allowed the scammers to ensure their ads would reach the most vulnerable users and increased the likelihood these users would engage with the ads by creating "a sense of shared community, values and trust between the user and the advisor featured in the ad." The Meta class action lawsuit seeks to represent anyone who was tricked into investing in CLEU between January 22, 2025 and January 30, 2025 as a direct or indirect result of false advertisements on Facebook and/or Instagram and subsequently lost money. [GN] METHODE ELECTRONICS: Continues to Defend Common Stocks-Related Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Methode Electronics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending May 3, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 9, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the common stock purchasers securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. A securities class action was filed on behalf of a broader putative class of purchasers of Company common stock between December 2, 2021 and March 6, 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company, a former Chief Executive Officer, President, director of the Company, a former Chief Financial Officer of the Company, and a former Chief Operating Officer of the Company. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements relating to the Company's business, operations and prospects, including in respect of the Company's transition to production of more specialized components for manufacturers of electric vehicles and the Company's operations at its facility in Monterrey, Mexico, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified money damages along with equitable relief and costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees. The Company disagrees with and intends to vigorously defend against the Stockholder Action. Methode designs, manufactures, and produces custom engineered solutions and products for user interfaces, LED lighting systems, and power distribution and sensor applications.[BN] METHODE ELECTRONICS: Continues to Defend Salem Class Suit in Ill. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Methode Electronics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending May 3, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 9, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Salem securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. August 26, 2024, a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Company common stock between June 23, 2022 and March 6, 2024, inclusive, entitled Marie Salem v. Methode Electronics, Inc. et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company, a former Chief Executive Officer, President and director of the Company and a former Chief Financial Officer of the Company. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements relating to the Company's business, operations and prospects, including in respect of the Company's transition to production of more specialized components for manufacturers of electric vehicles and the Company's operations at its facility in Monterrey, Mexico, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified money damages along with equitable relief and costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees. The Company disagrees with and intends to vigorously defend against the Stockholder Action. Methode designs, manufactures, and produces custom engineered solutions and products for user interfaces, LED lighting systems, and power distribution and sensor applications.[BN] MICHIGAN: Court Certifies Edenville Dam Failure Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Ryan Jeltema, writing for ABC 12 News, reports that the Michigan Court of Claims has certified a class action lawsuit for residents and businesses affected by the 2020 Edenville Dam failure. Judge Robert Redford granted class action status for several lawsuits against the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy in the Michigan Court of Claims. The dam collapsed after days of heavy rain and sent a torrent of floodwater down the Tittabawassee River, which caused record high water levels and $200 million in damages. Flooding destroyed 2,500 homes and businesses, and forced 10,000 people to evacuate. Many of the affected property owners filed individual lawsuits against the state of Michigan and Boyce Hydro, which owned the dams at the time. With class action status, those lawsuits will be combined into a single trial scheduled for January 2026. "We are pleased that the court has certified this case as a class action, allowing a single trial to determine whether the State of Michigan is responsible for the Edenville Dam failure," said Jason J. Thompson, senior shareholder at the Sommers Schwartz law firm. Chris and Laura Forbes, who were affected by the flooding, expressed hope for justice with the class action status. "While nothing can truly restore what was lost, this class certification brings us one step closer to securing a measure of justice for all those whose lives and businesses were forever changed," the couple said in a statement. [GN] MINDBODYGREEN LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Battle Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE DAVIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Mindbodygreen, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-07748 (N.D. Ill., July 9, 2025) alleges that Dillon failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, Mindbodygreen.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 Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision; others have no vision. Mindbodygreen provides to the public a website known as Mindbodygreen.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a wide range of wellness products, including supplements intended to support muscle health, gut health, beauty, sleep, brain function, metabolic health, and personal care products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law NAPHCARE INC: Nigg Suit Removed to W.D. Washington -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Conni Nigg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NAPHCARE, INC., a Foreign Profit Corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 25-2-08863-0 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of Pierce, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on June 27, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-05567. The Complaint sets forth the following causes of action against Defendant: Failure to Compensate for Missed, Late, and/or Interrupted Meal and Rest Periods; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages Stemming from Missed, Late, and/or Uninterrupted and Unpaid Meal and Rest Periods; and Double Damages for Willful and Intentional Withholding of Wages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig Ackermann, Esq. Brian Denlinger, Esq. Avi Kreitenberg, Esq. ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C. 2602 North Proctor Street, Suite 205 Tacoma, WA 98406 Phone: 310.277.0614 Email: cja@ackermanntilajef.com bd@ackermanntilajef.com ak@ackermanntilajef.com The Defendants are represented by: Brian K. Keeley, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 520 Pike Street, Suite 2300 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone (206) 802-3802 Email: Brian.Keeley@jacksonlewis.com NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Ghebari Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Credit and Collection, Inc. The case is styled as Nasim Ghebari, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nationwide Credit and Collection, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-07271 (N.D. Ill., June 27, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Nationwide Credit Corporation -- https://www.ncc.us/ -- provides full cycle recovery services using our decades of experience in the accounts receivables industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq. Alexander James Taylor, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD 2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 575-8181 x114 Fax: (630) 575-8188 Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com NCAA: Class Notice Approved in Ray Lawsuit ------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANNON RAY, KHALA TAYLOR, PETER ROBINSON, KATHERINE SEBBANE, and RUDY BARAJAS Individually and on Behalf of All Those Similarly Situated, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, an unincorporated association, Case No. 1:23-cv-00425-WBS-CSK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Shubb entered an order approving the form and manner for dissemination of class notice: 1. The Court approves the forms of class notice attached to the declaration of Dennis Stewart in support of the Plaintiffs' motion for approval of the manner and form of class notice as Exhibits A and B. 2. The Court approves the Plan for dissemination of notice set forth in the declaration of Elaine Pang of A.B. Data Ltd. 3. A.B. Data Ltd. is appointed as Class Certification Notice Administrator and ordered to effectuate the notice plan. 4. The proposed notice plan set forth in the Motion and the supporting declarations complies with Rule 23(c)(2)(B) and due process as it constitutes the best notice that is practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice via mail and email to all members who can be identified through reasonable effort. 5. The proposed notice documents (and the proposed manner of their dissemination to the Class) taken together comply with Rule 23(c)(2)(B) and due process because the notices, forms, and manner of transmission are reasonably calculated to adequately apprise Certified Class members. 6. The Court finds that 60-day period for class members to submit requests to exclude themselves from the class satisfies due process and is an adequate period of time for notice recipients to consider the notice, consult with an attorney if desired, and opt out if desired. National is an association whose members are colleges and universities competing in intercollegiate athletics. A copy of the Court's order dated July 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BQVXny at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dennis Stewart, Esq. Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Anthony J. Stauber, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 595-3299 - and - Darryl J. Horowitt, Esq. COLEMAN & HOROWITT, LLP 499 West Shaw, Suite 116 Fresno, CA 93704 Telephone: (559) 248-4820 - and - Robert J. Gralewski, Jr., Esq. Marko Radisavljevic, Esq. KIRBY McINERNEY LLP 600 B Street, Suite 2110 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 784-1442 - and - Leonard B. Simon, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF LEONARD B. SIMON P.C. 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 818-0644 - and - Michael Lieberman, Esq. Jamie Crooks, Esq. Yinka Onayemi, Esq. FAIRMARK PARTNERS, LLP 1001 G Street NW, Suite 400E Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (818) 585-2903 NEW JERSEY: Hubbard Appeals Ruling in Civil Rights Suit to 3rd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- DARRELL HUBBARD is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Darrell Hubbard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. New Jersey Democratic State Committee, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-11885, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Plaintiff brings this suit against the Defendants for alleged violation of the Civil Rights Act. The appellate case is entitled Darrell Hubbard v. New Jersey Democratic State Committee, et al., Case No. 25-2180, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on June 24, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant DARRELL HUBBARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, appears pro se. NEW YORK: Consumer Rights' Class Suit Settlement Gets Prelim. OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joyce Famakinwa, writing for Home Health Care News, reports that a class action lawsuit, filed on behalf of consumers of New York's self-directed Medicaid home care program, has reached a settlement with the state's Department of Health. The lawsuit was first filed in March by New York Legal Assistance Group (NYLAG) and law firm Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, as a response to the tumultuous transition to a single fiscal intermediary for the Consumer Directed Personal Assistance Program (CDPAP). As part of the transition, consumers and caregivers were meant to register with Public Partnerships LLC (PPL), New York's sole fiscal intermediary, by April 1. The deadline has since seen numerous extensions. The most recent extension was the result of the class action lawsuit. Broadly, the lawsuit alleges that the New York State Department of Health violated CDPAP consumers' rights to get written notice and the chance for a fair hearing before losing access to services. On Monday, July 11, U.S. District Court Judge Frederic Block approved a preliminary settlement. Class members will have the opportunity to oppose the settlement in writing, or virtually at a fairness hearing, which will take place on Aug. 6. "We are confident that the proposed class action settlement will ensure CDPAP consumers who still need help accessing long-term care services are able to get the support they need," Elizabeth Jois, supervising attorney in NYLAG's special litigation unit, said in a statement. "This agreement provides immediate outreach to CDPAP consumers who have faced challenges using their services during this transition and connects all consumers with resources and assistance to help ease the transition." The settlement calls for managed long-term care organizations, mainstream managed care plans and local districts of social services to send informational letters to all CDPAP consumers who are registered with PPL. The letters are meant to guide those who are having difficulty using their CDPAP services. The settlement establishes an Aug. 1 deadline for registering with PPL. It also ensures that consumers and caregivers will receive a letter informing them of the deadline, as well as alerting them to resources that can aid in the process. The settlement also requires managed long-term care plans to make additional efforts to reach CDPAP consumers who haven't utilized their CDPAP services recently. What's more, CDPAP consumers who register with PPL, move to a different long-term service or start using their CDPAP services through PPL by Aug. 1 will get a notice that explains their right to a fair hearing. "We are glad to have achieved such important protections for CDPAP consumers through the amended preliminary injunction and proposed class action settlement," Lisa E. Cleary, a partner at Patterson Belknap, said in the statement. "The relief proposed in the settlement agreement the parties have negotiated goes even further and will require DOH to send additional written communications to consumers that describe resources available to help, as well as conduct robust and targeted outreach to consumers at risk of being disenrolled from their managed long-term care plans due to the transition." [GN] NORTH CAROLINA: Asanov Appeals Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------ ALEXANDER N. ASANOV is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing the lawsuit entitled Alexander N. Asanov, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Juan Merchan, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-00514-FL-KS, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The Plaintiff commenced this action September 6, 2024, asserting claims on behalf of himself and hundreds of millions of similarly situated victims, against the Defendants, seeking court orders so that Ms. Kamala Harris, Mr. Donald Trump, Mr. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and other candidates can equally participate in the 2024 presidential campaign. The Plaintiff alleges that felonies committed by corrupted judge Merchan have inflicted damages to U.S. national security, devastated millions of Americans, and imposed the risks of death and injuries onto the entire nation. On Apr. 3, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment. On May 5, 2025, the Defendant filed a reinstated motion for default judgment. On May 27, 2025, Judge Louise Wood Flanagan entered an Order denying the Plaintiff's motion for default judgment and the Defendant's reinstated motion for default judgment. The instant action is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The clerk is directed to close this case. The appellate case is entitled Alexander Asanov v. Juan Merchan, Case No. 25-1711, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on June 24, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant ALEXANDER N. ASANOV, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, appears pro se. NORTH SHORE: Fails to Pay Wages, Chowdhury Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- ARABI CHOWDHURY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTH SHORE HEMATOLOGY-ONCOLOGY ASSOCIATES PC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-03541 (E.D.N.Y., June 25, 2025) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. North Shore Hematology-Oncology Associates, P.C. provides healthcare services. The Company offers cancer, blood disorders, oncology, hematology, and other health care services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander M. White, Esq. Robert J. Valli, Jr., Esq. Valli Kane & Vagnini LLP 600 Old Country Road, Suite 519 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203-7180 Email: awhite@vkvlawyers.com rvalli@vkvlawyers.com NORTHBAY HEALTHCARE: Final Breach Settlement Hearing Set Oct. 29 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a $3.6 million settlement will resolve a class action lawsuit against Northbay Healthcare over a months-long 2024 data breach that exposed the private personal and health information of thousands of patients. The Northbay Healthcare class action settlement, which received preliminary court approval on June 6, 2025, covers anyone in the U.S. who received a notice that their private information was compromised in the data breach, which occurred between January 11 and April 1, 2024. The court-approved website for the Northbay Healthcare settlement can be found at NorthbayHealthcareSettlement.com. Northbay Healthcare settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form may receive one of two types of cash compensation. Those who submit proof of documented losses related to the data breach and select Cash Payment A on the claim form may receive a payment of up to $4,000. Those who select Cash Payment B, which does not require documentation, will receive a flat payment of $100. Both cash payments may increase or decrease on a pro-rata, or equal share, basis depending on the total number of valid claims that are filed. In addition to either cash payment option, all claimants may also elect to receive up to three years of one-bureau credit monitoring that will provide dark web monitoring, fully managed identity recovery services, identity theft insurance coverage for up to $1 million and one-bureau credit monitoring, the settlement website relays. To submit a claim form online, visit the settlement website, head to this page and log in with the notice ID and PIN found in your class action settlement notice. Alternatively, a PDF of the claim form is available to print, fill out and mail back to the address listed on the second page of the form. Spanish-language versions of both the settlement notice and the claim form are also available on the Northbay Healthcare class action settlement website. All claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by October 14, 2025. There will be a hearing on October 29, 2025 to determine whether the settlement will receive final approval from the court. Compensation will begin to be distributed only after final approval has been granted and any appeals are resolved. The data breach class action lawsuit against Northbay Healthcare alleged that patients' sensitive personal data, including Social Security numbers, was accessed by unauthorized third parties during a targeted cybersecurity incident between January 11 and April 1, 2024. [GN] NUCOR CORPORATION: Sweat Files Suit in W.D. North Carolina ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nucor Corporation. The case is styled as Michael Sweat, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Nucor Corporation, Case No. 3:25-cv-00478-MOC-SCR (W.D.N.C., July 2, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Declaratory Judgement. Nucor Corporation -- https://nucor.com/ -- is the safest, highest quality, lowest cost, most productive and most profitable steel and steel products company in the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel R. Rhine, Esq. RHINE LAW FIRM, PC 1612 Military Cutoff Rd, Suite 300 Wilmington, NC 28403 Phone: (910) 772-9960 Fax: (910) 772-9062 Email: jrr@rhinelawfirm.com NUNA BABY: Faces Medema Class Suit Over Defective Car Seats ----------------------------------------------------------- DIANA MEDEMA, BRENDA GRANADOS, and BLAIRE GILOMEN, and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. NUNA BABY ESSENTIALS, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-07768 (N.D. Ill., July 9, 2025) alleges that Nuna designs, manufactures, and sells, defective car seats (the Nuna "Rava" product line of convertible car seats) that it knows are unsafe for the children who use them. According to the complaint, the Product provides protection through a five-point harness system that, when tightened, is designed to remain securely in place until the front release button is pressed and the harness straps are loosened simultaneously. The harness system is intended to (and marketed as such) remain secure throughout the ride, and especially during a crash. This, however, is not the case, making the Products unsafe and unsuitable for their marketed and intended purpose of providing safe transport for children. The Products are marketed as "convertible" car seats that are designed to hold, secure, and protect children of all ages and sizes. As the child grows, the Product can be converted to ensure that it can still seat and safely secure the child. The "Rava" brand includes multiple models, all of which are defective and unsafe, asserts the suit. NUNA BABY ESSENTIALS, INC. is a global brand known for its baby gear, including car seats, strollers, and other travel and in-home items. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leland Belew, Esq. Adam A. Edwards, Esq. William A. Ladnier, Esq. Virginia Ann Whitener, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 227 West Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 E-mail: lbelew@milberg.com aedwards@milberg.com wladnier@milberg.com gwhitener@milberg.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. Daniel Tomascik, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, No. 10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com dtomascik@laukaitislaw.com OHIO: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Funding Plan of Browns Stadium ------------------------------------------------------------- ESPN reports that Ohio Republicans' strategy for funding a new domed stadium for the Cleveland Browns using residents' unclaimed funds violates multiple provisions of the state and federal constitutions, according to a class action lawsuit filed in county court. Former Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann and former state Rep. Jeffrey Crossman, both Democrats, filed the expected legal action in Franklin County Common Pleas on Monday, July 7, on behalf of three named Ohio residents, as well as all other individuals whose unclaimed funds were being held by the state as of June 30, 2025. They have asked the court for an injunction to stop the plan. The lawsuit argues that taking money from the state's Unclaimed Funds Account to pay for the stadium that Haslam Sports Group is planning for suburban Brook Park, south of Cleveland, violates constitutional prohibitions against taking people's private property for government use, as well as citizens' due process rights. The city of Cleveland has fought the plan. The litigation challenges specific provisions in the state's two-year, $60 billion operating budget that diverts more than $1 billion in unclaimed funds to create an Ohio Cultural and Sports Facility Performance Grant Fund and designate $600 million for the Browns as its first grant. Republican Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost has spoken out against using unclaimed funds for such a purpose, having gone so far as to urge DeWine to veto it. However, the state's top lawyer has said he believes the plan is legally sound. [GN] ONESPAN INC: Jackson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. ONESPAN INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-05479 (S.D.N.Y., July 2, 2025), is brought against the Defendants for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully and equally accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its services offered thereby, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because the Defendant's website, https://www.onespan.com/, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. ONESPAN INC., operates the OneSpan online retail store, as well as the OneSpan interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: dana@gottlieb.legal michael@gottlieb.legal jeffrey@gottlieb.legal PEABODY ENERGY: Underpays Outby Workers, Jenkins Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ WESLEY JENKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PEABODY ENERGY CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01964 (D. Colo., June 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Colorado Minimum Wage Act, Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Order, and Colorado Wage Claim Act. Mr. Jenkins was employed by the Defendant as an outby worker from approximately May 2022 to May 2025. Peabody Energy Corp. is a mining company, headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl A. Fitz, Esq. FITZ LAW PLLC 3730 Kirby Drive, Ste. 1200 Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: (713) 766-4000 Email: carl@fitz.legal - and - Galvin Kennedy, Esq. KENNEDY LAW FIRM, LLP 2925 Richmond Ave., Ste. 1200 Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: (713) 425-6445 Facsimile: (888) 535-9271 Email: Galvin@KennedyAttorney.com PERFECTFIT365: Frankle Sues Over Gummies' Creatine Monohydrate Ads ------------------------------------------------------------------ DAVID FRANKLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PERFECTFIT365, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-05286 (N.D. Cal., June 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of express warranty, unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices, false advertising, violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and restitution based on quasi-contract/unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its Creatine Monohydrate Gummies. According to the complaint, the Defendant labels that the product contains 5,000 milligram of creatine monohydrate. However, result of analytical testing on the product revealed that the product contains no detectable amounts of creatine monohydrate whatsoever. Had the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers known the truth, they would not have purchased the product, says the suit. PerfectFit LLC is a manufacturer of dietary supplements, headquartered in Ada County Idaho. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael D. Braun, Esq. KUZYK LAW, LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 800 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (213) 401-4100 Facsimile: (213) 401-0311 Email: mdb@kuzykclassactions.com PHH MORTGAGE: Faces Allison Suit Over Data Privacy Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- ETHAN ALLISON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PHH MORTGAGE, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-5323 (N.D. Cal., June 25, 2025) alleges violation of the Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, and California's Consumer Protection Law. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant is engaged in outrageous, illegal, and widespread practice of disclosing—without consent—the Nonpublic Personal Information and Personally Identifiable Financial Information (together, "Personal and Financial Information") of Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members to third parties, including Meta Platforms, Inc. d/b/a Google, LLC, Google Analytics, Google DoubleClick Ads, HotJar, Microsoft Corp., Yahoo, Blend/Sentry.io, and possibly others (collectively the "Third Parties"). According to the complaint, PHH used its Website to blatantly collect and disclose Consumers' and Customers' Personal and Financial Information to Third Parties uninvolved in the provision of mortgage services—entirely without their knowledge or authorization. PHH did so by knowingly and secretly configuring and implementing code-based tracking devices ("trackers" or "tracking technologies") into its Website. Through these trackers, PHH disclosed and continues to disclose Personal and Financial Information that Customers input into and accessed on PHH's Website. PHH Mortgage Corporation provides mortgage financing solutions. The Company offers real estate and private label solutions, correspondent lending, loan subservicing, and relocation services. PHH Mortgage serves customers in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Natalie Lyons, Esq. Vess A. Miller, Esq. Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Lisa M. La Fornara, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Email: nlyons@cohenmalad.com vmiller@cohenmalad.com ltoops@cohenmalad.com llafornara@cohenmalad.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Emily E. Schiller, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, Tennessee 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com eschiller@stranchlaw.com - and - Carly M. Roman, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI, PLLC 2261 Market Street, Suite 22946 San Francisco, CA 94114 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: croman@straussborrelli.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI, PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, Illinois 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com PHH MORTGAGE: Faces Allison Suit Over Data Privacy Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- ETHAN ALLISON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PHH MORTGAGE, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-5323 (N.D. Cal., June 25, 2025) alleges violation of the Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, and California's Consumer Protection Law. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant is engaged in outrageous, illegal, and widespread practice of disclosing—without consent—the Nonpublic Personal Information and Personally Identifiable Financial Information (together, "Personal and Financial Information") of Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members to third parties, including Meta Platforms, Inc. d/b/a Google, LLC, Google Analytics, Google DoubleClick Ads, HotJar, Microsoft Corp., Yahoo, Blend/Sentry.io, and possibly others (collectively the "Third Parties")/ PHH used its Website to blatantly collect and disclose Consumers' and Customers' Personal and Financial Information to Third Parties uninvolved in the provision of mortgage services—entirely without their knowledge or authorization. PHH did so by knowingly and secretly configuring and implementing code-based tracking devices ("trackers" or "tracking technologies") into its Website. Through these trackers, PHH disclosed and continues to disclose Personal and Financial Information that Customers input into and accessed on PHH's Website, says the suit. PHH Mortgage Corporation provides mortgage financing solutions. The Company offers real estate and private label solutions, correspondent lending, loan subservicing, and relocation services. PHH Mortgage serves customers in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Natalie Lyons, Esq. Vess A. Miller, Esq. Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Lisa M. La Fornara, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Email: nlyons@cohenmalad.com vmiller@cohenmalad.com ltoops@cohenmalad.com llafornara@cohenmalad.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Emily E. Schiller, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, Tennessee 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com eschiller@stranchlaw.com - and - Carly M. Roman, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI, PLLC 2261 Market Street, Suite 22946 San Francisco, CA 94114 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: croman@straussborrelli.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI, PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, Illinois 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com PHILADELPHIA, PA: McNeil Appeals Court Order in Sourovelis Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY T. MCNEIL, SR. is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Christos Sourovelis, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. City of Philadelphia, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:14-cv-04687, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint is brought to enjoin and declare unconstitutional Philadelphia's civil-forfeiture policies and practices, which is not only unconstitutionally deprive people of their property, but also of their constitutional right to due process of law. On Feb. 6, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion to reopen this case for purposes of enforcing the court's permanent injunction, which Judge Gerald A. McHugh denied on Feb. 7, 2025. On Feb. 13, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion to open case for cause to hold City-Defendants in contempt violating the permanent-injunction by unlawful taking and thief, which Judge McHugh denied on Feb. 14, 2025. The time within which to claim from the restitutionary fund has expired. Moreover, the motion purports to address an ongoing violation of the courts injunction but addresses only past conduct. The appellate case is entitled Christos Sourovelis, et al. v. City of Philadelphia, et al., Case No. 25-2169, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on June 25, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees CHRISTOS SOUROVELIS, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Dan Alban, Esq. Robert P. Frommer, Esq. Robert A. Peccola, Esq. INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE 901 N. Glebe Road, Suite 900 Arlington, VA 22203 - and - David Rudovsky, Esq. KAIRYS RUDOVSKY MESSING FEINBERG & LIN 718 Arch Street, Suite 501 South Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 925-4400 Defendants-Appellees CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, et al. are represented by: Anne B. Taylor, Esq. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA 1515 Arch Street, 15th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 683-5447 - and - Nancy Winkelman, Esq. PHILADELPHIA COUNTY OFFICE OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY 3 S. Penn Square Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 686-5701 - and - Michael Daley, Esq. SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 1515 Market Street, Suite 1414 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Non-Party-Appellant ANTHONY T. MCNEIL, SR. appears pro se. PREMIER AGENCY REAL: Lipp Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Premier Agency Real Estate Inc. The case is styled as Richard Lipp Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Premier Agency Real Estate Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-01685-GPC-MSB (S.D. Cal., July 2, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Premier Agency Real Estate Inc. -- https://www.premieragencyre.com/ -- are the number one stop in the region for buying and selling Real Estate.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN PA 237 South Dixie Highway, 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Appeals Court Blocks Auto Claims Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Matthew Sellers, writing for Insurance Business, reports that a federal appeals court just shut down class claims against Progressive's total loss payout method, giving insurers breathing room on how they value wrecked vehicles. Progressive just avoided a class action over how it values totaled cars -- but not without a warning from the Third Circuit about individualized claim issues. On July 7, 2025, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed a lower court's decision to certify two damages classes in a lawsuit against Progressive Specialty Insurance Co. and Progressive Advanced Insurance Co. The plaintiffs, all Pennsylvania policyholders, argued that Progressive systematically underpaid total loss auto claims by using a "Projected Sold Adjustment," or PSA, to lower settlement amounts. The PSA, applied through Mitchell International's WorkCenter Total Loss system, reduces the listed price of comparable vehicles to account for the common practice of dealers negotiating down from list prices. Plaintiffs said this adjustment unfairly lowered the actual cash value (ACV) Progressive was contractually obligated to pay. They claimed this breached Progressive's auto policy, which states that ACV is "determined by the market value, age, and condition of the vehicle at the time the loss occurs." Progressive countered that its valuation approach used a dual-source system combining data from Mitchell and the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), followed by additional adjustments based on vehicle condition and other factors. According to Progressive, the PSA is not applied uniformly and varies depending on the make, model, location, and sale environment of each vehicle. It also argued that even with the PSA, many claimants may have received payments equal to or above their car's true ACV. The Third Circuit agreed. The panel, led by Judge Scirica, held that the question of whether any individual insured was underpaid could not be answered across the entire class using the same evidence. Instead, it would require looking at each policyholder's specific claim to determine whether the final payment fell short of the ACV. That level of individualized inquiry defeated the predominance requirement under Rule 23(b)(3), which is needed for a damages class to be certified. The court emphasized that a breach of contract would occur only if Progressive paid less than the ACV—not simply because a PSA was used. It concluded that class-wide liability couldn't be proven without reviewing each payout to see whether it met or fell below the contractually promised amount. Because of that, the Third Circuit reversed the District Court's class certification order and sent the case back for further proceedings. For insurance professionals, the ruling highlights a key issue: even standardized claim practices like PSAs may not expose carriers to class action risk if the actual effect on payouts varies claim by claim. It also reinforces that auto policies allowing for third-party valuation tools, when used with documented and variable inputs, can provide strong defenses against uniform breach allegations. [GN] PROHEALTH PARTNERS: Llanas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prohealth Partners A Medical Group Inc. The case is styled as Julia Iris Llanas, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Prohealth Partners A Medical Group Inc., Case No. 25STCV19302 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 2, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." ProHealth Partners Physician -- https://www.prohealthpartners.com/ -- specialize in Internal Medicine, Family Medicine, or Pediatrics.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nazo Koulloukian, Esq. KOUL LAW FIRM 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1710 Los Angeles, CA 90010-2003 Phone: 213-761-5484 Fax: 818-561-3938 Email: nazo@koullaw.com RADICALMEDIA LLC: Tehrani Files TCPA Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against RadicalMedia, LLC. The case is styled as Josephine Tehrani, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RadicalMedia, LLC, Case No. 25STCV18806 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 26, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." RadicalMedia, LLC -- https://www.radicalmedia.com/ -- is an independent global media and creative production company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank H. Kim, Esq. KIM LEGAL, APC 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90010-2013 Phone: 323-482-3300 Email: fkim@kim-legal.com RAISING CANE'S: Herrera Sues Over Disability Discrimination ----------------------------------------------------------- Oscar Herrera, on behalf of others similarly situated v. RAISING CANE'S RESTAURANTS, L.L.C., a foreign limited liability company, Case No. 1:25-cv-22973-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 2, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant owns, controls, maintains, and/or operates an adjunct website, https://raisingcanes.com (the "Website"). One of the functions of the Website is to provide the public information on the locations of Defendant's physical restaurants. The Website also sells to the public Defendant's food and beverage products that are made in and also available for purchase in and from Defendant's physical restaurants. The Website thus acts as a critical point of sale and ordering for Defendant's food and beverage products made in and also available for purchase in and from the physical restaurants. In addition, the Website also allows users to arrange in restaurant pickup of Defendant's food and beverages ordered online, purchase gift certificates for use both online and in the physical restaurants, and sign up for an online account to receive exclusive offers, benefits, promotions, invitations, and discounts for use online and in the physical restaurants. The Plaintiff utilizes available screen reader software that allows individuals who are blind and visually disabled to communicate with company websites. However, 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. These access barriers, one or more of which were experienced by Plaintiff, are severe and pervasive and, as confirmed by Plaintiff's expert, include the following (with reference to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines ("WCAG"), says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been a blind and visually disabled person who has been medically diagnosed with complete blindness as a result of trauma to both eyes. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls four restaurants selling food and beverage products, including the restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rodenck V. Hannah, Esq. RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A. 4800 N. Hiatus Road Sunrise, FL 33351 Phone: 954/362-3800 Facsimile: 954/362-3779 Email: rhannah@rhannahlaw.com - and - Pelayo Duran, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO 6355 NW. 36th Street, Suite 307 Virginia Gardens, FL 33166 Phone: 305/266-9780 Facsimile: 305/269-8311 Email: duranandassociates@gmail.com REVTCO INVESTMENTS: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property --------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Brito, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals v. REVTCO INVESTMENTS, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-22960-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 2, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendants' Commercial Property being inaccessible to people who are disabled. Although over 30 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendants' property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property and the businesses named herein located within the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property, and businesses named herein located within the Commercial Property, and wishes to continue his patronage and use of each of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a paraplegic (paralyzed from his T-6 vertebrae down) and requires the use of a wheelchair to ambulate. REVTCO INVESTMENTS, INC. owns, operates and/or oversees the commercial property; to include its general parking lot, ramps, and parking spots 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 Phone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com S.T.E.A.M. ACADEMY: Hernandez Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- LYZA HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. S.T.E.A.M. ACADEMY A NJ NONPROFIT CORPORATION d/b/a STEAM URBAN and FALLON DAVIS, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-12060 (D.N.J., June 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages and failure to pay all wages owned in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an educator and thereafter, as executive assistant, in New Jersey from June 20, 2022, through August 2022. Steam Urban is a non-profit business entity, with a primary office located at 368 Broad Street, Newark, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emanuel Kataev, Esq. CONSUMER ATTORNEYS, PLLC 6829 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 412-2421 Facsimile: (718) 489-4155 Email: ekataev@consumerattorneys.com SAFE HARBOR: Faces Class Suit Over Deceptive Billing Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- David Conway, writing for Trade Only Today, reports that Safe Harbor Marinas is facing a federal class-action lawsuit alleging deceptive billing practices. Filed by Florida-based Miami Charter Yacht LLC, the complaint accuses Safe Harbor of inflating invoices with unauthorized surcharges and employing a "cash for splash" policy that forces customers to pay in full before their boats are released. The lawsuit was filed by the Fort Lauderdale law firm Kelley|Uustal, which is seeking damages, restitution and injunctive relief on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of affected boat owners. "We filed this class action lawsuit challenging Safe Harbor Marinas' pattern of inflating customer invoices with unauthorized and deceptive charges unrelated to work they actually performed," a statement from the law firm said. According to the complaint, Miami Charter Yacht brought the 76-foot San Lorenzo Vasiliki to a Safe Harbor facility for repairs in late 2024. The final bill reportedly included numerous fees and charges that, according to the statement, were "supersized," a scenario the plaintiff alleges is indicative of broader corporate policy across Safe Harbor's national network. The lawsuit includes claims of breach of contract, unjust enrichment and violations of South Carolina's Unfair Trade Practices Act. A jury trial has been requested, and additional boat owners are expected to join the suit. Trade Only Today contacted Safe Harbor Marinas for comment but had not received a response at press time. [GN] SONY CORP: May Face Class Action Over Photo Editing App ------------------------------------------------------- Pesala Bandara of PetaPixel reports that a law firm is investigating a possible class action lawsuit after Sony camera owners lost access to the free photo editing software Capture One Express, which was included with many Sony mirrorless cameras. Capture One Express was a free program often bundled with Sony mirrorless and DSLR cameras. It allowed users to organize, edit, and export photos -- often serving as their main editing tool. But in December 2023, Capture One notified users by email that Capture One Express would no longer be available starting January 30, 2024. The free photo editing software ceased to function completely on February 12, 2024. In an ad posted on the website Top Class Actions, law firm Wolf Popper is asking affected customers to fill out a form to check if they may qualify to join a class action lawsuit. The investigation focuses on whether Sony misled customers or unfairly impacted consumers by terminating this bundled software. "If you purchased a Sony camera and were impacted by the termination of Capture One Express, you may be eligible to join a Sony class action lawsuit investigation," Wolf Popper says in the ad. According to Wolf Popper, the law firm places the blame on Sony and says that its decision to end access to Capture One Express was made so the company could reallocate resources toward its paid products, including Capture One Pro and other subscription-based services. As a result, users who relied on the free version had no choice but to upgrade, with Capture One Pro now costing up to $300 for a perpetual license. However, it is worth noting that it was not Sony's decision to end Capture One Express, but Capture One's. Capture One's move in late 2023 to end support for Express followed its decision in 2022 to stop developing brand-specific versions of its software, which it once offered for Sony, Fujifilm, and Nikon cameras. It is a bit strange, therefore, to see Wolf Popper conflating Sony and Capture One in this way. Nonetheless, the law firm says the shutdown of Capture One Express has left many Sony camera users with a sudden gap and without a free way to edit their photos. For what it's worth, Sony offers a remote shooting and RAW development app, Imaging Edge Desktop, for macOS and Windows. This app is also required to work with pixel-shift images captured in Sony cameras. Imaging Edge Desktop is available for free for Sony camera owners. "For many users, Capture One Express wasn't just a bonus," Wolf Popper says in the ad. "It was the go-to software that allowed them to get the most out of their camera (including native Sony RAW file processing) without additional cost. Its removal now leaves those users without a built-in editing solution." "With Capture One Express disabled, users were left with two options: upgrade to a paid version of Capture One Pro or acquire a new third-party editing tool. This shift has raised questions about fairness." Wolf Popper says that consumers who purchased a Sony camera bundle that included Capture One Express may have legal rights. The law firm is investigating whether Sony misled customers who reasonably expected continued access to the bundled software, and those who lost access to Capture One Express could be eligible to join a potential class action lawsuit. [GN] SOUTHWOOD FINANCIAL: Fails to Protect Sensitive Data, Wetzel Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- BLAKE WETZEL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SOUTHWOOD FINANCIAL LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01124 (E.D. Va., July 8, 2025) arises from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. Accordingly, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information about its current and former consumers. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach, the suit says. 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 PII, the suit adds. The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim. The Defendant is a private student loans administrator and debt collector.[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 Facsimile: (804) 351-9170 E-mail: Lee@bbtrial.com Justin@bbtrial.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 SOUTHWOOD FINANCIAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Young Says -------------------------------------------------------------- DYLAN YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SOUTHWOOD FINANCIAL, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01125 (E.D. Va., July 8, 2025) arise from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members bring this class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information (PII) that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed in June 2025 (the Data Breach). The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant’s inadequate data security practices. The Defendant is a private student loan administrator that specializes in managing distressed student loan receivables.[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 Facsimile: (804) 351-9170 E-mail: Lee@bbtrial.com Justin@bbtrial.com - and - David K. Lietz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 5335 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 440 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com - and - William "Billy" Peerce Howard, Esq. THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM, PLLC 401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2340 Truist Place Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 500-1500 E-mail: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com ST. TAMMANY: Baquer Suit Stayed Pending OK of Reconsideration Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AHMED BAQER, ET AL., v. ST. TAMMANY PARISH GOVERNMENT, ET AL., Case No. 2:20-cv-00980-DJP-EJD (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Darrel James Papillion entered an order that the Defendant's motion to stay is granted in part, and this action is stayed until resolution of the Defendant's motion for reconsideration. The Defendant's motion to stay is denied in part to the extent the Defendant's motion prematurely requests a stay pending an interlocutory appeal. The Court finds that it is in the best interests of all parties for any re-urged motion for class certification to be considered only after the Court has issued a ruling on the Defendant's motion for reconsideration so as to avoid any further efforts that may prove unnecessary or premature. The Court makes this finding without regard to the merits of the motion for reconsideration or the possibility of a future interlocutory appeal. Shortly after the Court's order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion for summary judgment, the Plaintiffs moved for leave to amend their complaints and re-urge their previously-denied motion for class certification. On April 28, 2025, Sheriff Smith filed the instant motion to stay. On June 29, 2025, the Plaintiffs again moved for leave to file a renewed motion for class certification, but the Clerk of Court has once more rejected the Plaintiffs' filing as deficient. The Defendant serves the citizens of St. Tammany through the use of resources and revenue. A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wzr0bC at no extra charge.[CC] STEAMED LLC: Zhang Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- Jian Zhang, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated v. Steamed LLC d/b/a Steamed, Steamed Plus LLC d/b/a Steamed, Ping Hu, and Jonathan Dolph, Case No. 3:25-cv-01088 (D. Conn., July 8, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid wages for overtime work, liquidated damages, declaratory relief, costs, interest and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, during Plaintiff employment with Defendants, the Plaintiff's daily duties included preparing and cooking dishes, maintaining cleanliness and organization of the kitchen area, and occasionally assisting with dishwashing and other general kitchen tasks as needed. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from Sept. 1, 2023, to Feb. 16, 2025, as a cook at the Defendants' restaurant, Steamed, located at 77 Whitney Ave, New Haven, Connecticut. Steamed LLC operates the restaurant "Steamed."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jian Hang, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-20 38th Ave., Suite 10G Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com TANCEUTICALS LLC: Faces Senior Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------- MILAGROS SENIOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TANCEUTICALS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05309 (S.D.N.Y., June 25, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://tanceuticals.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Tanceuticals, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal TANYA TAYLOR: Senior Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website -------------------------------------------------------------- MILAGROS SENIOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TANYA TAYLOR DESIGNS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05310 (S.D.N.Y., June 25, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.tanyataylor.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Tanya Taylor Designs LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal TC HEARTLAND: Can Obtain Discovery of Garcia Medical Records ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN PRESCOTT, et al., v. TC HEARTLAND, LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-04192-NW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi entered an order regarding the June 16, 2025 Discovery Dispute of the Garcia Medical Records. The Court concludes that TC Heartland is entitled to obtain discovery of Mr. Garcia's medical records reflecting or describing (1) Mr. Garcia's pre-diabetes (or diabetes) diagnosis(es) and/or symptoms, and (2) Mr. Garcia's healthcare providers' treatment plan(s) for treating or managing his disease and/or his symptoms. TC Heartland may not obtain discovery of other matters within the scope of RFPs 8-11. Because the discovery permitted by this order may implicate Mr. Garcia's interest in maintaining the privacy and confidentiality of his medical records, he may produce responsive documents with the protections available under the protective order. The Court concludes that some of the disputed discovery is relevant and proportional to the needs of the case, and properly may be produced, subject to the provisions of the protective order, if necessary. There is no dispute that Mr. Garcia has a privacy interest in protecting his medical records from disclosure to others. However, for the reasons already explained, he has put some aspects of those medical records at issue in this action, and they are directly relevant to his advertising claims. Mr. Garcia does not explain why, in these circumstances, his medical records should not be produced in discovery. Given the limited scope of production this order contemplates, the Court finds that Mr. Garcia's legitimate privacy interests can be adequately protected by appropriately designating his medical records under the protective order as "confidential" or "highly confidential." Accordingly, the Court finds that to the extent TC Heartland seeks discovery of Mr. Garcia's pre-diabetes diagnosis and his treatment plan, if any, that discovery is relevant. However, the Court is not persuaded that TC Heartland is entitled to obtain discovery of all documents responsive to each of RFPs 8-11. Mr. Garcia has not put at issue the accuracy of his pre-diabetes diagnosis or any physical harm he may have suffered from consumption of Splenda. The Court finds that Mr. Garcia has waived the physician-patient privilege with respect to these relevant medical records. In this action, Mr. Garcia asserts, on behalf of himself and a putative class, that TC Heartland has engaged for decades in consumer fraud by advertising its Splenda products to health-conscious consumers, and in particular those with Type 2 diabetes, as a healthy sugar alternative with positive health benefits, even though Splenda's primary ingredient, sucralose, can cause or exacerbate diabetes, among other harms. TC provides packaged food products. A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=znVRHt at no extra charge.[CC] TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Scheme to Block Generic Competition ------------------------------------------------------------------- LAMARTINE PIERRE, JR. and JESSE GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES, LTD., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., TEVA PARENTERAL MEDICINES, INC., TEVA NEUROSCIENCE, INC., TEVA SALES & MARKETING, INC., and CEPHALON, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-03510 (E.D.N.Y., June 23, 2025) seeks to hold Defendants accountable for participating in a scheme to improperly block access to the EpiPen (a life-saving drug/device combination for severe allergic reactions) in exchange for blocking access to Nuvigil (a wakefulness medicine). According to the complaint, Teva worked in secret to sign deals with two other pharmaceutical manufacturers, Mylan and Pfizer, which foreclosed generic competition to both the EpiPen and Nuvigil for several years longer than legally allowed. In short, Mylan and Pfizer, on the one hand, and Teva, on the other, agreed to exchange market access for EpiPen and Nuvigil to protect their respective market shares and to delay entry of generic competition for their respective branded drugs. By abusing the patent litigation process and conspiring to block generic access, Teva, Mylan, and Pfizer forced purchasers to pay for branded products when prescriptions should have been filled with less costly generic options. Teva is primarily a generic drug company that publicly claims to champion and promote generic drug access. Standing in stark contrast to these claims, Teva's secret efforts to block access to generic alternatives to Nuvigil and EpiPen were especially egregious. As to the schemes to block generic drug access to Nuvigil and the EpiPen, there is little mystery as to what happened: Mylan and Pfizer have already settled a lawsuit filed against them concerning the generic delay scheme for a total of $609 million. See In re EpiPen Marketing, Sales Practices, & Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 17-md-2785 (D. Kan.). These nine figure settlements, which occurred after years of discovery and nationwide class certification of claims for antitrust and RICO violations, confirm the plausibility of the allegations raised in this complaint against Teva. But those settlements addressed only the EpiPen, and only Mylan and Pfizer's roles in the pay-for-delay scheme. This case -- alongside a sister-case filed in Kansas that does not presently include New York plaintiffs pursuing New York claims: Edgar et al v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries, Ltd. et al, 2:22-cv-02501-DDC-TJJ (D. Kan.) -- addresses the other side of the exchange, Nuvigil, and the other participant in the scheme, Teva. This case seeks to complete the puzzle and to hold Teva accountable for its role in delaying generic options for Nuvigil, says the suit. Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries, Ltd. is a worldwide pharmaceutical company engaged in the development, manufacturing, marketing, and sale of pharmaceutical products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew S. Tripolitsiotis, Esq. BURNS CHAREST LLP 757 Third Ave., 20th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (469) 895-5269 E-mail: mtripolitsiotis@burnscharest.com - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Ave NW, No. 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 640-1160 E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com TRANSDEV ALTERNATIVE: Steins Removes Suit to C.D. Calif. -------------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of DANIEL STEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRANSDEV ALTERNATIVE SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No. 25STCV12707) to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 9, 2025. The clerk of court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-05238. The case is assigned to Fernando L Aenlle-Rocha and referred to Magistrate Brianna Fuller Mircheff. Transdev Services, Inc. provides passenger transportation services. The Company operates and manages transportation networks such as bus, commuter rail, and light rail in cities on a contract basis. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Allison M. Scott, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2850 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3100 Telephone: (213) 337-6550 Facsimile: (213) 337-6551 Email: Allison.Scott@huschblackwell.com TREE TOP: Faces Borowsky Suit Over Mislabeled Apple Juice --------------------------------------------------------- NORA BOROWSKY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TREE TOP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-05533-AGT (N.D. Cal., July 1, 2025) alleges violation of the California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, and California's False Advertising Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff purchased Defendant's Tree Top 100% Apple Juice Products. The Defendant prominently represents that the Products are made of "100% Apple Juice," "100% Juice" and/or with "100% USA Apples." Defendant sells six substantially similar iterations of its "100% Juice" Apple Juice products. These representations together signal to reasonable consumers, like Plaintiff, that the Products are comprised of solely fruit and fruit-derived ingredients. Instead, and unbeknownst to Plaintiff who purchased a subset of the Products relying on Defendant's representation that the Products are comprised exclusively of juice and juice products, the Products are made with synthetic, non-natural ascorbic acid; a human-made preservative, says the suit. Tree Top, Inc. provides food services. The Company offers apple sauce, fruits snacks, juices, slices, bases, appetizers, desserts, salads, and other related products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Daniel S. Guerra, Esq. Joshua B. Glatt, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com dguerra@bursor.com jglatt@bursor.com ULTIMATE GUITAR: Teilmann Sues Over Auto Renewal of Subscriptions ----------------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN TEILMANN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ULTIMATE GUITAR USA LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-05310 (N.D. Cal., June 25, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for unfair competition, conversion, false advertising, violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, unjust enrichment/restitution, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged practice of automatically renewing its subscription plans for Ultimate Guitar software products and services that are available exclusively to consumers who enroll in its autorenewal membership programs. According to the complaint, when consumers sign up for the Ultimate Guitar Subscriptions, the Defendant surreptitiously enrolls consumers into a program that automatically renews the Ultimate Guitar Subscriptions from month-to-month or year-to-year resulting in monthly or annual charges to the consumers' credit card, debit card, or third-party payment account. In doing so, the Defendant fails to provide the requisite disclosures and authorizations required to be made to California consumers under California's Automatic Renewal Law. Ultimate Guitar USA LLC is a company that offers music courses and song tracks, headquartered in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. GUCOVSCHI ROZENSHTEYN, PLLC 140 Broadway, 46th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 Email: adrian@gr-firm.com UNION PACIFIC: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment vs Mayer ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD MAYER, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO., Case No. 8:23-cv-00225-JFB-JMD (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Bataillon entered an order: 1. Denying U.P.'s motion for summary judgment; 2. Denying U.P.'s motion for judgment on the pleadings; 3. Denying as moot Mayer's motion for judicial notice and U.P.'s motion for judicial notice. Mayer's claims are timely because they were tolled during the pendency of the Harris class action. U.P. may permissibly rely on Mayer’s heart condition to impose work restrictions if he posed a direct threat to his coworkers and the public. But a reasonable jury could conclude U.P. did not rely on "the most current medical knowledge" to make an "objectively reasonable" determination that Mayer posed this kind of direct threat. This is an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) case. Richard Mayer worked for U.P. for over two decades as an engineer. Mayer suffers from a medical condition (cardiomyopathy) treated with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). He alleges U.P. imposed career ending work restrictions because of this medical condition. Union is a Class I freight-hauling railroad. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated July 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=R5N1uQ at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Denies Wilderness Therapy Claim, T.W. Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ T.W., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00827-MAD-PJE (N.D.N.Y., June 25, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of denying coverage for treatment of mental health and substance use disorders provided in wilderness therapy programs in violation of ERISA. The Defendant's exclusion of wilderness therapy programs also violates the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act. The Defendant's policy of summarily rejecting claims it characterizes as "wilderness therapy" on the grounds that they are "experimental, investigational, or unproven" is inconsistent with its coverage of medical/surgical therapies provided in an outdoor setting. As a result of the Defendant's action, the Plaintiff and the Class suffered losses. United Behavioral Health is a health benefits management company, headquartered in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian S. King, Esq. BRIAN S. KING, PC 420 East South Temple, Suite 420 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 532-1739 Facsimile: (801) 532-1936 Email: brian@briansking.com UNITED STATES: Tags Immigrants' Class-Action Motion Improper ------------------------------------------------------------ Lauren Lifke, writing for Maryland Matters, reports that attorneys for President Donald Trump told a federal district judge Monday, July 7, that a request to turn an immigrants' lawsuit into a class-action suit is little more than an attempted "end run around" the Supreme Court and should be rejected. The original lawsuit was filed by the immigrant advocacy group CASA and several pregnant immigrant women in an attempt to block Trump's executive order denying citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. unless at least one of the parents was already a citizen. The "birthright citizenship" ban was swiftly challenged in courts around the country and several judges, including Judge Deborah Boardman in the U.S. District Court for Maryland, issued preliminary injjunctions that kept the order from taking effect nationwide. The government challenged the ability of the district judges to issue nationwide orders, and last month the Supreme Court agreed with the government, overturning the nationwide injunctions and sending the cases back to the lower courts for trial. Even though the injunctions were no longer in place, the government said it would not attempt to enforce the birthright citizenship ban for at least 30 days. Within hours of the high court's ruling, attorneys for CASA were back in court with additional immigrant plaintiffs, asking Boardman to turn the case into a nationwide class-action lawsuit on behalf of all children born in the U.S. to immigrant parents after Feb. 19, the original effective date of Trump's order. Boardman last week gave Justice Department attorneys until July 7 to respond to the class-action motion. "The relief Plaintiffs seek is functionally no different from their prior (and now forbidden) universal injunction," a response from the government says. Class action lawsuits are allowed for cases in which a class is so large that it would be impractical to account for all members, there are questions of law common to the people in the class, and the representative class members named in the suit will fairly protect the interests of the class. Trump's attorneys argue that these criteria aren't met. "Plaintiffs' differing immigration statuses create issues of whether 'there are questions of law or fact common to the class,' and whether 'the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class,'" the filing reads. Attorneys also argued that the court cannot issue a preliminary injunction because the previous preliminary injunction is still on appeal. They argued that plaintiffs are not entitled to a nationwide preliminary injunction, and that the court should stay the injunction pending its appeal. The earliest date the administration would apply the order is July 27. [GN] URW COMMUNITY: Burton Sues Over OD Fees on Debit Card Transactions ------------------------------------------------------------------ DONNA BURTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. URW COMMUNITY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-00033-TTC-CKM (W.D. Va., June 25, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of contract and violation of Electronic Fund Transfers Act. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful business practice of assessing $25 overdraft (OD) fees on (1) debit card transactions authorized on sufficient funds and (2) ATM and one-time debit card transactions. As a result of the Defendant's improper fee maximization practices, the Plaintiff and the Class have been injured. URW Community Federal Credit Union is a credit union, with its headquarters in Danville, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Devon J. Munro, Esq. MUNRO BYRD, PC 120 Day Avenue SW, Suite 100 Roanoke, VA 24016 Telephone: (540) 283-9343 Email: dmunro@trialsva.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 4204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Email: ltoops@cohenmalad.com - and - Martin F. Schubert, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Ste. 200 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Email: mschubert@stranchlaw.com - and - Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. JENNINGS & EARLEY PLLC 500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 110 Little Rock, AR 72201 Email: chris@jefirm.com VAIL RESORTS: Bisaillon Suit Transferred to D. Colorado ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Christopher Bisaillon, an individual, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. Vail Resorts, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00020 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on July 2, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-02056-NYW to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Vail Resorts, Inc. -- https://www.vailresorts.com/ -- is an American mountain resort company headquartered in Broomfield, Colorado.[BN] VENTURE LOGISTICS: Final Breach Settlement Hearing Set Sept. 19 --------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a $932,800 settlement is set to resolve a class action lawsuit against Venture Logistics over a May 2023 data breach during which customers' sensitive personal information was accessed by cybercriminals. The Venture Logistics class action settlement received preliminary court approval on May 15, 2025 and covers anyone who received a notice from Venture Logistics that their information may have been compromised during the May 2023 data breach. The court-approved website for the Venture Logistics data breach settlement can be found at VentureLogisticsClassAction.com. Venture settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form are eligible to receive at least three years of credit monitoring services, reimbursement for out-of-pocket losses and attested time, and a cash payment, the settlement website shares. The credit monitoring services available to eligible claimants include: -- Daily credit monitoring from TransUnion, Equifax and Experian; -- Identity theft insurance with coverage of up to $1 million; -- Identity restoration services covering identity theft and identity fraud incidents; and -- Dashlane Password Manager password protection. Class members who submit a valid claim for extraordinary out-of-pocket losses may receive up to $5,000 for documented identity fraud or theft resulting from the Venture Logistics data breach, the settlement site says. Documented ordinary out-of-pocket losses, meaning losses related to efforts meant to mitigate against data breach-related identity theft, may be compensated for up to $500, the website shares. Class members may also submit a claim for reimbursement for up to five hours of time spent dealing with or mitigating the effects of the data breach, at a rate of $25 per hour. Claims for attested time must include descriptions of the actions taken during that time and their relation to the data breach, the class action settlement website specifies. Class members will be limited to a maximum of $5,000 in total compensation for all out-of-pocket losses and attested time, the settlement website states. Following the payment of legal fees, lead plaintiff awards, credit monitoring service costs and out-of-pocket loss and attested time costs, the remainder of the $932,800 settlement fund will be distributed to settlement class members in the form of cash payments on a pro-rata, or equal share, basis, the settlement site states. Class members do not need to file a claim form to receive this cash payment, the website relays. To submit a claim form online, Venture Logistics class members can head to this page and log in with the unique class member ID found in their settlement notice. Alternatively, a PDF of the claim form is available to print, fill out and mail back to the address listed on the first page of the document. All Venture Logistics settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by October 1, 2025. A hearing is set for September 19, 2025 to determine whether the class action settlement will receive final approval from the court. Compensation from the Venture Logistics settlement will begin to be distributed only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Venture Logistics data breach class action lawsuit claimed that Venture customers' sensitive personal data was illegally accessed by cybercriminals in a data breach incident occurring in May 2023. The case alleged Venture Logistics was negligent in failing to protect consumers' personally identifiable information. [GN] VIRGINIA MASON: Fails to Prevent Drug Diversion of Employees ------------------------------------------------------------ DANIELLE SALAZAR; and MARCELINO SALAZAR, a Washington resident, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VIRGINIA MASON FRANCISCAN HEALTH; and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-5, Defendants, Case No. 25-2-17097-7 SEA (Wash. Super., King Cty., June 9, 2025) alleges that the Defendants violated state and federal law regarding the maintenance, distribution, and control of controlled substances and prescription medications by engaging in drug diversion activity. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and the Class were subject to pain, suffering, and actual and potential exposure to multiple infectious diseases while being patients of the Defendants, between the dates of November 17, 2023 and July 29, 2024, due to actual or potential drug diversion, the stealing of narcotic pain medication intended for patients, by one or more employees and agents of Defendant Virginia Mason. Defendant Virginia Mason was negligent in its hiring, training, and supervision of its employees and agents who engaged in this drug diversion and thereby actually or potentially exposed hospitalized patients to serious infectious diseases, as well as pain, suffering, and emotional distress, says the suit. Virginia Mason Medical Center operates as a non-profit organization. The Organization emergency care, women's health, cancer treatment, audiology, cardiology, family medicine, general surgery, and pediatric services. Virginia Mason Medical Center serves patients in the State of Washington. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin T. G. Nivison, Esq. Jason L. Simmons, Esq. ROSSI VUCINOVICH PC 1000 Second Avenue, Suite 1420 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (425) 646-8003 VOLVO CARS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Defective Electric Cars ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims Volvo Cars of North America and Volvo Car USA have knowingly concealed that 2020-2024 model year Volvo XC40 Recharge vehicles are plagued by a powertrain control system defect that can cause the electric cars to suddenly accelerate, lurch or jump. The 16-page Volvo lawsuit contends that the XC40 Recharge, despite being touted as a safe, reliable all-electric SUV, suffers from a defect that stems from a "constellation of potentially interconnected issues" linked to software failures and critical powertrain and control system vulnerabilities. According to the suit, these issues can cause the cars to unexpectedly accelerate or surge forward or backward, often when the driver is shifting gears, when the "one pedal drive" system is active, during low-speed maneuvers or when using features like "creep mode" or the automatic brake hold function. The Volvo XC40 Recharge lawsuit alleges that the unpredictable nature of the apparent defect—which can manifest even when a driver is not accelerating or their foot is on the brake pedal—poses a significant risk of accidents and injuries to motorists and pedestrians, particularly in common driving situations such as parking, merging or moving through intersections. "The core of this Defect is the system's fundamental inability to safely manage the powertrain when faced with minor hardware faults, software conflicts, or common operational scenarios, leading to a cascade of dangerous, unintended behaviors," the complaint describes. The filing argues that Volvo was aware of the alleged software defect, not least because the XC40 Recharge's "sister vehicle," the Polestar 2, also reportedly experienced critical powertrain failures due to a flaw in identical software it shares with the Volvo model at issue. In addition, the automaker began receiving consumer complaints and data from dealerships detailing the issues shortly after the XC40 Recharge was launched, the suit claims. The case charges that Volvo has failed to disclose to consumers the scope and severity of the defect and instead continued to misrepresent the vehicles' safety and dependability. Furthermore, the automaker has not sufficiently remedied the problem or issued a comprehensive recall to address the design flaw, the complaint alleges. Although Volvo initiated two recalls for certain 2021-2022 XC40 Recharge vehicles and 2021-2022 XC40 battery electric vehicles (BEV) in previous years, the recalls were limited, "unduly narrow" and failed to cure the underlying systemic defect that causes the dangerous surging and lurching behavior, the filing contends. The lawsuit looks to represent all individuals or entities in the United States that purchased or leased any 2020-2024 Volvo XC40 Recharge electric vehicles. [GN] WATERSTREET CO: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Alejnikov Says ------------------------------------------------------------ ROBERT ALEJNIKOV, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WATERSTREET COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 9:25-cv-00098-KLD (D. Mon., June 6, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted the Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII1" or "Private Information") that was impacted in a data breach Defendant disclosed in May 2025 (the "Data Breach" or the "Breach"). According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, due to the Defendant's negligence and failures, cyber criminals obtained and now possess everything they need to commit personal identity theft and wreak havoc on the financial and personal lives of thousands of individuals, for decades to come. As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class members have already suffered damages. The Plaintiff's and the Class's Private Information has been released into the criminal cyber domains, Plaintiff and Class members are at imminent and impending risk of identity theft. This risk will continue for the rest of their lives, as Plaintiff and Class members are now forced to deal with the danger of identity thieves possessing and using their Private Information. Waterstreet, Ltd. operates as a restaurant. The Company offers an array of items such as sushi, steaks, pasta, soups, salads, sandwiches, burgers, seafood, sides, alcoholic beverages, and desserts. Waterstreet also offers catering and banquets. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Heenan, Esq. Heenan & Cook 1631 Zimmerman Trail Billings, MT 59102 Telephone: (406) 839-9091 Facsimile: (406) 839-9092 Email: john@lawmontana.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. Milberg Coleman Bryson, Esq. Phillips Grossman PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com WEST VIRGINIA: Appeals Court Dismisses Inmates' Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Steven Allen Adams of New and Sentinel reports that a lawsuit brought by several inmates in West Virginia's correctional system raising issues about conditions under the previous administration of former governor Jim Justice was dismissed by a federal appeals court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit published an opinion Wednesday, July 9, dismissing a case brought in August 2023 by several West Virginia inmates against Justice and former Department of Homeland Security Cabinet Secretary Mark Sorsaia. The inmates, represented by Stephen New of Beckley-based Stephen New and Associates, accused the state of understaffing, overcrowding and delays of deferred maintenance for the state's 11 prisons, 10 regional jails, 10 juvenile centers and three work-release sites. New appealed the case to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals after U.S. District Court Judge Irene Berger granted motions in July 2024 to dismiss the case. The inmates accused the state of violating their Eighth Amendment constitutional rights against cruel and unusual punishment. They sought a ruling in their favor and an order to require the state to spend no less than $330 million on staffing and maintenance for the state's entire correctional system with available funds or by submitting appropriations bills. In its decision more than a year ago, the U.S. District Court dismissed the case due to the inmates not having legal standing to bring the case. Berger ruled that the inmates should have filed suit against the state Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation (DCR) regarding their complaints about jail and prison conditions. Berger also said the West Virginia Legislature should have been sued, as they have the responsibility of passing the general revenue budget that funds DCR. In the written opinion, U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Virginia Jasmine Yoon -- sitting by designation -- agreed with the lower court ruling. "Appellants do little to explain how the governor's action or inaction caused the injuries alleged above," Yoon wrote. "That might be because, as Appellants conceded at oral argument, another official -- the Commissioner of WVDCR -- actually 'carries out the day-to-day operations' of these facilities. Appellants have not clearly alleged facts that demonstrate that it is the governor, and not the Commissioner of WVDCR (or some other official), who caused Appellants' injuries. "The governor occupies a very different role," Yoon continued. "He does not allocate staff, set scheduling shifts, perform or direct maintenance, supervise the cooking of food or provision of supplies, or determine how showers are run in the facilities. Accordingly, there does not exist a sufficient causal connection in this case to establish traceability." Yoon pointed out that while the governor presents a general revenue budget -- which includes the budget for the Department of Homeland Security and DCR -- that budget must be approved by the Legislature and the responsibility for implementing that budget at the jails and prisons level is the commissioner for DCR. "As Appellants note in their complaint, West Virginia law requires the governor to submit a proposed budget for the next fiscal year," Yoon wrote. "But Appellants have not clearly alleged facts to show it is possible for the court to compel the governor to actually make the appropriations they wish to see. Nor have they clearly alleged facts which show that the governor may implement and enforce policies, procedures, and practices, or make repairs, personnel changes, and financial investments for the facilities at issue. "The Commissioner is the final step in the grievance process within West Virginia correctional facilities, meaning that inmate complaints akin to those Appellants allege are routinely appealed for the Commissioner's review," Yoon continued. Yoon also stated that it was not the place of the federal judiciary to meddle in spending decisions within the state or make public policy decisions. "In terms of forcing specific policies to be enacted, federal courts possess 'neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments' which are generally entrusted to elected officials 'who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them,'" Yoon wrote. The state settled a similar lawsuit with New and clients in November focused on the Southern Regional Jail near Beckley while that lawsuit continues with local county governments and medical providers. The total of the settlement with SJR inmates was $4 million. [GN] WESTMORE BEAUTY: Senior Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ---------------------------------------------------------------- MILAGROS SENIOR, individually and on behalf of all others persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WESTMORE BEAUTY ULTRA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05391 (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://westmorebeauty.com/, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Westmore Beauty Ultra, LLC offers a range of innovative makeup products designed to enhance natural beauty and provide flawless-looking skin. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal WHITEPAGES INC: Bid to Dismiss Carrera Suit Tossed -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER CARRERA, et al., v. WHITEPAGES, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-01408-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John H. Chun entered an order denying Whitepages' motion to dismiss. The Court takes as true the Plaintiffs' allegation that third parties viewed their free-preview profile pages. Whitepages' use of accurate and publicly available information about Plaintiffs nonetheless inflicts a cognizable harm under Article III. Whitepages does not show that the Plaintiffs waived their rights to bring class action claims by agreeing to its Terms of Service. Whitepages is a provider of online directory services, fraud screening, background checks and identity verification for consumers and businesses. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=X5uMVn at no extra charge.[CC] WVMF FUNDING: Court Overrules Objection to Denial of Bifurcation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York overruled the Defendant's Rule 72 objection to Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo's Nov. 1, 2024 Order denying its motion to bifurcate merits discovery from class discovery in the case captioned as MARIANNE RENOIS AS ADMINISTRATOR, FIDUCIARY AND BENEFICIARY OF AND FOR THE ESTATE OF ELLIS DEANGELO, MYRTEEN LEE and TAUNA THOMPSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WVMF FUNDING, LLC, and COMPU-LINK CORPORATION D/B/A CELINK, Defendants, Case No. 20-CV-9281-LTS-VF (S.D.N.Y.). The Court found no clear error of fact or law in the magistrate judge's order. Case Background and Claims Plaintiffs bring this putative class action for injuries caused to borrowers of reverse mortgages and Home Equity Conversion Mortgages upon whom defendant erroneously imposed force-placed insurance and charged related costs and fees, despite providing inadequate notice and having already received adequate notice from borrowers regarding pre-existing hazard insurance policies. The Second Amended Complaint defines three proposed classes. The main class includes all borrowers, heirs and estates of borrowers who had an HECM or reverse mortgage loan serviced by Celink since December 21, 2015, and for whom Celink failed to timely refund force-placed insurance and related fees. Two subclasses include New York and California borrowers. The classes comprise thousands of individuals whose identities can be ascertained from defendant's records. Legal Claims Asserted Plaintiffs assert claims for violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and its implementing regulation (Count One), New York Real Property Law Section 280-b (Count Two), breach of contract (Count Three), New York General Business Law Section 349 (Count Four), California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Count Five), California's Business and Professions Code (Count Six), and violations of consumer protection laws of other states (Count Seven). Defendant's Bifurcation Motion On June 4, 2024, defendant moved to bifurcate merits and class discovery. Defendant argued that merits discovery should be bifurcated because discovery into the actual notice that plaintiffs provided to Celink may show that such notice was insufficient under the HECM contracts, and thus defendant violated no RESPA provisions by reasonably force-placing hazard insurance. Defendant argued that plaintiffs' breach of contract, New York General Business Law, and California Consumer Act claims are all premised on finding that defendant's placement of hazard insurance violated RESPA. Therefore, such discovery may dispose of all claims except Count II. Magistrate Judge's Findings Judge Figueredo denied the bifurcation motion, finding that defendant failed to show good cause because the issue regarding the sufficiency of plaintiffs' notice is a class-wide issue that will arise "for every borrower in the class." Judge Figueredo noted that "where discovery relating to class issues overlaps substantially with merits discovery, bifurcation will result in duplication of efforts and needless line-drawing disputes." Additionally, Judge Figueredo found that "it is not apparent that a summary judgment motion on the sufficiency of plaintiffs' notice to defendant will dispose of the entire case." Court's Analysis and Legal Standard A party may file an objection to a magistrate judge's order within 14 days. The district judge shall not disturb the order unless it is "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." A ruling is clearly erroneous where "the district court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." An order is contrary to law when it "fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law or rules of procedure." Magistrate judges are afforded broad discretion in resolving non-dispositive disputes. Rule 26 allows courts considerable discretion "to control the sequence and timing of discovery, particularly where resolution of a preliminary matter may decide an entire case." In putative class actions, good cause may be found where resolution of a single issue may resolve the case, or where a narrow, potentially dispositive issue totally distinct from class issues has the potential to render the named plaintiffs' claims non-actionable. Court's Ruling on Count II Survival Defendant argued that the Order should be overruled because Judge Figueredo misunderstood the central issues. Defendant argued that plaintiffs' obligation to provide notice is an antecedent issue to defendant's proper notice of force-placed insurance. However, defendant admitted their argument does not apply to Count II, which asserts that defendant violated Section 280-b(4) of the N.Y. Real Property Law by failing to provide adequate notice of fees to New York borrowers. The Court found that Count II would survive regardless of any summary judgment motion on the sufficiency of plaintiffs' notice. Final Disposition The Court cannot find the Order to be "contrary to law" based on Judge Figueredo's finding that it was "not apparent" that a summary judgment motion on the sufficiency of plaintiffs' notice will dispose of the entire case. Because the Court finds no clear error of fact or law in the Order, the Court overrules defendant's Rule 72 objection. For the foregoing reasons, defendant's Rule 72 objection to Magistrate Judge Figueredo's November 1, 2024 Order denying defendant's motion to bifurcate class and merits discovery is overruled. WYNDHAM VACATION: Arroyo Suit Removed to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Audrey Romalda Arroyo, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. WYNDHAM VACATION OWNERSHIP, INC., and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 25CV002249 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Monterey, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on July 2, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-05585. On April 29, 2025, Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a putative class action complaint, alleging the following eight causes of action for: failure to pay wages for all hours worked at minimum wage in violation of Labor Code; failure to pay overtime wages for daily overtime worked in violation of Labor Code; failure to authorize or permit meal periods in violation of Labor Code; failure to authorize or permit rest periods in violation of Labor Code; failure to pay wages for accrued paid sick days at the regular rate of pay in violation of Labor Code; failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements in violation of Labor Code; failure to timely pay all earned wages and final paychecks due at time of separation of employment in violation of Labor Code; and unfair business practices, in violation of Business and Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kathy A. Le, Esq. Lauren B. Shelby, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 885-1360 Email: Kathy.Le@jacksonlewis.com Lauren.Shelby@jacksonlewis.com XPLR INFRASTRUCTURE: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, has filed a securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against XPLR Infrastructure, LP f/k/a Nextera Energy Partners, LP ("XPLR" or the "Company") (NYSE: XIFR), and certain of its former and current officers and/or directors (collectively, "Defendants"). The Class Action asserts claims under Secs. 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Secs. 78j(b) and 78t(a)) and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b‑5) on behalf of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired XPLR common units between September 27, 2023 and January 27, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby (the "Class"). The Class Action filed by Scott+Scott is captioned: James Alvrus v. XPLR Infrastructure, LP f/k/a Nextera Energy Partners, LP, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-01755. LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE ON SEPTEMBER 8, 2025 XPLR acquires, owns, and manages contracted clean energy projects in the United States, including a portfolio of contracted wind and solar power projects, as well as a natural gas pipeline. The Class Action alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants made misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's business, financial condition, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to warn investors that: (i) XPLR was struggling to maintain its operations as a yieldco (i.e., a business that owns and operates fully-built and operational power generating projects, focused on delivering large cash distributions to investors); (ii) Defendants temporarily relieved this issue by entering into certain financing arrangements while downplaying the attendant risks; (iii) XPLR could not resolve those financings before their maturity date without risking significant unitholder dilution; (iv) as a result, Defendants planned to halt cash distributions to investors and instead redirect those funds to, inter alia, resolve those financings; (v) as a result of all the foregoing, XPLR's yieldco business model and distribution growth rate was unsustainable; and (vi) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. The market began to learn the truth on January 28, 2025, when XPLR shocked investors by announcing that it would suspend entirely cash distributions to common unitholders and essentially abandon its yieldco model. Specifically, XPLR issued a press release announcing a "strategic respositioning" and stating that it was "moving from a business model that focused almost entirely on raising new capital to acquire assets while distributing substantially all of its excess cash flows to unitholders to a model in which XPLR Infrastructure utilizes retained operating cash flows to fund attractive investments." In addition, XPLR announced that it had appointed a new CEO and CFO. On this news, the price of XPLR's common units fell from a closing price of $15.80 per unit on January 27, 2025 to a closing price of $10.49 per unit on January 29, 2025—a decline of $5.31 per unit, or nearly 35%, trading on unusually high volume. LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE ON SEPTEMBER 8, 2025 If you purchased or acquired XPLR common units during the Class Period and were damaged thereby, you are a member of the "Class" and may be able to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. If you wish to apply to be lead plaintiff, a motion on your behalf must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California no later than September 8, 2025. The lead plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent class members of the Class. You do not need to seek appointment as lead plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in the Class Action. If you are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an absent Class member. If you wish to apply to be lead plaintiff, please contact attorney Nicholas Bruno at (888) 398-9312 or at nbruno@scott-scott.com. What Can You Do? You may contact an attorney to discuss your rights regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff or your interest in the Class Action. You may retain counsel of your choice to represent you in the Class Action. About Scott+Scott Scott+Scott is an international law firm known for its expertise in representing corporate clients, institutional investors, businesses, and individuals harmed by anticompetitive conduct or other forms of wrongdoing, including securities law and shareholder violations. With more than 100 attorneys in eight offices in the United States, as well as three offices in Europe, our advocacy has resulted in significant monetary settlements on behalf of our clients, along with other forms of relief. Our highly experienced attorneys have been recognized for being among the top financial lawyers in 2024 by Lawdragon, WWL: Commercial Litigation 2024, and Legal 500 in Antitrust Civil Litigation, and have received top Chambers 2024 rankings. In addition, we have been repeatedly recognized by the American Antitrust Institute for the successful litigation of high-stakes anticompetitive claims in the United States. To learn more about Scott+Scott, our attorneys, or complex case resolution, please visit www.scott-scott.com. [GN] ZILLOW HOME: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Simmons Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ CHRISTA SIMMONS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZILLOW HOME LOANS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-61303-MD (S.D. Fla., June 27, 2025) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Zillow Home Loans, LLC provides online mortgage lending services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Dapeer, Esq. DAPEER LAW, P.A. 520 S Dixie Hwy, #240 Hallandale Beach, FL 33009 Telephone: (954) 799-5914 Email: rachel@dapeer.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Returns $3M Plaintiff Verdict in Talc Trial ----------------------------------------------------------------- Goldberg Segalla reports that a Louisiana jury on May 7 returned a plaintiff's verdict against talc manufacturer Johnson & Johnson and talc supplier Pecos River Talc LLC. During trial, plaintiffs argued that J&J's baby powder product contained talc supplied by Pecos River, that the talc was contaminated with asbestos, and that decedent Jeannie Henderson's exposure to the product was a substantial factor in causing her mesothelioma. Defendants raised several arguments in response, including, (1) a contest of causation as decedent worked 30 years in an office building purportedly plagued by asbestos (Johns Manville) and (2), that decedent also had exposure to other beauty products (including Avon). Thus, according to defendants, the jury could apportion fault to non-parties Johns Manville and Avon and, moreover, that whatever the baby powder exposure, it was not a substantial factor in causing decedent's mesothelioma. Defendants further raised a "state of the art" defense, arguing that at the time its baby powder products left J&J, and in light of then-existing reasonably available scientific evidence, the company could not have known of any potential dangers associated with its product. Ultimately, the jury returned a mixed verdict. The jury found that decedent had "sufficient exposure" to J&Js products, which was a substantial factor in causing her mesothelioma. The jury further found in favor of plaintiffs as to their negligence claim, strict liability claims, and failure to warn claim. The jury rejected plaintiff's defective design claim. It also unanimously agreed with J&J's state-of-the-art defense, however, per the jury instructions, regardless of the finding, the jury would still reach damages if the plaintiffs prevailed on any of the considered charges. As to comparative fault, the jury assessed 45-percent fault to J&J and 2-percent fault to Pecos River, and as to the non-parties, 45-percent fault to Johns Manville and 8-percent to Avon. As previously detailed, the combined total verdict ultimately amounted to $3,005,206.09. To date, no final judgement has been entered as the parties are still negotiating the verdict. Plaintiffs have suggested a verdict of $2,825,206 (the full sum of survival damages) assessed equally to J&J and Pecos River because, per plaintiffs, (1) Decedent's exposure preceded Louisiana comparative fault law and (2) there was not a settlement against any of the other defendants. Defendants, on the other hand, argue that Louisiana's comparative fault law was enacted 40 years before plaintiffs filed suit and thus, applies. Defendants further argue that the verdict should be consistent with Louisiana's comparative fault law principles and, therefore, should be assessed at $1,352,342 as to J&J and $60,104 as to Pecos River. This issue is still pending with the court. Goldberg's Segalla's Asbestos Case Tracker will continue to monitor this case for any updates as to final judgment, along with any potential appeals. ********* 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 ***