250722.mbx

250722.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, July 22, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 145 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Chappell Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama 3M COMPANY: Ward Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 7 CUPS OF TEA: Unlawfully Uses Providers' Profiles, Nicholes Says 84 LUMBER: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Runciman Due Oct. 14 93 LUDLOW ST: Anderson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Nixon-Cobb Balks at Genetic Info Collection ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Rodriguez Sues Over Deceptive Discount Prices ACRE MORTGAGE: Knoche Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ADAMS COMMUNITY: Class Cert Bid in McGuire Suit Due Feb. 6, 2026 AFLAC INC: Murphree Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Clients' Info AHOLD DELHAIZE: Cullen Sues Over Failure to Protect Information ALLIANT INSURANCE: Fails to Timely Pay Claims, Giusti Suit Says ALLINA HEALTH: Kahl et al. Sue Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties ALPHA BAKING: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Plasky Says AMAZON.COM INC: Bid for Class Certification Partly OK'd AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Bid Reply Due Nov. 7 AMAZON.COM INC: Seeks Evidentiary Class Cert Hearing in De Coster AMAZON.COM INC: Seeks Evidentiary Class Cert Hearing in Wilson AMERICAN BEEF: Faces Holmes Wage-and-Hour Suit in C.D. Calif. AMERICAN HONDA: Must Oppose Aguirre Class Cert Bid by August 15 AMERICAN NEEDLE: Wilson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website APPLE INC: Artificially Inflated Stock Price, Hill Suit Claims APPLE INC: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert Bid Hearing Date ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Class Cert Opposition Date Amended to Sept. 30 ARVEST BANK: Infield Files Suit in W.D. Arkansas ASCENSION HEALTH: Underpays Respiratory Therapists, Nugen Says ASTRO AI: Freifeld Sues Over Distribution of Defective Mini-Fridge ATLAS OBSCURA: Filing for Class Cert. in Barajas Due August 1 BELK INC: Gabbert Sues Over Failure to Protect Clients' Info BEXAR COUNTY, TX: Court Narrows Claims in Evonishon Suit BMS HOLDINGS: Faces Bell Suit Over Private Data Breach BOLLA OPERATING: Must Oppose Vasquez Class Cert Bid by August 15 BOYNE USA: Court OK's Stipulation of Settlement Modification BUKHARI GROUP: Settlement Class in Campbell Gets Prelim Cert. CALERES INC: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Dalton Suit Claims CALIFORNIA: Roshan Appeals Ruling in Civil Rights Suit to 9th Cir. CAMPBELL'S CO: Dushaj Sues Over Mislabeled Potato Chips, Beverages CATHOLIC CHARITIES: Dixon Balks at Race, Disability Discrimination CB CONSUMER: Battle Sues Over Blind Inaccessible Website CENTENE CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sept. 8 CHOBANI LLC: Franco Appeals Consumer Suit Dismissal to 7th Circuit COINBASE INC: Faces Grove Suit Over Clients' Compromised Info COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Doe Alleges COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Kramer Sues Over Data Security Failures COMPUMEDICS USA: Blake Sues Over Unprotected Private Information CORTEVA INC: Appeals Attorneys' Fees & Cost Order in Cockerill Suit COSTA DEL MAR: Class Cert Briefing Schedule in Reed Sought COSTA DEL MAR: Reed Allowed to Seal Certain Exhibits COSTA DEL MAR: Reed Seeks Oral Argument on Class Cert Bid CREDIT SUISSE: Diabat Wins Bid to Certify Class CROWDSTRIKE INC: Del Rio Appeals Suit Dismissal to 5th Circuit CRUMBL LLC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Jan. 6, 2026 CVS HEALTH: Lewis Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia CVS HEALTH: Sells Adulterated Cough & Mucus Tablets, Hatfield Says CVS PHARMACY: Doe Appeals Class Cert. Order to 9th Circuit CVS PHARMACY: Dubin ERISA Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. DA SPOT NYC: Hernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website DATAVANT INC: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid in Garbowit DECO TRE LLC: Wills Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website DELTA BAY INVESTMENTS: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property DESERT FIRE: FLSA Class Gets Conditional Certification DIZIO LLC: Blind Users Can't Access Online Store, Ariza Suit Claims DK HOUSEHOLD: Wilson Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind DONALD TRUMP: NYIC Seeks Class Certification EFFORTLESS OFFICE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Nguyen Says EPISOURCE LLC: Lott Files Personal Injury Suit in C.D. Calif. ERIE INDEMNITY: Faces Plascencia Personal Injury Suit in W.D. Pa. EUROPEAN WAX: Dunn Sues Over Disclosed Clients' Info to 3rd Party EVERGREEN INTEREST: Ariza Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website FLEET QUEST: Walton Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Driver Class FLOYD INC: Austin Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Truck Drivers FLYING EAGLE: $10MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 2 FLYING WINGS: Oral Argument on Summary Judgment Reset to August 7 FRL AUTOMOTIVE: Bid to Bifurcate Discovery in Karpiel Tossed FULLBEAUTY BRANDS: Appeals Court Order in Broomes Suit to 9th Cir. GENESYS TECHNOLOGY: Hobbs Allowed Leave to Amend Complaint GEO REENTRY: Underpays Maintenance Technicians, Fernandez Alleges GRACE KNUTSON: Bid to Dismiss Robillard Class Action Tossed GROZA BUILDERS: Samblas TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Fla. HANLEY CENTER: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE: Hawkins Suit Removed to E.D. California HASBRO INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Dalton Suit Claims HAZEL VILLAGE: Anderson Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Website HERTZ CORPORATION: Maharaj Suit Seeks Class Certification HIGHER EDUCATION LOAN: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings Tossed HOYT ARCHERY: Janochoski Sues Over Price-Fixing Conspiracy INDEPENDENT LIVING: Settlement in Geleng Gets Initial OK INDONESIAN IMPORTS: Dalton Sues Over Online Store's Access Barriers INGERSOLL-RAND: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Bowman Due August 8 INSIGHT GLOBAL: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply in Paul INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Parties Seek to Amend Order on Class Cert Bid IROBOT CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sept. 5 IT WORKS: Perez Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class JANIE AND JACK: Bid to Dismiss Hernandez Class Action Tossed JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Deadline for Daubert Bids Extended to August 13 JOHNSON CONTROLS: Alkhatib Sues Over Failure to Secure PII JUST NATURAL: Faces Senior Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website KELSIER VENTURES: Davis Seeks to Dismiss LIBRA Scam Class Lawsuit KOCO LIFE: Senior Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Online Store KRISPY KREME: Fails to Protect Customers' Personal Info, Lavor Says LIBERTY MUTUAL: Class Cert. Bid Ruling Deferred in Harrison Suit LONG BEACH, CA: Guma Bid for Class Certification Tossed LOS AMORES: Beltran Suit Alleges Labor Law Breaches LUMINARY GENETICS: Johnson Sues Over PGT-A Test's False Advertising LUNDBECK LLC: Files Petition for Writ of Certiorari to Supreme Ct. MARRIOTT INT'L: Camas Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply MARSH & MCLENNAN: Court Sends Data Breach Case to Jury Trial MAZDA MOTOR: Appeals Settlement Agreement Order in Guthrie Suit META PLATFORMS: Illegally Collects Sensitive Data, Ginder Suit Says META PLATFORMS: Tracks and Collects Mobile Use Data, Messenger Says MGM RESORTS: Lassoff Requests for Writ of Certiorari to Supreme Ct. MIDEA AMERICA: Bradshaw Files Contract Suit in D.N.J. MORGAN STANLEY: Court Denies Appeal on Deferred Compensation Suit NESTLE WATERS: Patane Plaintiffs Seek to Seal Class Exhibits NESTLE WATERS: Patane Suit Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses NEW DIRECTION: Court Consolidates Theriault & Wallace Cases NEW ENGLAND: Agrees to Settle Privacy Class Suit for $2.16-Mil. NEW YORK, NY: Lewis Suit Seeks Class Certification OM NAMHSHIVAY: Mortland Sues Over Disabled's Access to Property PARTS AUTHORITY: Filing for Conditional Cert Bid Due August 1 PARTY CITY: Court Certifies Class in Hanlon WARN Lawsuit PARTY CITY: Hanlon Wins Bid to Amend Class Action Adversary Case PECO FOODS: Faces Brown Suit Over Alleged ERISA Violations PELOTON APPAREL: Faces Suit Over Illegal Apparel Promo Texts PENNEY OPCO: Appeals Court Denial of Arbitration Bid to 9th Cir. PEOPLEREADY INC: Torres Suit Removed to E.D. California PGATOUR.COM LLC: Britt Sues Over Disclosed Video Info to Facebook PINEHURST RADIOLOGY: Faces Wall Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info POMPA PROGRAM: Connors Suit Removed to C.D. California POWDR COPPER: Chaney Contract Suit Removed to D. Colo. PRITCHARD SPROTS: Kadow Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PTT LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Larsen Due Sept. 26 READY CAPITAL: Goebel Class Action Consolidated with Quinn Suit REALMANAGE LLC: Moscardelli Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. REGINA CATERERS: Faces Hereida Suit Over Labor Law Violations REPUBLIC SERVICES: Seeks More Time for Class Cert Discovery RJ NY RESTORATIONS: Underpays Laborers, Garcia Suit Alleges ROBERT H. CLARKSON: Mangum Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky ROBERT H. CLARKSON: McIntyre Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky RUSHMAID LLC: Herzbrun Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida SALVATION ARMY: Sandman Files Personal Injury Claims in E.D. Va. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Bid to Certify Classes Due July 16, 2026 SANDAIR CORPORATION: Jimenez-Padilla Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SCHUSTER COMPANY: Class Cert Bid Filing Due July 3, 2026 SCOUT COFFEE: Class Cert. Bid in Stracener Suit Due Feb. 2, 2026 SEATTLE PUBLIC: Fitch Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. SENTARA HOSPITALS: Ward Seeks to Certify Sentara Employee Class SHADE STORE: Class Cert Reply Filing Extended to August 15 SHADE STORE: Extension of Class Cert Briefing Deadline Sought SHADE STORE: Fitzgerald Must File Class Cert Reply by August 22 SHENZHEN SMOORE: Plaintiff Drops Suit After Name Disclosure Order SIG SAUER: Seeks Leave to File Class Opposition Second Notice SKULLCANDY INC: Jones Suit Removed to S.D. California SMARTFOODS INC: Flexer Sues Over Popcorn's "No Artificial" Claims SONGJI LLC: Han Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime and Tips for Masseurs SOUTHERN VALLEY: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Brief Response SOUTHWOOD FINANCIAL: Balde Sues Over Ransomware Attack SP DATA: Filing for Class Cert. in Veres Due Feb. 20, 2026 STAPLES CONTRACT: Hearing on Class Cert Bid Continued to August 28 STATE FARM: Young Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class STEINWAY AND SONS: Court OKs Website Accessibility Settlement STS AVIATION: Class Certification Bids in Anderson Due Oct. 28 SUPERHUMN INC: Cavanagh Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices TARGET CORP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Buckmaster Due Jan. 23, 2026 TATA CONSULTANCY: Appeals Arbitration Order in Malave Labor Suit TD BANK: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Facebook Pixel Claims TD BANK: Cross-Bids for Summary Judgment Tossed in Dou Suit THG NUTRITION: Chavez Sues Over False Advertising of Product Prices TUFT & NEEDLE: Chebul Seeks Leave to File Docs Under Seal TUFT & NEEDLE: Chebul Suit Seeks to Certify Class TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Settlement Approval Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice UNITED PARCEL: Malone's Reply Due July 25 UNITED SERVICES: Class Cert. Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge UNITED STATES: Goodman Sues Over Wrongful Termination of NOAA Staff UNITED STATES: HUD Sued Over Refusal to Spend Appropriated Funds UNITED STATES: Parties Seek More Time to File Responsive Pleading UNITED STATES: Vera Bid for Class Cert Denied as Moot UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS: Fails to Protect Info, Miller Says UPMC BENEFIT: Class Cert. Hearing Set for Dec. 1, 2026 UTILITY TRAFFIC: Moore Files Class Suit in California State Court VEGAS.COM LLC: Nixon Suit Removed to N.D. California VILLA VIE: Doerr Suit Seeks Sales Representatives' Unpaid Overtime VOLUME SERVICES: Garcia Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. WAKE COUNTY, NC: Appeals Court Order Rejecting Motion to Dismiss WATA INC: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert. Bid by August 29 WAYFAIR LLC: Rodriguez Balks at Misleading Sale Prices WEDGE MEDICAL: Krisch et al. Allege WARN Act Violations WESTGATE RESORTS: Court Excludes Portion of Expert Testimony WINN WINN: Leonard Sues Over Withheld Tips and Unpaid Proper Wages WISCONSIN DOC: Prison Officers Class Action May Proceed WORKFORCE7 INC: Con Edison Seeks to File BPAs Under Seal XPO LOGISTICS: Court Denies Motion to Remand Class Action ********* 3M COMPANY: Chappell Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Terry Chappell, et al., and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. 01-CV-2025-901957.00 was removed from the Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit Jefferson County, Alabama, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on June 18, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-06843-RMG. The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other Defendants liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, and/or selling aqueous film forming foams ("AFFF") and/or firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") that Plaintiffs allege were used in firefighting activities, thereby causing injury to Plaintiffs. In relevant part, Plaintiffs allege that 3M and certain other Defendants sold AFFF containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), including perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS"). Moreover, each Plaintiff expressly alleges that he "regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter" and allegedly suffered injury "as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: M. Christian King, Esq. Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq. W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq. Jacob M. Salow, Esq. LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C. The Clark Building 400 North 20th Street Birmingham, AL 35203-3200 Phone: (205) 581-0700 Email: cking@lightfootlaw.com hprater@lightfootlaw.com lradney@lightfootlaw.com jsalow@lightfootlaw.com 3M COMPANY: Ward Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as John Larry Ward, et al., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00964 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on July 7, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-06842-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Personal Injury. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Gregory Cade, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. Yahn Eric Olson, esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP PC 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 328-9200 Fax: (205) 328-9206 Email: gary@elglaw.com GregC@elglaw.com kmckie@elglaw.com yolson@elglaw.com 7 CUPS OF TEA: Unlawfully Uses Providers' Profiles, Nicholes Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- CARRIE NICHOLES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 7 CUPS OF TEA, CO., d/b/a 7 CUPS, and DOES 1 through 5, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-05380 (N.D. Cal., June 26, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Lanham Act and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, common law unfair competition, common law tortious competition with economic relations, common law appropriation of name or license and invasion of privacy, and common law false light invasion of privacy. The case arises from the Defendant's false and unlawful advertising and unfair competition practices which led mental health providers, including the Plaintiff, to be published on its website without consent. According to the complaint, the Defendant hosts a provider directory listing hundreds, if not thousands, of mental health professionals, allegedly to assist users in finding local in-person care. When users submit their contact information, instead of going directly to the provider, it goes to 7 Cups which then promises to contact the provider on the users' behalf. However, instead of actually contacting the provider and connecting them to the users, 7 Cups uses the contact information the users provided and inundates them with messages promoting its own services. As a result of the Defendant's unfair business practices, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered damages. 7 Cups of Tea, Co., doing business as 7 Cups, is an online mental health and emotional support platform owner, with its principal place of business in Palo Alto, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard D. McCune, Esq. Emily J. Kirk, Esq. Valerie L. Savran, Esq. MCCUNE LAW GROUP, APC 18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 550 Irvine, CA 92612 Email: rdm@mccunelawgroup.com ejk@mccunelawgroup.com vls@mccunelawgroup.com - and - Dana R. Vogel, Esq. MCCUNE LAW GROUP, APC 2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 850 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Email: drv@mccunelawgroup.com 84 LUMBER: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Runciman Due Oct. 14 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGEL RUNCIMAN, individually, on behalf of the Amended and Restated Savings Fund Plan for Employees of 84 Lumber Company, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. 84 LUMBER COMPANY, ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE of the Amended and Restated Savings Fund Plan for Employees of 84 Lumber Company, JOHN DOES 1-30 in their capacities as members of the Administrative Committee, Case No. 2:24-cv-00852-MPK (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Maureen Kelly entered an order granting the Parties' joint motion to extend deadlines in the Court's scheduling order as follows: -- Class certification discovery is extended until Sept. 29, 2025. -- The deadline for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, memorandum in, and all supporting evidence is extended to Oct. 14, 2025. -- The deadline for the Defendants' memorandum in opposition to class certification and all supporting evidence is extended to Nov. 11, 2025. -- The deadline for the Plaintiff's reply memorandum in support of class certification is extended to Nov. 25, 2025. -- The deadline for the Defendants' sur-reply, if necessary, is extended to Dec. 9, 2025. 84 Lumber is an operated American building materials supply company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=80VKGk at no extra charge.[CC] 93 LUDLOW ST: Anderson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Derrick Anderson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. 93 Ludlow St., Inc., d/b/a DL Lounge, and 95 Delancey, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-03739 (E.D.N.Y., July 7, 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 Defendants are denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services DL Lounge provides to their non-disabled customers through https://www.thedl nyc.com (hereinafter "Thedl-nyc.com" or "the website"). Defendants' denial of full and equal access to their website, and therefore denial of their services offered, and in conjunction with their physical location, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendants' website, Thedl-nyc.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 DL Lounge'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. DL Lounge provides to the public a website known as Thedl-nyc.com which provides consumers with access to lounge, restaurant, and event space services which Defendants offer 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 ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Nixon-Cobb Balks at Genetic Info Collection ---------------------------------------------------------------- QUENTIN NIXON-COBB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06980 (N.D. Ill., June 24, 2025) is a class action complaint against the Defendant for its violations of Plaintiff's privacy rights guaranteed under the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act. In November 2020, Abbott advertised that it needed workers to assemble COVID test kits. Plaintiff Nixon-Cobb saw one of the ads and applied for an assembly job through a temporary staffing agency. He was hired by Defendant within one or two days of applying. During the onboarding and orientation process, the Defendant directly or indirectly solicited, requested, or required Mr. Nixon-Cobb to disclose his genetic information in the form of diseases and conditions that had manifested in his family members as a condition of employment and/or pre-employment application. The Defendant was or should have been aware of its obligations under GIPA. Nevertheless, the Defendant intentionally and/or recklessly captured, collected, and/or retained Plaintiff's genetic information in the form of his family medical history in violation of Illinois law, the suit alleges. Abbott Laboratories is an American multinational medical devices and health care company with headquarters in Abbott Park, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kent M. Williams, Esq. William M. Sweetnam, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: kent.williams@sirillp.com wsweetnam@sirillp.com - and - Edward A. Wallace, Esq. Mark R. Miller, Esq. WALLACE MILLER 150 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 1100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 261-6193 E-mail: eaw@wallacemiller.com mrm@wallacemiller.com ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Rodriguez Sues Over Deceptive Discount Prices ------------------------------------------------------------------ REBEKA RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH TRADING CO., an Ohio corporation, d/b/a WWW.HOLLISTER.COM, Defendant, Case No. 25CU033184C (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., June 24, 2025) alleges that Defendant deceived consumers including Plaintiff by advertising the price of the product in a misleading manner in violation of the California's False Advertising Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The Defendant, through its Website, offers products for sale to California consumers. However, the Defendant advertises fictitious prices (and corresponding phantom discounts) on such products. This practice allows Defendant to fabricate a fake "reference" price, and present the actual price as "discounted," when it is not. The complaint alleges that the pricing and advertising practices reflecting high-pressure fake sales are patently deceptive. They are intended to mislead customers into believing that they are getting a bargain by buying products from Defendant on sale and at a substantial and deep discount. The reference price is, therefore, an artificially inflated price. In turn, the advertised discounts are nothing more than phantom markdowns, says the suit. On March 4, 2025, the Plaintiff purchased "Short-Sleeve Crew Baby Tee" from Defendant for the "discounted" price of $6.99, which Defendant compared to a "strike-through" reference price of $14.95. Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co. retails apparels. The Company offers tops, bottoms, swimwear, coats, jackets, underwear, socks, shoes, fragrances, candles, and accessories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com ACRE MORTGAGE: Knoche Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Acre Mortgage & Financial, Inc. The case is styled as Norman Knoche, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Acre Mortgage & Financial, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00554 (M.D. Fla., June 27, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Acre Mortgage -- https://acremortgage.com/ -- proudly has loan officers who specialize in FHA mortgages and first-time home buyers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com ADAMS COMMUNITY: Class Cert Bid in McGuire Suit Due Feb. 6, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as McGuire v. Adams Community Care Center, LLC, Case No. 5:24-cv-00127 (S.D. Miss., Filed Dec. 26, 2024), the Hon. Judge Keith Starrett entered an order as follows: The parties will conduct class certification-related discovery which shall end January 9, 2026. The deadline for filing any motion to conditionally certify collective action is Feb. 6, 2026, with the response and reply due in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Uniform Civil Rules. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Adams is a healthcare facility.[CC] AFLAC INC: Murphree Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Clients' Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ HILDA M. MURPHREE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AFLAC INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-00200-CDL (M.D. Ga., June 26, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and declaratory and injunctive relief. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach detected on June 12, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Aflac Inc. is an insurance company, headquartered in Columbus, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Travis Hargrove, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN P.A. 408 12th St., Suite 200, Columbus, GA 31901 Telephone: (762) 240-9522 Facsimile: (762) 240-9511 Email: thargrove@forthepeople.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Ronald Podolny, Esq. Antonio Arzola, Jr., Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 275-5272 Facsimile: (813) 222-4736 Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com ararzola@forthepeople.com AHOLD DELHAIZE: Cullen Sues Over Failure to Protect Information --------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Cullen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AHOLD DELHAIZE USA SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00563 (M.D.N.C., July 3, 2025), is brought against the Defendant as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's actions and omissions in failing to protect Plaintiff and Class members' Private Information, Plaintiff and Class members have been injured. The Defendant's employees, like Plaintiff and Class members, provided certain Personal Identifying Information ("PII") to Defendant, which is necessary to gain employment with Defendant, and Defendant maintains certain Personal Health Information ("PHI") of its employees, such as information related to injuries and workers' compensation claims (collectively, "Private Information"). According to Defendant, on November 6, 2024, Defendant learned that a vulnerability in its computer networks was exploited ("Data Breach"). The Defendant issued a sparse press release on November 8, 2024, merely stating that a data breach had occurred. The Defendant refused to release additional information to the public for months following the Data Breach. The Defendant has an acute interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the Private Information entrusted to it, and is well-aware of the numerous data breaches that have occurred throughout the United States and its responsibility for safeguarding Private Information in its possession. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff has and will continue to spend time trying to mitigate the consequences of the Data Breach. This includes time spent verifying the legitimacy of communications related to the Data Breach, and self-monitoring her accounts and credit reports to ensure no fraudulent activity has occurred, says the complaint. The Plaintiff provided information to the Defendant. The Defendant is the United States subsidiary of Koninklijke Ahold Delhaize N.V., a Dutch-Belgian multinational retail and wholesale holding company with interests in grocery stores, drug stores, and pharmacies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Wilkerson, Esq. WILKERSON JUSTUS PLLC PO Box 54 Asheville, NC 28802 Phone: (828) 316-6902 Email: dwilkerson@wilkersonjustus.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. Nicholas J. Elia, Esq. Caroline J. Bojarski, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Phone: (215) 592-1500 Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com nelia@lfsblaw.com cbojarski@lfsblaw.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Phone: (513) 345-8291 Facsimile: (513) 345-8294 Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and - Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Phone: (516) 873-9550 Email: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com ALLIANT INSURANCE: Fails to Timely Pay Claims, Giusti Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- ERNEST J. GIUSTI, III, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLIANT INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., HPS ADVISORY SERVICES LLC, UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC., UNITEDHEALTHCARE, INC., and ASSURED BENEFITS ADMINISTRATORS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01347 (E.D. La., June 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and Louisiana Laws Revised Statutes Title 22, Sec. 978; breach of contract; breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to timely pay the claims of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals that were covered under their medical insurance plan. The nonpayment and/or failure to timely pay claims led to the Plaintiff's and Class members' failure to obtain medical care, obtain care as intended, or the delay of such care. Moreover, the Defendants failed to adopt, implement, and follow reasonable standards for the prompt investigation and processing of claims arising under their insurance policies. As a result, the Plaintiff and Class members received notification that their insurance through the Defendants had been cancelled. Alliant Insurance Services, Inc. is an insurance company, headquartered in San Diego, California. HPS Advisory Services LLC is an investment adviser firm based in Dallas, Texas. UnitedHealth Group, Inc. is a health insurance company, headquartered in Minnetonka, Minnesota. UnitedHealthcare, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group headquartered in Minnetonka, Minnesota. Assured Benefits Administrators, Inc. is a provider of healthcare administration and management services based in Dallas, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob D. Young, Esq. Fred L. Herman, Esq. HERMAN & YOUNG 1200 Energy Centre 1100 Poydras Street New Orleans, LA 70163 Telephone: (504) 238-5050 Facsimile: (504) 321-0576 Email: jacob@hermanandyoung.com fred@hermanandyoung.com - and - Megan Kiefer, Esq. Anna M. Singleton, Esq. KIEFER & KIEFER 1100 Poydras St., Suite 1300 New Orleans, LA 70163 Telephone: (504) 828-3313 Facsimile: (504) 828-0024 Email: megan@kieferlaw.com ALLINA HEALTH: Kahl et al. Sue Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties -------------------------------------------------------------- ALYSSA KAHL, ANDRE BESSER, and BRANDI JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ALLINA HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-02780 (D. Minn., July 7, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Plaintiffs allege that during the putative Class Period, Defendant, as the "fiduciary" of the Plans, breached the duties owed to the Plans, to Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plans by, among other things, failing to objectively and adequately review the Plans' investment portfolio, initially and on an ongoing basis, with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of performance. Allegedly, Defendant allowed substantial assets in the Plans to be invested in a general account guaranteed investment contract (GIC) with Principal Life Insurance Company (the "Principal GIC"), that provided significantly lower rates of return than comparable stable value funds that Defendant could have made available to Plan participants, including two GICs in the 401(k) Plan with Brighthouse Life Insurance Company and Lincoln National Life Insurance Company. Headquartered in Minneapolis, MN, Allina is a nonprofit health system that provides services for individuals, families and communities throughout Minnesota and western Wisconsin. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark Dooley, Esq. NEATON & PUKLICH, PLLP 7975 Stone Creek Drive, Ste. 120 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Telephone: (952) 258-8444 Facsimile: (952) 258-9988 E-mail: Mdooley@neatonpuklich.com ALPHA BAKING: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Plasky Says -------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL PLASKY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALPHA BAKING CO., INC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06971 (N.D. Ill., June 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personal identifiable information of its clients' customers, including Plaintiff. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information -- which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against disclosure -- was targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the Data Breach. The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect employees' PII from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf all those similarly situated to address Defendant’s inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' PII that it collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information had been subject to the unauthorized access by an unknown third party and precisely what specific type of information was accessed. Alpha Baking Co., Inc. is a food production and distribution company based in Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com AMAZON.COM INC: Bid for Class Certification Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAELI GARNER, et al., v. AMAZON.COM, INC., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00750-RSL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Robert S. Lasnik entered an order that: 1. The Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of registrants under Rule 23(b)(2) to seek injunctive relief under the CPA is granted; 2. The Plaintiffs' motion to certify six classes of non- registrants under Rule 23(b)(3) to seek damages under state wiretapping laws is denied; and 3. The Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of registrants under Rule 23(b)(3) to seek damages under the CPA is granted. The Plaintiffs assert that both the permanent storage of Alexa interactions and the false wakes are intentional design elements of the service, used to amass huge numbers of voice recordings that can be fed into algorithms and machine learning platforms for continuous improvement training. The Plaintiffs further assert that Amazon failed to provide sufficient notice of the recording, saving, human review, and/or use of the audio captured by the Alexa service in violation of six states' wiretap laws or Washington's Consumer Protection Act ("CPA"). They seek certification of six classes of non-registrants, defined as residents of California, Florida, Maryland, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, or Washington who never registered an Alexa device and resided with a registrant while an Alexa device was active and operational, to pursue wiretap claims under state law. The non-registrant classes seek to recover statutory damages. Plaintiffs also seek certification of a nationwide class of everyone who registered one or more Alexa devices to pursue a CPA claim for unfair or deceptive trade practices. The registrant class seeks (a) compensation for the value of the false wake recordings defendants have compiled and (b) injunctive relief. Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Court's order dated July 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sNuhvM at no extra charge.[CC] AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Bid Reply Due Nov. 7 ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH FRAME-WILSON, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-00424-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John H. Chun entered an order regarding extension of class certification and Daubert briefing deadlines: Filing Proposed The Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion Nov. 7, 2025 to certify class; Plaintiffs' response in opposition to Amazon's Daubert motion; Plaintiffs' Daubert motion(s): Amazon's reply in support of Amazon's Dec. 15, 2025 Daubert motion; Amazon's response(s) in opposition to Plaintiffs' Daubert motion(s): The Plaintiffs' reply(ies) in support of Jan. 13, 2026 Plaintiffs' Daubert motion(s): Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Court's order dated July 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DgRB5X at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq. Kelly Fan, Esq. Anne F. Johnson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com barbaram@hbsslaw.com annej@hbsslaw.com kellyf@hbsslaw.com - and - Zina G. Bash, Esq. Jessica Beringer, Esq. Shane Kelly, Esq. Alex Dravillas, Esq. Roseann Romano, Esq. KELLER POSTMAN LLC 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500 Austin, TX, 78701 Telephone: (512) 690-0990 E-mail: zina.bash@kellerpostman.com Jessica.Beringer@kellerpostman.com shane.kelly@kellerpostman.com ajd@kellerpostman.com roseann.romano@kellerpostman.com - and - Alicia Cobb, Esq. Steig D. Olson, Esq. David D. LeRay, Esq. Nic V. Siebert, Esq. Maxwell P. Deabler-Meadows, Esq. Elle Mahdavi, Esq. Adam B. Wolfson, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 1109 First Avenue, Suite 210 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 905-7000 E-mail: aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com steigolson@quinnemanuel.com davidleray@quinnemanuel.com nicolassiebert@quinnemanuel.com maxmeadows@quinnemanuel.com adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com ellemahdavi@quinnemanuel.com The Defendant is represented by: John A. Goldmark, Esq. MaryAnn Almeida, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 Facsimile: (206) 757-7700 E-mail: SteveRummage@dwt.com JohnGoldmark@dwt.com MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com - and - Karen L. Dunn, Esq. William A. Isaacson, Esq. Amy J. Mauser, Esq. Meredith Dearborn, Esq. Kyle Smith, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 2001 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1047 Telephone: (202) 223-7300 Facsimile: (202) 223-7420 E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com wisaacson@paulweiss.com amauser@paulweiss.com ksmith@paulweiss.com mgoodman@paulweiss.com mdearborn@paulweiss.com AMAZON.COM INC: Seeks Evidentiary Class Cert Hearing in De Coster ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH DE COSTER, et al., v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-00693-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for an evidentiary hearing on class certification. The Plaintiffs are requesting certification of what is perhaps the most expansive class in the history of class action jurisprudence. In doing so, as Amazon explained in its opposition to class certification, the Plaintiffs seek to meet their burden to demonstrate Rule 23's commonality and predominance requirements with evidence that radically departs from what courts have previously found sufficient for that purpose. Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QByZ9q at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: John A. Goldmark, Esq. MaryAnn Almeida, Esq. Emily Parsons, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 Facsimile: (206) 757-7700 E-mail: JohnGoldmark@dwt.com MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com EmilyParsons@dwt.com - and - Karen L. Dunn, Esq. William A. Isaacson, Esq. Amy J. Mauser, Esq. Meredith Dearborn, Esq. Kyle Smith, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 2001 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1047 Telephone: (202) 223-7300 Facsimile: (202) 223-7420 E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com wisaacson@paulweiss.com amauser@paulweiss.com ksmith@paulweiss.com mdearborn@paulweiss.com AMAZON.COM INC: Seeks Evidentiary Class Cert Hearing in Wilson -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH FRAME-WILSON, et al., v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00424-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for an evidentiary hearing on class certification. The Plaintiffs are requesting certification of what is perhaps the most expansive class in the history of class action jurisprudence. In doing so, as Amazon explained in its opposition to class certification, the Plaintiffs seek to meet their burden to demonstrate Rule 23's commonality and predominance requirements with evidence that radically departs from what courts have previously found sufficient for that purpose. Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3e7aQ3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: John A. Goldmark, Esq. MaryAnn Almeida, Esq. Emily Parsons, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 Facsimile: (206) 757-7700 E-mail: JohnGoldmark@dwt.com MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com EmilyParsons@dwt.com - and - Karen L. Dunn, Esq. William A. Isaacson, Esq. Amy J. Mauser, Esq. Meredith Dearborn, Esq. Kyle Smith, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 2001 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1047 Telephone: (202) 223-7300 Facsimile: (202) 223-7420 E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com wisaacson@paulweiss.com amauser@paulweiss.com ksmith@paulweiss.com mdearborn@paulweiss.com AMERICAN BEEF: Faces Holmes Wage-and-Hour Suit in C.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY J. HOLMES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN BEEF PACKERS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-01607 (C.D. Cal., June 26, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, California Labor Code, and California's Unfair Competition Law including failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal breaks, failure to provide rest breaks, failure to furnish accurate wage statements, and waiting time penalties. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a laborer/meat cutter employee in Chino, California from in or about November 2019 through in or about June 2023. American Beef Packers, Inc. is a beef processor and slaughter facility located in Chino, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. WAGE AND HOUR FIRM 3600 Lime St., Ste. 111 Riverside, CA 92501 Telephone: (214) 489-7653 Facsimile: (469) 319-0317 Email: marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com AMERICAN HONDA: Must Oppose Aguirre Class Cert Bid by August 15 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Aguirre v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Case No. 4:22-cv-06909 (N.D. Cal., Filed Nov. 4, 2022), the Hon. Judge Haywood S Gilliam, Jr. entered an order directing the Defendant that the opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class certification is due on Aug. 15, 2025, as previously scheduled. The opposition deadline will not be delayed based on the filing of Defendant's motion. The nature of suit states Contract Product Liability. American is the North American subsidiary of Japanese Honda Motor Company.[CC] AMERICAN NEEDLE: Wilson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard Wilson, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. AMERICAN NEEDLE, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-07576 (N.D. Ill., July 7, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website, www.americanneedle.com (the "Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, 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. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates www.americanneedle.com (its "Website"), offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States, including the State of Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101. Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com APPLE INC: Artificially Inflated Stock Price, Hill Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN HILL, derivatively on behalf of APPLE INC., Plaintiff v. TIMOTHY D. COOK, LUCA MAESTRI, KEVAN PAREKH, ARTHUR D. LEVINSON, WANDA AUSTIN, ALEX GORSKY, ANDREA JUNG, MONICA LOZANO, RONALD D. SUGAR, and SUSAN L. WAGNER, Defendants, and APPLE, INC., Nominal Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-05364 (N.D. Cal., June 26, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Apple's business, operations, and prospects in order to trade Apple securities at artificially inflated prices. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Apple misstated the time it would take to integrate the advanced AI-based Siri features into its devices; (ii) accordingly, it was highly unlikely that these features would be available for the iPhone 16; (iii) the lack of such advanced AI-based features would hurt iPhone 16 sales; (iv) as a result, Apple's business and/or financial prospects were overstated; and (v) as a result, the company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the truth emerged, Apple's stock price fell $11.59 per share, or 4.85 percent, to close at $227.48 per share on March 10, 2025. The company's stock price continuously declined to close at $201.45 per share on June 9, 2025. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the company's securities, the Plaintiff and Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Apple, Inc. is a multinational technology company, with principal executive offices located in Cupertino, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. Brandon P. Jack, Esq. CLAYEO C. ARNOLD A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 239-4778 Facsimile: (916) 924-1829 Email: aberry@justice4you.com gharoutunian@justice4you.com bjack@justice4you.com - and - Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON 260 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 983-1300 Facsimile: (212) 983-0383 Email: tjmckenna@gme-law.com gegleston@gme-law.com APPLE INC: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert Bid Hearing Date ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AFFINITY CREDIT UNION et al., v. APPLE INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-04174-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order modifying the hearing date noticed by the Plaintiffs in their notice of motion and motion for class certification. Because briefing on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and Apple's motion to exclude expert testimony will not be complete by Aug. 8, 2025, the parties stipulate and agree to move the noticed hearing on the Plaintiffs' class certification motion (currently set for Aug. 8, 2025) to Oct. 10, 2025 -- the same date as the noticed hearing on Apple's Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony. On Feb. 7, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification. On May 14, 2025, the Court entered an amended case schedule pursuant to which Apple would file its Class Certification Opposition and Supporting Expert Report(s) by June 18, 2025 and provide related expert backup materials by June 23, 2025 by 5 p.m. On June 3, 2025, this Court granted Apple's request to set a briefing schedule for its motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiffs’ class certification expert, Dr. Christopher Vellturo. On June 18, 2025, Apple filed its Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony. Apple designs, manufactures, and markets smartphones, personal computers, tablets, wearables and accessories, and sells a variety of related accessories. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZTYKGv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ben M. Harrington, Esq. Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 E-mail: benh@hbsslaw.com steveb@hbsslaw.com - and - Eamon P. Kelly, Esq. Joseph M. Vanek, Esq. Jeffrey H. Bergman, Esq. Phillip F. Cramer, Esq. SPERLING KENNY NACHWALTER, LLC 321 N. Clark St., 25th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 676-5845 E-mail: ekelly@sperlingkenny.com jvanek@sperlingkenny.com jbergman@sperlingkenny.com pcramer@sperlingkenny.com The Defendant is represented by: Belinda S Lee, Esq. Sarah M. Ray, Esq. Aaron T. Chiu, Esq. Alicia R. Jovais, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111-6538 Telephone: (415) 391-0600 E-mail: belinda.lee@lw.com sarah.ray@lw.com aaron.chiu@lw.com alicia.jovais@lw.com ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Class Cert Opposition Date Amended to Sept. 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS IGLESIAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ARIZONA BEVERAGES USA, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-09108-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey White entered an amended case management scheduling order: Event Current Date Proposed Date Deadline to Oppose Motion for Aug. 15, 2025 Sept. 30, 2025 Class Certification: Deadline to File Reply on Oct. 10, 2025 Dec. 1, 2025 Motion for Class Certification: Deadline to Complete Aug. 15, 2025 Sept. 30, 2025 Deposition of the Plaintiff's Experts Regarding Class Certification: Deadline to Complete Oct. 10, 2025 Dec. 1, 2025 Deposition of the Defendant's Experts Regarding Class Certification: Hearing on Class Oct. 24, 2025 to be Certification and Daubert Scheduled Motions (if any) Arizona is an American company that sells iced tea and energy drinks. A copy of the Court's order dated July 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1b7DKn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Bahar Sodaify, Esq. Alan Gudino, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (213) 788-4070 E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com agudino@clarksonlawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Jason H. Wilson, Esq. WILLENKEN LLP 707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 3850 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 955-9240 Facsimile: (213) 955-9250 E-mail: jwilson@willenken.com - and - Robert P. Donovan, Esq. STEVENS & LEE 669 River Drive, Suite 201 Elmwood Park, NJ 07407 Telephone: (201) 857-6778 Facsimile: (610) 371-7938 E-mail: robert.donovan@stevenslee.com ARVEST BANK: Infield Files Suit in W.D. Arkansas ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arvest Bank. The case is styled as Jeanette Infield, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Arvest Bank, Case No. 5:25-cv-05143-TLB (W.D. Ark., July 3, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Arvest Bank -- https://www.arvest.com/ -- is a bank headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas, with branches in Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma, OK 73120 Phone: (405) 235-1560 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com ASCENSION HEALTH: Underpays Respiratory Therapists, Nugen Says -------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHANIE NUGEN, individually and for others similarly situated, v. ASCENSION HEALTH, Case No. 7:25-cv-00294 (W.D. Tex., June 24, 2025) arises from Ascension's auto-deduction policy which violates the Fair Labor Standards Act by depriving Nugen and the Putative Class Members of overtime wages for all overtime hours worked. The Plaintiff asserts that under Ascension's uniform automatic meal break deduction policy, Nugen and the Putative Class Members were, and are, denied overtime pay for those on-duty "meal breaks" during workweeks in which they worked more than 40 hours in violation of the FLSA. Plaintiff Nugen worked for Ascension as a Respiratory Therapist at Dell Children's Medical Center from approximately October 2023 until August 2024. Ascension Health operates as a non-profit organization. The Organization provides physician practice management, venture capital investing, biomedical engineering, clinical care, risk management, palliative care, spiritual, and information services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Alyssa White, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com awhite@mbackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - William C. (Clif) Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com ASTRO AI: Freifeld Sues Over Distribution of Defective Mini-Fridge ------------------------------------------------------------------ DAVID FREIFELD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASTRO AI INC. LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07125 (N.D. Ill., June 26, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for unjust enrichment, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, fraudulent concealment, strict liability, negligent failure to warn, and negligent design defect. The case arises from the Defendant's design, manufacturing, marketing, and distribution of a defective 4-Liter/6-can mini-fridge. According to the complaint, the product is defective because it is susceptible of having a switch within its wiring system short circuit causing the mini-fridge to overheat during its use posing a burn hazard and fire risk to its users. As a result, the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers suffered economic losses. Astro AI Inc. LLC is a consumer products manufacturer based in Wilmington, Delaware. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com ATLAS OBSCURA: Filing for Class Cert. in Barajas Due August 1 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Barajas, et al., v. Atlas Obscura Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-00302 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Jan. 17, 2025), the Hon. Judge Frederic Block entered an order that the Plaintiff shall move for class certification or default judgment no later than Aug. 1, 2025. The nature of suit states Statutory Actions. Atlas is an American-based travel and exploration company. BELK INC: Gabbert Sues Over Failure to Protect Clients' Info ------------------------------------------------------------ CHRISTI GABBERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BELK, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00466 (W.D.N.C., June 27, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, and breach of implied contract. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach from May 7-11, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Belk, Inc. is a retail company, headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. Ryan A. Valente, Esq. POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com teamvalente@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com BEXAR COUNTY, TX: Court Narrows Claims in Evonishon Suit -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alan Evonishon, et al., v. Bexar County, et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-00763-OLG (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Orlando Garcia entered an order dismissing without prejudice the Plaintiffs' section 1983 claims as frivolous and/or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Court further entered an order that the Plaintiffs' state-law claims is dismissed without prejudice because the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. Bexar is a county in the U.S. state of Texas. It is in South Texas and its county seat is San Antonio. A copy of the Court's order dated July 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DZMu7s at no extra charge.[CC] BMS HOLDINGS: Faces Bell Suit Over Private Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------ KALEB BELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BMS HOLDINGS, LP d/b/a BMS CAT, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-00715-O (N.D. Tex., July 7, 2025) seeks to hold the Defendant responsible for disclosing Plaintiff's and thousands of similarly situated individuals' sensitive, confidential personally identifiable information to cybercriminals in a foreseeable, preventable data breach. From about February 5 to February 24, 2025, hackers targeted and accessed Defendant's network servers without authorization and stole Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive, confidential PII stored therein, including full names and Social Security numbers, causing widespread injuries to Plaintiff and Class Members. However, Defendant only notified Plaintiff about the data breach on Jun 23, 2025. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings claims for negligence/negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment, to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information in its care. Headquartered in Haltom City, TX, BMS Holdings, LP is a disaster recovery firm that provides recovery and reconstruction services for fire, water, mold, and storm damage to customers throughout the United States. [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 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com BOLLA OPERATING: Must Oppose Vasquez Class Cert Bid by August 15 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Vasquez v. Bolla Operating L.I. Corp., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-07014 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Nov. 16, 2022), the Hon. Judge Natasha C. Merle entered an order that: -- The Defendants' opposition to plaintiffs' class certification motion is due on or before Aug. 15, 2025. -- The Plaintiffs' reply is due on or before Sept. 5, 2025. The -- The parties' request for a stay of discovery pending the resolution of plaintiffs' class certification motion is referred to Mag. Judge Steven Tiscione. The suit alleges violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act. Bolla provides operational support services.[CC] BOYNE USA: Court OK's Stipulation of Settlement Modification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAWRENCE ANDERSON, as trustee for the LAWRENCE T. ANDERSON AND SUZANNE M. ANDERSON JOINT REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, ROBERT AND NORA ERHART, and TJARDA CLAGETT, v. BOYNE USA, INC., BOYNE PROPERTIES, INC., AND SUMMIT HOTEL, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00095-BMM (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge Brian Morris entered an order approving the Parties' stipulations concerning the modifications to the structure and operation of Boyne's Rental Management Program and the governance of the Condo-Hotels, and related transition provisions to facilitate implementation of the same, entered in settlement of Plaintiffs' Rule 23(b)(2) claims for declaratory and injunctive relief and following the non-objections of the Rule 23(b)(2) class members pursuant to the Court's Notice plan: A. Removal of Exclusivity To address Plaintiffs' allegation that certain provisions of the Condo-Hotel Declarations concerning rental management exclusivity, when imposed by Boyne as declarant of the Condo-Hotels, are unenforceable as written under Montana law, the following provisions of the Condo-Hotel Declarations shall be deleted and be of no further force or effect. B. Removal of Boyne's Veto Over Declaration Amendments To address Plaintiffs’ allegation that certain provisions of the Condo-Hotel Declarations concerning Boyne’s reserved veto power over amendment of the Condo-Hotel Declarations are unenforceable as written under Montana law, the following provisions of the Condo-Hotel Declarations shall be deleted and be of no further force or effect. C. Removal of Requirement that Boyne Be Designated as Hotel Manager To address Plaintiffs' allegation that certain provisions of the Condo-Hotel Declarations concerning the requirement that the Homeowners' Associations use Boyne as the hotel manager are unenforceable as written under Montana law, the Village Center Declarations and Summit Declarations shall be amended. On June 28, 2023 (Doc. 113), this Court certified this class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of: "All persons and entities, other than Boyne, that: (i) own or have owned a unit in the Summit Hotel Condominium, the Shoshone Condominium Hotel, or the Lone Peak Center Condominium also known as the "Village Center" (collectively "the Condo-Hotels"); and (ii) have participated in Boyne's Rental Management Program on or after Dec. 31, 2013." As part of their claims for injunctive and declaratory relief, Plaintiffs have alleged that various provisions of the Condo-Hotel Declarations are unenforceable. In light of these allegations, and as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs and Defendants have stipulated to entry of judgment adopting certain prospective relief to resolve Plaintiffs' Rule 23(b)(2) claims for declaratory and injunctive relief that requires modification of the Condo-Hotel Declarations. Boyne owns and operates mountain resorts. A copy of the Court's order dated July 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BV1gKh at no extra charge.[CC] BUKHARI GROUP: Settlement Class in Campbell Gets Prelim Cert. ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIANNA CAMPBELL, SHAKEIM ROBINSON, and KEVAUGHN ROBINSON, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. BUKHARI GROUP LLC, NAFEES BUKHARI, an individual, ALI BUTT, an individual, 4399 BRONX CHICKEN LLC, BAYCHESTER CHICKEN BG LLC, 3555 WHITE PLAINS BG LLC, 3411 JEROME AVE CORP., and CONEY FOOD OF NY LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02813-PK (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Peggy Kuo entered an order preliminarily certifying a Settlement Class consisting of all individuals employed as non-exempt fast-food workers by the Corporate Defendants at any time during the Relevant Period. The Court also entered an order that: -- Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for the purposes of settlement only, (a) the Lead Plaintiffs are preliminarily certified as the class representatives on behalf of the Settlement Class; (b) Kessler Matura, P.C., and the Law Office of Delmas A. Costin, Jr., P.C., are preliminarily certified as Lead Counsel for the Settlement Class. -- Collective certification pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), is preliminarily approved, and the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") Collective is defined as all Class Members employed by Defendants at any time from May 13, 2019, through the end of the Relevant Period who opt in within 75 days of the mailing of the Claim Forms. The Court finds that preliminary certification of the Settlement Class is warranted under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) because the Court will likely be able to certify the class after the final approval hearing. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Defendants agree to pay a settlement amount of up to $400,000. The Plaintiffs bring this putative class and FLSA collective action against various individuals and corporate entities affiliated with Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen restaurants in New York. The Plaintiffs allege violations of the FLSA, New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), and the New York City Fair Workweek Law. On Feb. 15, 2024, with the Defendants' consent, the Plaintiffs filed their first motion for preliminary settlement approval. On Dec. 12, 2024, the Court directed the parties to file a joint status report stating how they intended to proceed with this action. Bukhari delivers tailored IT services and provides technology consultation, implementation, management, support, and application development services. A copy of the Court's decision and order dated July 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YspTU2 at no extra charge.[CC] CALERES INC: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Dalton Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- JULIE DALTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CALERES, INC., D/B/A DR. SCHOLL'S SHOES, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-02710 (D. Minn., June 27, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. 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, www.drschollsshoes.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 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. Caleres, Inc., doing business as Dr. Scholl's Shoes, is a company that sells online goods and services in Minnesota. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com CALIFORNIA: Roshan Appeals Ruling in Civil Rights Suit to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ PEYMAN ROSHAN is taking an appeal from a court order denying his motion to set aside judgment in the lawsuit entitled Peyman Roshan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. George S. Cardona, in his official capacity as Chief Trial Counsel, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-04770-AGT, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. In this action for declaratory and injunctive relief, Peyman Roshan, a California lawyer facing discipline by the State Bar of California for numerous counts of professional misconduct, seeks to enjoin his ongoing disciplinary proceedings and an order declaring the State Bar's disciplinary rules and procedures unconstitutional. On Jan. 18, 2021, Judge Alex G. Tse entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the case. On Feb. 16, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a motion to alter judgment, which Judge Tse denied on Mar. 27, 2021. On Jan. 17, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from judgment, which Judge Tse denied on Sept. 2, 2022. On Apr. 4, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion to set aside judgment, which Judge Tse denied on May 27, 2025. The appellate case is entitled Roshan v. Cardona, et al., Case No. 25-3983, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 26, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on August 5, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on September 4, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant PEYMAN ROSHAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, appears pro se. Defendants-Appellees GEORGE S. CARDONA, in his official capacity as Chief Trial Counsel, et al. are represented by: Carissa Noelle Andresen, Esq. State Bar of California Office of the General Counsel 180 Howard Street, 8th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 CAMPBELL'S CO: Dushaj Sues Over Mislabeled Potato Chips, Beverages ------------------------------------------------------------------ JAQUELINE DUSHAJ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE CAMPBELL'S COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 7:25-cv-05572 (S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2025) arises from Defendant's false and/or misleading labeling of its Cape Cod brand potato chips and beverages. The Defendant claims that the said products do not contain preservatives. However, these representations are false and/or misleading because these products contain citric acid -- a well-known preservative commonly used in food products. Moreover, the Defendant has profited unjustly as a result of its deceptive conduct. The Plaintiff therefore asserts claims on behalf of herself and similarly situated purchasers for violation of New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment. Headquartered in Camden, NJ, The Campbell's Company manufactures, packages, labels, advertises, markets, distributes and/or sells snack food and beverage products in New York and throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq. KAMBERLAW, LLC 305 Broadway, Suite 713 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (646) 964-9604 Facsimile: (212) 202-6364 E-mail: fklorczyk@kamberlaw.com CATHOLIC CHARITIES: Dixon Balks at Race, Disability Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------------ TRINA DIXON, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF BUFFALO, and THE MONSIGNOR CARR INSTITUTE, and MICHELLE ABRAHAM, individually, and MEGAN LOSTRACCO, individually, and MEICHLE LATHAM, individually, and STEVE SCHUMER, individually, and SHANNON STROM, individually, and JOSEPH FARRAUTO, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00588 (W.D.N.Y., July 7, 2025) seeks monetary damages and other redress against Defendants for, collectively: (i) race discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and the New York State Human Rights Law; (ii) disability discrimination in violation of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the NYSHRL; (iii) retaliation in violation of Title VII, the ADA, and the NYSHRL; and (iv) any other claims. Beginning in or around August 2019, and continuing until the end of her employment, the Defendants collectively subjected Plaintiff to race and disability discrimination. With respect to race, all Defendants subjected Plaintiff to a hostile work environment by forcing Plaintiff to work with clients who displayed racist behaviors and assigning other problematic clients to her instead of to her similarly-situated colleagues of a different race and ignoring her complaints about it, and they further gave Plaintiff a performance review that focused exclusively on her race. Concerning her disability, Defendants Strom and Farrauto denied Plaintiff's requests for reasonable accommodation, such as being able to work from home while suffering from a disability-related illness, says the suit. Catholic Charities is a New York non-profit corporation that provides community services located at 741 Delaware Avenue, Buffalo, NY. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony P. Consiglio, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone. (516) 248-5550 Facsimile. (516) 248-6027 CB CONSUMER: Battle Sues Over Blind Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------- ANDRE BATTLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CB Consumer Products, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07560 (N.D. Ill., July 7, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. By failing to make its website accessible to blind persons, Defendant is violating basic equal access requirements under both state and federal law. Defendant's website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software, says the suit. Headquartered in Birmingham, MI, CB Consumer Products, LLC owns and operates the website, Luxome.com, which offers bedding items such as comforters, duvet covers, blankets and throws, sheet sets, pillowcases and customizable pillows, bath products, and apparel items for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com CENTENE CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sept. 8 ------------------------------------------------------------- If you suffered a loss on your Centene Corporation (NYSE:CNC) investment and want to learn about a potential recovery under the federal securities laws, follow the link below for more information: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/centene-corporation-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=156446&wire=1&utm_campaign=17 or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or call (212) 363-7500 to speak to our team of experienced shareholder advocates. THE LAWSUIT: A class action securities lawsuit was filed against Centene Corporation that seeks to recover losses of shareholders who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between December 12, 2024 and June 30, 2025. CASE DETAILS: According to the complaint, defendants provided 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. Following this news, 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%. WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Centene stock during the relevant time frame - even if you still hold your shares -- go to https://zlk.com/pslra-1/centene-corporation-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=156446&wire=1&utm_campaign=17 to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or obligation to participate. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 https://zlk.com/ [GN] CHOBANI LLC: Franco Appeals Consumer Suit Dismissal to 7th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ JASON FRANCO, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Jason Franco, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Chobani, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-03047, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint is brought against the Defendant's deceptive package labeling of CHOBANI ZERO SUGAR yogurt, in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and violations of similar consumer protection laws and Little-FTC Acts enacted in the other states. Chobani moved to dismiss the lawsuit, pointing to the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) statements on allulose. Allowing the lawsuit to move forward would deter the use of a sugar-substitute that the FDA believes could improve public health by reducing sugar consumption, the company said. Judge John Tharp Jr. granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss. Tharp said FDA regulations govern how the yogurt is labeled and outweigh state consumer protection laws about labeling. The agency has not definitively said whether allulose is counted as sugar in its regulation governing nutrition labels for food products, but it has said that it is not currently treating allulose as a sugar and won't go after companies that leave it out of their products' sugar content listed on the label, Tharp said. Tharp dismissed the claims brought by the named Plaintiffs and the proposed class of nationwide consumers. The appellate case is entitled Jason Franco, et al. v. Chobani, LLC, Case No. 25-2087, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on June 27, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants JASON FRANCO, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Alexander H. Burke, Esq. BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC 909 Davis Street Evanston, IL 60201 Telephone: (312) 729-5288 - and - Yates French, Esq. RATHJE WOODWARD LLC 300 E. Roosevelt Road Wheaton, IL 60187 Telephone: (630) 668-8500 Defendant-Appellee CHOBANI, LLC is represented by: Andrew S. Tulumello, Esq. WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 2001 M. Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 682-7000 COINBASE INC: Faces Grove Suit Over Clients' Compromised Info ------------------------------------------------------------- MATT GROVE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COINBASE, INC. and COINBASE GLOBAL, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-05338 (S.D.N.Y., June 26, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within Coinbase's network systems following a data breach detected on May 11, 2025. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Coinbase, Inc. is a cryptocurrency exchange company, headquartered in New York, New York. Coinbase Global, Inc. is a cryptocurrency exchange company, headquartered in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian P. Murray, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Avenue, Suite 358 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 Email: bmurray@glancylaw.com - and - Paul C. Whalen, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PAUL C. WHALEN 768 Plandome Road Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (516) 426-6870 Email: pcwhalen@gmail.com COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Doe Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY d/b/a COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 7:25-cv-05400 (S.D.N.Y., June 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, violation of the New York Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach announced on June 24, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. The Trustees of Columbia University, doing business as Columbia University, is a not-for-profit corporation, with its principal place of business in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Linda H. Joseph, Esq. SCHRODER, JOSEPH & ASSOCIATES, LLP 394 Franklin Street; Second Floor Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 881-4902 Facsimile: (716) 881-4909 Email: ljoseph@sjalegal.com - and - Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: raina@straussborrelli.com COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Kramer Sues Over Data Security Failures ------------------------------------------------------------ LAUREN KRAMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY d/b/a COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05559 (S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2025) arises out of the recent targeted ransomware attack and data breach on Defendant's network that resulted in unauthorized access to the highly sensitive data. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings claims on behalf of herself and the Class for: (i) negligence, (ii) breach of implied contract; (iii) invasion of privacy; (iv) breach of fiduciary duty; and (v) violation of New York Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Through these claims, the Plaintiff seeks, inter alia, damages and injunctive relief, including improvements to Defendant's data security systems and integrated services, future annual audits, and adequate credit monitoring services. Headquartered in New York, NY, Trustees of Columbia University is a higher education institution based in New York offering education services in the United States and throughout the world. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com COMPUMEDICS USA: Blake Sues Over Unprotected Private Information ---------------------------------------------------------------- TREMAINE BLAKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMPUMEDICS USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00487 (W.D.N.C., July 7, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to properly safeguard the private information and private health information that Defendant’s clients entrusted to it as a condition of receiving services. On April 11, 2025, the Defendant became aware of a data security incident resulting in unauthorized access to certain personal and/or protected health information maintained by the Defendant. The data breach took place between February 14, 2025 through March 23, 2025. However, the Defendant only began notifying affected consumers on May 8, 2025. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs also bring this class action lawsuit on behalf all those similarly situated to address Defendant's failure to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiffs and other Class Members that their information had been subject to the unauthorized access by an unknown third party and precisely what specific type of information was accessed. Compumedics USA, Inc. is medical devices company headquartered in Charlotte, NC. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Wilkerson, Esq. WILKERSON JUSTUS PLLC PO Box 54 Asheville, NC 28802 Telephone: (828) 316-6902 E-mail: dwilkerson@wilkersonjustus.com - and - T. J. Jesky, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF T. J. JESKY 205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 810 Chicago, IL 60601-5902 Telephone: (312) 894-0130, Ext. 3 E-mail: tj@jeskylaw.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com CORTEVA INC: Appeals Attorneys' Fees & Cost Order in Cockerill Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- CORTEVA INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees and costs in the lawsuit entitled Robert Cockerill, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Corteva Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03966, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The putative class action arises from the alleged denial of retirement benefits to certain employees following the employer's spin-off of these employees to a different entity. Plaintiffs Robert F. Cockerill and Christopher W. Newton, individually and as representatives on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, bring various claims pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 against Defendants Corteva, Inc.; Dupont Specialty Products USA, LLC; DuPont de Nemours, Inc.; E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company; The Pension and Retirement Plan; and the Administrative Committee. On May 8, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for attorney fees and costs, which Judge Michael M. Baylson granted in part and denied in part on May 27, 2025. Judge Baylson determined that the Plaintiffs' counsel deserved to be appropriately compensated and that they would also be liable for substantial counsel fees, which are justified by the successes of the Plaintiffs' counsel, by the facts of the case, and by the prevailing law. Accordingly, he granted the Plaintiffs' petition for attorneys' fees and confirmed the case as a class action. The appellate case is entitled Robert Cockerill, et al. v. Corteva Inc., et al., Case No. 25-2204, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on June 26, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees ROBERT F. COCKERILL, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Samantha L. Brener, Esq. Jaclyn D. Conover, Esq. Elizabeth Hopkins, Esq. Susan L. Meter, Esq. KANTOR & KANTOR 9301 Corbin Avenue, Suite 1400 Northridge, CA 91324 - and - Daniel Feinberg, Esq. Todd Jackson, Esq. Nina Wasow, Esq. FEINBERG JACKSON WORTHMAN & WASOW 2030 Addison Street, Suite 500 Berkeley, CA 94704 Telephone: (510) 269-7998 - and - Lisa A. Salmons, Esq. EDWARD STONE LAW 175 W. Putnam Avenue, 2nd Floor Greenwich, CT 06830 - and - Edward S. Stone, Esq. 300 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (203) 504-8425 Defendants-Appellants CORTEVA INC., et al. are represented by: Andrew W. Balthazor, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 789-7584 - and - Nipun J. Patel, Esq. Cory Thomas, Esq. POLSINELLI 1717 Arch Street Three Logan Square, Suite 2800 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 267-3009 (215) 267-3024 - and - Kayla L. Pragid, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT 777 S. Flagler Street, Suite 1900W West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 560-8303 - and - Todd D. Wozniak, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT 1180 W. Peachtree Street NW, Suite 1800 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 817-8431 COSTA DEL MAR: Class Cert Briefing Schedule in Reed Sought ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GERALD E. REED, IV, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. COSTA DEL MAR, INC., Case No. 6:19-cv-01751-RBD-LHP (M.D. Fla.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order setting a briefing schedule on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Plaintiff filed his motion for class certification on June 27, 2025. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Q5usZp at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter P. Hargitai, Esq. Joshua H. Roberts, Esq. Laura B. Renstrom, Esq. Michael M. Gropper, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 50 North Laura Street, Suite 3900 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Telephone: (904) 353-2000 Facsimile: (904) 358-1872 E-mail: peter.hargitai@hklaw.com josh.roberts@hklaw.com laura.renstrom@hklaw.com michael.gropper@hklaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Sara F. Holladay, Esq. Emily Y. Rottmann, Esq. Sean P. Walsh, Esq. Justin R. Opitz, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 50 N. Laura Street, Suite 3300 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Telephone: (904) 798-3200 Facsimile: (904) 798-3207 E-mail: sholladay@mcguirewoods.com erottmann@mcguirewoods.com swalsh@mcguirewoods.com jopitz@mcguirewoods.com COSTA DEL MAR: Reed Allowed to Seal Certain Exhibits ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GERALD E. REED, IV, v. COSTA DEL MAR, INC., Case No. 6:19-cv-01751-RBD-LHP (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Leslie Hoffman Price entered an order as follows: 1. the Plaintiff's motion to seal is granted. 2. On or before July 15, 2025, the Plaintiff shall separately file under seal Exhibits 9, 13, and 19 for consideration in resolution of the motion for class certification. 3. Upon consideration, the Court may require that some or all of the information filed under seal be filed in the public record, if it determines that the information is not properly subject to sealing. Otherwise, this seal shall not extend beyond 90 days after the case is closed and all appeals exhausted. Costa operates as an optical products wholesaler company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oZEN8D at no extra charge.[CC] COSTA DEL MAR: Reed Seeks Oral Argument on Class Cert Bid --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GERALD E. REED, IV, v. COSTA DEL MAR, INC., Case No. 6:19-cv-01751-RBD-LHP (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting request for oral argument on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification Costa operates as an optical products wholesaler company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NEqs99 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter P. Hargitai, Esq. Joshua H. Roberts, Esq. Laura B. Renstrom, Esq. Michael M. Gropper, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 50 North Laura Street, Suite 3900 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Telephone: (904) 353-2000 Facsimile: (904) 358-1872 E-mail: peter.hargitai@hklaw.com josh.roberts@hklaw.com laura.renstrom@hklaw.com michael.gropper@hklaw.com CREDIT SUISSE: Diabat Wins Bid to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Core Capital Partners, Ltd. v. Credit Suisse Group AG, et al. (RE: CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES FRAUD CLASS ACTIONS), Case No. 1:23-cv-09287-CM (S.D.N.Y.), the Court entered an order: -- denying PWC's motion to dismiss; -- granting in part and denying in part the CS Defendants' motion to dismiss; -- granting Ali Diabat's motion to certify a class; and -- granting in part and denying in part the CS Defendants' motion to consolidate. Credit was a global investment bank and financial services firm. A copy of the Court's order dated July 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Kb5eHS at no extra charge.[CC] CROWDSTRIKE INC: Del Rio Appeals Suit Dismissal to 5th Circuit -------------------------------------------------------------- JULIO DEL RIO, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss in the lawsuit entitled Julio Del Rio, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CrowdStrike, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00881, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint is brought against the Defendants for negligence, violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, and public nuisance, and seek declaratory relief, injunctive relief, monetary damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, equitable relief, and all other relief authorized by law as a result of CrowdStrike's flawed update. On Feb. 4, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which Judge Robert Pitman granted on June 18, 2025. The appellate case is entitled Del Rio v. CrowdStrike, Case No. 25-50518, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on June 27, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants JULIO DEL RIO, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Cory Steven Fein, Esq. CORY S. FEIN, PC 13105 Northwest Freeway Houston, TX 77040 Telephone: (832) 259-6926 Defendants-Appellees CROWDSTRIKE, INCORPORATED, et al. are represented by: Mallory Toby Biblo, Esq. DLA PIPER, L.L.P. (US) 1900 N. Pearl Street Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 743-4584 - and - John Michael Guaragna, Jr., Esq. DLA PIPER, L.L.P. (US) 303 Colorado Street Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 457-7125 CRUMBL LLC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Jan. 6, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA WATSON, and ANGELA KEERS, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. CRUMBL LLC, CRUMBL, IP, LLC, CRUMBL FRANCHISING, LLC, and CRUMBL ENTERPRISES, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-01770-DJC-CKD (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Daniel J. Calabretta entered an order granting stipulation to modify scheduling order: Event Deadline Joint Mid-Discovery Statement: Oct. 16, 2025 Expert Disclosures: Jan. 6, 2026 Rebuttal Expert Reports: Mar. 9, 2026 The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification: Jan. 6, 2026 The Defendants' opposition to motion for class Mar. 9, 2026 certification: The Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion for Apr. 17, 2026 class certification: Hearing on motion for class certification: May 14, 2026 Final Pretrial Conference: Jan. 28, 2027 Jury Trial: Mar. 29, 2027 Crumbl is a dessert bakery. A copy of the Court's order dated July 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EtQNft at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Erin J. Ruben, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLP 900 W. Morgan St. Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5009 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 E-mail: eruben@milberg.com CVS HEALTH: Lewis Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CVS Health Corporation. The case is styled as Robert Lewis, Jr., on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. CVS Health Corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-03763-SEG (N.D. Ga., July 7, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. CVS Health Corporation -- https://www.cvshealth.com/ -- is an American healthcare company that owns CVS Pharmacy, a retail pharmacy chain.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (615) 485-0018 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Valerie Lorraine Chinn, Esq. CHINN LAW FIRM, LLC 245 N. Highland Ave., Suite 230 #7 Atlanta, GA 30307 Phone: (404) 955-7732 Email: vchinn@chinnlawfirm.com CVS HEALTH: Sells Adulterated Cough & Mucus Tablets, Hatfield Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ CRAIG HATFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CVS HEALTH CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07248 (N.D. Ill., June 27, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its Maximum Strength Mucus Extended Release products. According to the complaint, the Defendant's products were adulterated and contained benzene, a known human carcinogen. Had the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers known that the products were adulterated, they would not have purchased the products, says the suit. CVS Health Corporation is an American healthcare company, with its principal place of business in Rhode Island. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth T. Goldstein, Esq. Matthew G. Norgard, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH T. GOLDSTEIN, PLLC 20 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1006 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 606-0500 Email: ken@krislovlaw.com mnorgard@krislovlaw.com - and - Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 412 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com CVS PHARMACY: Doe Appeals Class Cert. Order to 9th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------- JOHN DOE ONE, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled John Doe One, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01031-EMC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs bring the putative class action alleging that they have been discriminatorily denied benefits under their employer-offered prescription drug benefit plans. The Plaintiffs bring eight causes of action: (1) violation of the anti-discrimination provision of the Affordable Care Act; (2) violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act; (3) violation of the California Unruh Civil Rights Act; (4) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); (5) claim for benefits due under plans governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act; (6) claim for breach of fiduciary duties under ERISA; (7) failure to provide full and fair review under ERISA; and (8) declaratory relief. The Counts 1-4 are against CVS only. The Counts 5-8 are against all the Defendants. On Nov. 1, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Edward M. Chen denied on June 13, 2025. The Court concludes that because the Plaintiffs fail to "affirmatively demonstrate" their compliance with the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2), class certification is improper. The appellate case is entitled John Doe One, et al. v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., et al., Case No. 25-4021, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 27, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners JOHN DOE ONE, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Alan M. Mansfield, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS LLP 16870 W. Bernardo Dr., Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 674-6641 Facsimile: (855) 274-1888 Email: amansfield@whatleyka11as.com - and - Jerry Flanagan, Esq. SHERNOFF BIDART ECHEVERRIA LLP 600 S. Indian Hill Blvd. Claremont, CA 917ll Telephone: (909) 621-4935 Facsimile: (909) 625-6915 Email: flanagan@shernoff.com - and - Benjamin Powell, Esq. Ryan Mellino, Esq. CONSUMER WATCHDOG 6330 San Vicente Blvd., Suite 250 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (310) 392-0522 Facsimile: (310) 392-8874 Email: ben@consumerwatchdog.org ryan@consumerwatchdog.org CVS PHARMACY: Dubin ERISA Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled CHRISTOPHER DUBIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CVS PHARMACY, INC., a Rhode Island Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV16422, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 30, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-05931 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action against the Defendants for violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. is an American retail and health care company, doing business in California. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Sean P. Nalty, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEW ART, PC One Embarcadero Center, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 442-4810 Facsimile: (415) 442-4870 Email: sean.naltv@ogletree.com DA SPOT NYC: Hernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Timothy Hernandez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. DA SPOT NYC, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-03701 (S.D.N.Y., July 3, 2025), is brought against Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website, www.daspotnyc.com (the "Website"), to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website, and therefore denial of the goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, 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. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com DATAVANT INC: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid in Garbowit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STACEY GARBOWIT and ALLEY MCINNIS, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. DATAVANT, INC., as successor by merger to Ciox Health, LLC d/b/a Ciox Health, WEST BOCA MEDICAL CENTER, INC., a Florida corporation, and DELRAY MEDICAL CENTER, INC., a Florida corporation, Case No. 9:25-cv-80345-DMM (S.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their unopposed motion for extension of time to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification to July 24, 2025. The Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on June 26, 2025. Datavant is a health information technology company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Hw9fkT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William J. Cornwell, Esq. David K. Friedman, Esq. Miranda N. Springfield, Esq. WEISS, HANDLER & CORNWELL, PA One Boca Place, Suite 205E 2255 Glades Road Boca Raton, FL 33431 E-mail: wjc@whcfla.com filings@whcfla.com nw@whcfla.com dkf@whcfla.com gg@whcfla.com mns@whcfla.com jn@whcfla.com - and – Bruce F. Silver, Esq. SILVER & SILVER, PA 6100 Glades Road, Suite 201 Boca Raton, FL 33434 E-mail: bruce@silverinjurylaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Tala Amirfazli, Esq. Andrew T. Sarangoulis, Esq. BURR & FORMAN LLP 1075 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 3000 Atlanta, GA, 30309 Telephone: (404) 815-3000 Facsimile: (404) 817-3244 E-mail: tamirfazli@burr.com asarangoulis@burr.com rzamora@burr.com DECO TRE LLC: Wills Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------- Laurence Wills, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. DECO TRE, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-03716 (E.D.N.Y., July 3, 2025), is brought against Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website, and therefore denial of the goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website, www.rosettabakery.com (the "Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, 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. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates www.rosettabakery.com (its "Website"), offering features which should allow all consumers to access the services that Defendant offers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com DELTA BAY INVESTMENTS: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property ------------------------------------------------------------ Carlos Brito, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals v. DELTA BAY INVESTMENTS, LLC AND SR DE LOS TACOS DORAL CORP., Case No. 1:25-cv-22986-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 3, 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 commercial restaurant business to be rife with ADA violations, despite having been previously sued by other Plaintiffs for ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the commercial property and commercial restaurant business within the subject restaurant in violation of the ADA and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject commercial property and commercial restaurant. The barriers to access at Defendants' commercial property and commercial restaurant business have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial property and commercial restaurant 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. DELTA BAY INVESTMENTS, LLC, owns, operates, and oversees the commercial property, with all areas open to the public.[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 DESERT FIRE: FLSA Class Gets Conditional Certification ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHARA RAMIREZ, an individual, OPINION & ORDER individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DESERT FIRE LLC dba SILVER DOLLAR CLUB; DAMON SHRADER; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 6:25-cv-00037-AA (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Ann Aiken entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion for conditional Fair labor Standards Act (FLSA) Class Certification, Court-Authorized Notice, and Equitable Tolling. 1. The Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify a collective class is granted. 2. The putative collective class shall consist of current and former dancers who work or have worked at the Silver Dollar at any time since May 27, 2022. 3. The Defendant shall provide to the Plaintiff's counsel within 10 days of this Order the contact information for any individual who works or has worked as a dancer at the Silver Dollar at any time since May 27, 2022. That information shall include name, last-known mailing address, telephone number including cell/mobile number, email address, work location, copy of driver's license, and dates that the individual worked at the Silver Dollar. 4. The Plaintiff's motion to approve the notice and consent forms is granted in part and denied in part. The content of the notice and consent forms shall be revised in accord with this opinion. 5. The Court authorizes Plaintiff to send the revised Notice and Consent Forms to all putative collective members by regular mail, email, and text and to send one reminder by regular mail, email, and text 30 days after the notice issues and in accord with this Opinion. Plaintiff’s attorneys shall have no other unsolicited contact with any putative plaintiff. 6. The Court orders Defendants to post the Notice of this action in all Silver Dollar dancer dressing rooms, but not at any public entrance, in accord with this Opinion. All such posting shall conform to the FLSA’s guidelines for federal and state-mandated workplace posters. 7. The Court orders a 90-day notice period such that each putative plaintiff shall have 90 days from the date on which notice is sent to them to submit a completed “Consent to Join” form to Plaintiff’s counsel. 8. The Plaintiff's Motion to equitably toll the FLSA three-year statute of limitations is granted in part and denied in part. The Plaintiff brings this putative collective action against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff alleges that the "Defendants misclassified her and other dancers as independent contractors," Silver offers full-service, value-oriented corporate car rental programs. A copy of the Court's opinion & order dated July 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Z5CC8s at no extra charge.[CC] DIZIO LLC: Blind Users Can't Access Online Store, Ariza Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR ARIZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DIZIO LLC, d/b/a STRADA IN THE GROVE, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-22919 (S.D. Fla., June 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 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.stradainthegrove.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 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. Dizio LLC, doing business as Strada in the Grove, is a company that sells online goods and services in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Pelayo M. Duran, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO DURAN, PA 6355 N.W. 36th Street, Suite 307 Virginia Gardens, FL 33166 Telephone: (305) 266-9780 Facsimile: (305) 269-8311 Email: duranandassociates@gmail.com - and - Roderick V. Hannah, Esq. RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., PA 4800 N. Hiatus Road Sunrise, FL 33351 Telephone: (954) 362-3800 Facsimile: (954) 362-3779 Email: rhannah@rhannahlaw.com DK HOUSEHOLD: Wilson Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------- HOWARD WILSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DK HOUSEHOLD BRANDS CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07591 (N.D. Ill., July 7, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most recently on June 3, 2025, to access Defendant's website from his home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied his full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content and services. The Defendant failed to build its website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs. As a result, the Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the website, and was thus denied the benefit of purchasing the pan, he wished to acquire from the website. DK Household Brands Corp. owns and operates the website, www.zyliss.com, which offers kitchenware and storage products for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com DONALD TRUMP: NYIC Seeks Class Certification -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as New York Immigration Coalition; J.V., individually and as next friend to V.V.; D.F., individually and as next friend to G.F.; M.P., individually and as next friend to her future child; and Rural & Migrant Ministry, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States, in his official capacity, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01309-MMG (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for class certification under Rule 23(a) and (b)(2). The Named Plaintiffs move, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(2), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, that this Court certify a class defined as: "All persons born in the United States on or after Feb. 19, 2025, who have been or will be denied birthright citizenship because their parents' immigration statuses are the subject of Executive Order 14160." The Named Plaintiffs request that they be appointed Class Representatives, and that their counsel of record be appointed Class Counsel. Donald Trump is an American politician, media personality, and businessman. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QI07aj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Francisca D. Fajana, Esq. Cesar Z. Ruiz, Esq. Mariana C. Lopez, Esq. Michael Asparrin, Esq. LATINOJUSTICE PRLDEF 475 Riverside Drive, Suite 1901 New York, NY 10115 Telephone: (212) 219-3360 E-mail: FFajana@latinojustice.org CRuiz@latinojustice.org MLopez@latinojustice.org MAsparrin@latinojustice.org EFFORTLESS OFFICE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Nguyen Says ------------------------------------------------------------- GIA NGUYEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EFFORTLESS OFFICE ENTERPRISES, LLC, and NEVADA HEART & VASCULAR CENTER, LLP, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01134 (D. Nev., June 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information. Between May 9, 2024 and July 23, 2024, hackers targeted and accessed Defendants' network systems and stole Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive, confidential Private Information stored therein, causing widespread injuries to Plaintiff and Class Members. The Defendants breached their duties owed to Plaintiff and Class Members by failing to safeguard their private information it collected and maintained, including by failing to implement industry standards for data security to protect against, detect, and stop cyberattacks, which failures allowed criminal hackers to access and steal Private Information from Defendants care, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former patients of Defendant Effortless Office's clients who, in order to receive treatment from Defendant Effortless Office's clients, were and are required to entrust Defendants with their sensitive, non-public private information. Effortless Office Enterprises, LLC is a company that provides cloud products and solutions for IT environments to its clients.[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 E-mail: nring@stranchlaw.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWTIZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com EPISOURCE LLC: Lott Files Personal Injury Suit in C.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Episource, LLC. The case is captioned as LAURA LOTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EPISOURCE, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-05392-CV-JPR (C.D. Cal., June 13, 2025). The suit is brought against the Defendant for personal injury claims. Episource, LLC is a software company in Carson, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shub, Esq. SHUB JOHNS AND HOLBROOK LLP Four Tower Bridge 200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400 West Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 477-8380 Email: jshub@shublawyers.com ERIE INDEMNITY: Faces Plascencia Personal Injury Suit in W.D. Pa. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Erie Indemnity Company. The case is captioned as NEIL PLASCENCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ERIE INDEMNITY COMPANY, Case No. 1:25-cv-00160-CB (W.D. Pa., June 15, 2025). The suit is brought against the Defendant for personal injury claims. Erie Indemnity Company is a management and administrative services provider in Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 Email: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Liberato P. Verderame, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Ste. N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 Facsimile: (267) 685-0676 Email: lverderame@edelson-law.com EUROPEAN WAX: Dunn Sues Over Disclosed Clients' Info to 3rd Party ----------------------------------------------------------------- SYDNEY DUNN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EUROPEAN WAX CENTER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-05494 (N.D. Cal., June 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act, and invasion of privacy under California's Constitution. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of aiding, agreeing with, employing, or otherwise enabling multiple third parties, including Attentive, LinkedIn, and Snap, to eavesdrop on communications sent and received by the Plaintiff and Class members on its website, www.waxcenter.com. According to the complaint, the Defendant used its website to collect and disclose customers' personal and sensitive information to third parties uninvolved in the provision of waxing services, entirely without their knowledge or authorization. The Defendant did so by knowingly and secretly configuring and installing tracking technologies into its website. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiffs and the Class suffered damages, says the suit. European Wax Center, Inc. is a waxing services provider, headquartered in Plano, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah N. Westcot, Esq. Stephen A. Beck, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, PA 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2100 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 676-9006 Email: swestcot@bursor.com sbeck@bursor.com EVERGREEN INTEREST: Ariza Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website ------------------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR ARIZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EVERGREEN INTEREST, LTD., d/b/a SHIPLEY DO-NUTS, Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-01176 (M.D. Fla., June 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 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://shipleydonuts.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 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. Evergreen Interest, Ltd., doing business as Shipley Do-Nuts, is a company that sells online goods and services in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Pelayo M. Duran, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO DURAN, PA 6355 N.W. 36th Street, Suite 307 Virginia Gardens, FL 33166 Telephone: (305) 266-9780 Facsimile: (305) 269-8311 Email: duranandassociates@gmail.com - and - Roderick V. Hannah, Esq. RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., PA 4800 N. Hiatus Road Sunrise, FL 33351 Telephone: (954) 362-3800 Facsimile: (954) 362-3779 Email: rhannah@rhannahlaw.com FLEET QUEST: Walton Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Driver Class --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YAZMINE WALTON, JOHN WARLICK, and SHERROD HUTCHIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FLEET QUEST LOGISTICS, LLC FLEET QUEST, L.L.C., and SN TRANSPORTATION LLC, Jointly and severally, Case No. 1:23-cv-00770-PLM-RSK (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class pursuant to FRCP 23. The Plaintiffs propose the following class description: "All drivers who transported goods under Fleet Quest's DOT credentials from July 20, 2020 to the present and were subject to Fleet Quest's standard pay structure, which deducted a 10% commission, fuel costs, insurance costs, and chargebacks without the drivers' written consent (identified in Ex. 3)." The Plaintiff Warlick began working for the Defendants in November of 2021 after learning of another driver who worked for Fleet Quest, who gave him Z. Fazlic's direct phone number. Fleet is a trucking company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6dH0hS at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jack W. Schulz, Esq. SCHULZ GHANNAM PLLC 645 Griswold St Ste 4100 Detroit, MI, 48226 Telephone: (313) 788-7446 E-mail: jack@michiganworkerlaw.com - and - Kevin Ernst, Esq. Hannah R. Fielstra, Esq. ERNST LAW FIRM, PLC 645 Griswold, Ste. 4100 Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 965-5555 E-mail: hannah@ernstlawplc.com The Defendants are represented by: Ronald G. DeWaard, Esq. Jeffrey D. Koelzer, Esq. VARNUM LLP 333 Bridge Street, NW, Suite 1700 Grand Rapids, MI 49504 Telephone: (616) 336-6000 E-mail: rgdewaard@varnumlaw.com jdkoelzer@varnumlaw.com FLOYD INC: Austin Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Truck Drivers -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON AUSTIN, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FLOYD INC., an Illinois Corporation; SUPER EGO HOLDING LLC, an Illinois Limited Liability Company; SUPER EGO INC., an Illinois corporation; SUPER EGO LOGISTICS LLC, an Illinois Limited Liability Company; ROCKET EXPEDITING LLC, an Ohio Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 3:24-cv-01214-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Oct. 23, 2025, will move the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for certification of the following class: "All current and former Super Ego truck drivers who, while residing in California according to the Defendants' records, worked under a Lease Agreement with either Defendant Floyd Inc., Defendant Rocket Expediting LLC), or both, at any time from April 14, 2019 through the date of class certification (the "Class" or "Class Members")." The Plaintiff Aaron Austin worked as a truck driver for Defendants from about August 2022 through December 2022. Floyd operates as an online furniture company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UjIOC0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon Brouillette, Esq. Raymond Wendell, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (866) 276-763 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 E-mail: bbrouillette@crosnerlegal.com rwendell@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com FLYING EAGLE: $10MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 2 ----------------------------------------------------------- IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF STOCKHOLDER CLASS ACTION, SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR TO: All holders of Flying Eagle Acquisition Corp. ("Flying Eagle") Class A common stock, whether beneficial or of record, as of the closing of Flying Eagle's acquisition of legacy Skillz Inc. ("Legacy Skillz") on December 16, 2020 (the "Merger"), together with the heirs, successors-in-interest, transferees, and assigns of all of such foregoing holders, including any person or entity who subsequently purchased such stock (excluding, for the avoidance of doubt, shares of Flying Eagle Class B common stock that converted into Flying Eagle Class A common stock solely in connection with the Merger ("Class B Converted Shares") as well as shares of Flying Eagle Class A common stock redeemed before the Merger ("Redeemed Shares")) (the "Settlement Class"). Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition (the "Excluded Persons"), as set forth in the full Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Stockholder Class Action, Settlement Hearing, and Right to Appear (the "Notice"), available at www.FlyingEagleStockholdersLitigation.com. Any capitalized terms used in this Summary Notice that are not otherwise defined in this Summary Notice shall have the meanings given to them in the Notice or in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, Compromise, and Release dated May 19, 2025 (the "Stipulation"), which is also available at www.FlyingEagleStockholdersLitigation.com. PLEASE READ THIS SUMMARY NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court"), that the above-captioned stockholder class action (the "Action") has been preliminarily certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class defined above. YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that (i) plaintiffs Darcy Lien, Tony Diao, Michael Ogilvie, Walter Sutherland, and Wesam Taliani ("Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and the other members of the Settlement Class; and (ii) defendant Eagle Equity Partners II, LLC ("Eagle Equity Partners"), and defendants Harry E. Sloan, Scott M. Delman, Joshua Kazam, Alan Mnuchin, Laurence E. Paul, Eli Baker, and Jeff Sagansky (the "Individual Defendants," and together with Eagle Equity Partners, "Defendants") have reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $10,000,000 (United States Dollars) in cash (the "Settlement"). The terms of the Settlement are stated in the Stipulation. The proposed Settlement, if approved by the Court, will resolve all claims in the Action. A hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") will be held on September 2, 2025, at 1:30 p.m., before The Honorable Paul A. Fioravanti, Jr., Vice Chancellor, at the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, New Castle County, Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, 500 North King Street, Wilmington, DE 19801, to, among other things: (i) determine whether to finally certify the Settlement Class for purposes of the Settlement only, pursuant to Court of Chancery Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(2); (ii) determine whether Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel have adequately represented the Settlement Class, and whether they should be finally appointed as Class Representatives and Class Counsel, respectively, for the Settlement Class; (iii) determine whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate to, and in the best interests of, Plaintiffs and the other Class Members; (iv) determine whether the proposed Final Order and Judgment approving the Settlement, dismissing the Action with prejudice, and granting the Releases provided under the Stipulation should be entered; (v) determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund is fair and reasonable, and should therefore be approved; (vi) determine whether and in what amount any award of attorneys' fees and payment of Litigation Expenses to Plaintiffs' Counsel (the "Fee and Expense Award") should be paid out of the Settlement Fund, including any incentive awards to Plaintiffs (the "Incentive Awards") to be deducted solely from any Fee and Expense Award; (vii) hear and rule on any objections to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, and/or Plaintiffs' Counsel's application for a Fee and Expense Award, including Plaintiffs' application for Incentive Awards to be deducted solely from any Fee and Expense Award to Plaintiffs' Counsel (the "Fee and Expense Application"); and (viii) consider any other matters that may properly be brought before the Court in connection with the Settlement. The Settlement Hearing may be adjourned by the Court without further written notice to Class Members. In addition, the Court may decide to conduct the Settlement Hearing remotely by telephone or videoconference, or otherwise allow Class Members to appear at the hearing remotely by phone or video, without further written notice to Class Members. If you intend to attend the Settlement Hearing, you should consult the Court's docket and/or the Settlement website (www.FlyingEagleStockholdersLitigation.com) for any change in date, time, or format of the hearing. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the Notice, you may obtain a copy of the Notice by contacting the Settlement Administrator by mail at Flying Eagle Stockholders Litigation, c/o JND Legal Administration, P.O. Box 91121, Seattle, WA 98111; by telephone at (866) 287-0747; or by email at info@FlyingEagleStockholdersLitigation.com. A copy of the Notice can also be downloaded from the Settlement website, www.FlyingEagleStockholdersLitigation.com. If the Settlement is approved by the Court and the Effective Date occurs, the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed on a pro rata basis to Eligible Class Members in accordance with the proposed Plan of Allocation stated in the Notice or such other plan of allocation as is approved by the Court. Pursuant to the proposed Plan of Allocation, each Eligible Class Member will be eligible to receive a pro rata payment from the Net Settlement Fund equal to the product of (i) the number of shares of Flying Eagle Class A common stock held as of the closing of the Merger on December 16, 2020, excluding shares held by Excluded Persons, Redeemed Shares, and Class B Converted Shares ("Eligible Shares"); and (ii) the "Per-Share Recovery" for the Settlement, which will be determined by dividing the total amount of the Net Settlement Fund by the total number of Eligible Shares held by all Eligible Class Members. As explained in further detail in the Notice, Eligible Class Members do not have to submit a claim form to receive a payment from the Net Settlement Fund. Any objections to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or the Fee and Expense Application, including Plaintiffs' application for Incentive Awards, must be filed with the Register in Chancery in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and delivered to Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than August 18, 2025, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court or the Office of the Register in Chancery regarding this Summary Notice. All questions about this Summary Notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Settlement Administrator or Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel. Requests for the Notice should be made to the Settlement Administrator: Flying Eagle Stockholders Litigation c/o JND Legal Administration P.O. Box 91121 Seattle, WA 98111 (866) 287-0747 info@FlyingEagleStockholdersLitigation.com www.FlyingEagleStockholdersLitigation.com Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, should be made to Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel: Jeroen van Kwawegen Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor New York, NY 10020 (800) 380‑8496 settlements@blbglaw.com Gregory Del Gaizo Robbins LLP 5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300 San Diego, CA 92122 gdelgaizo@robbinsllp.com BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE FLYING WINGS: Oral Argument on Summary Judgment Reset to August 7 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAYLA PENDER, v. FLYING S. WINGS, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-04292-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Algenon Marbley entered an order resetting date for oral argument on motions for summary judgment. Due to a conflict with the Court’s trial calendar, the Oral Argument on the motions for summary judgment in this case is rescheduled for Thursday, Aug. 7, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. in Court Room 1, Room 331 of the U. S. Courthouse located at 85 Marconi Boulevard, Columbus, Ohio. Oral argument in this case may not be continued by stipulation of the parties or counsel, but only by an order of the Court on good cause shown. Any request for a continuance should be made promptly after the reason for seeking the continuance becomes known. A copy of the Court's order dated July 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=orQjJS at no extra charge.[CC] FRL AUTOMOTIVE: Bid to Bifurcate Discovery in Karpiel Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON KARPIEL, v. FRL AUTOMOTIVE, LLC D/B/A TOYOTA OF NORTH MIAMI, Case No. 1:25-cv-21112-BB (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to bifurcate discovery and stay class discovery. The Court concludes that the Defendant has not shown good cause for bifurcation or a stay of class discovery. The proposed phasing would likely delay the case, increase costs, and prejudice Plaintiff, contrary to the principles of fairness and efficiency that govern discovery in class actions. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged transmission of unsolicited telemarketing text messages and phone calls to the Plaintiff, despite the Plaintiff's clear opt-out request and the Defendant’s acknowledgment of that request. The Plaintiff asserts four claims: (1) unlawful telemarketing to numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"); (2) failure to honor opt-out requests and maintain an internal do-not-call list in violation of the TCPA; (3) failure to honor opt-out requests in violation of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA"); and (4) unlawful telemarketing to numbers without prior express written consent in violation of the FTSA. FRL specializes in a wide range of vehicle maintenance and repair services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4jZ2M5 at no extra charge.[CC] FULLBEAUTY BRANDS: Appeals Court Order in Broomes Suit to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ FULLBEAUTY BRANDS OPERATIONS, LLC is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Amanda Broomes, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FullBeauty Brands Operations, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-02697, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the Superior Court for Alameda County to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, is brought against the Defendant for contract violation. On Apr. 11, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to State Court. On Apr. 21, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On June 10, 2025, Judge Rita F. Lin granted the Plaintiffs' motion to remand. The Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied as moot. The appellate case is entitled Broomes, et al. v. FullBeauty Brands Operations, LLC, Case No. 25-3988, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 26, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on July 1, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on August 5, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on September 5, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees AMANDA BROOMES, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Alexander Elliot Wolf, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 402 W. Broadway, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 90101 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 - and - Caleb Lucas-Hansen Marker, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP 6420 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1080 Los Angeles, CA 90048 - and - Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. JENNINGS & EARLEY PLLC 500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 110 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 247-6267 Defendant-Appellant FULLBEAUTY BRANDS OPERATIONS, LLC is represented by: James Sigel, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP 50 California Street, 23rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 - and - Jacob Harper, Esq. Daniel Leigh, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP 350 S. Grand Avenue, 27th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 - and - Joseph Elie-Meyers, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP 865 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90017 GENESYS TECHNOLOGY: Hobbs Allowed Leave to Amend Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH HOBBS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. GENESYS TECHNOLOGY N.V., d/b/a Jumba Bet, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00413-CHB-CHL (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Claria Horn Boom entered an order as follows: 1. The Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend complaint is granted to the extent it seeks to substitute another named plaintiff for the Plaintiff Hobbs and it is denied without prejudice to the extent it asks the Court to permit the substitute plaintiff to proceed pseudonymously. The request to dismiss the claims by Hobbs is also denied without prejudice. 2. The Plaintiff Hobbs shall file a second amended complaint including the name of Proposed Plaintiff Doe no later than 30 days after the entry of this order or a motion regarding her request for the Proposed Plaintiff Doe to proceed pseudonymously including citations to relevant authority. 3. The Plaintiff Hobbs or her substitute has 30 days to file a statement indicating whether she wishes to litigate the case against the Defendant Genesys. She shall file either a substantive status update on service attempts on Genesys or, she is warned, the Court will dismiss the claims against Genesys for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. Hobbs filed her initial Complaint on August 7, 2023, asserting a claim under Ky. Rev. Stat. section 372.020, against Genesys for its operation of the online-gambling website Jumbabet.com. Jumba is an online betting site. A copy of the Court's memorandum order and opinion dated July 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6BzkPR at no extra charge.[CC] GEO REENTRY: Underpays Maintenance Technicians, Fernandez Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- JUAN FERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GEO REENTRY SERVICES, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV18699 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 27, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to furnish accurate wage statements, failure to timely pay all final wages, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to pay all earned wages at least twice during each calendar month, and failure to maintain accurate records. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a maintenance technician from approximately October 2015 until approximately December 2024. Geo Reentry Services, LLC is an operator of half-way houses and detention centers in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. Sean M. Blakely, Esq. Liam A. Hall, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 292-2350 Facsimile: (424) 292-2355 Email: phaines@haineslawgroup.com sblakely@haineslawgroup.com lhall@haineslawgroup.com GRACE KNUTSON: Bid to Dismiss Robillard Class Action Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEAN ROBILLARD and SARA DOMRES, v. GRACE KNUTSON, Case No. 2:24-cv-01077-JPS (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge J. P. Stadtmueller entered an order denying the Defendant Grace Knutson's motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, to transfer Robillard action. The Court further entered an order that” -- the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class be and the same is denied without prejudice; and -- the parties submit a new joint Rule 26(f) plan on or before July 30, 2025. The Plaintiffs proceed in this putative class action against Grace Knutson for unreasonable seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Plaintiffs allege that they were both wrongfully held because of the Policy and the fact that WDOC does not have any "on-call" parole officers on the weekends or holidays to address situations where individuals on GPS monitoring are arrested due to alleged monitor tampering. A copy of the Court's order dated July 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RgN2bO at no extra charge.[CC] GROZA BUILDERS: Samblas TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Fla. ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled SAMANTHA SAMBLAS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. GROZA BUILDERS, INC., Case No. 56-2025-CA-000744A-XXX-HC, was removed from the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit in and for St. Lucie County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on June 13, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-14203-AMC to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. Groza Builders, Inc. is a contractor in Florida. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Travis J. Foels, Esq. Danielle L. Jakeman, Esq. JONES FOSTER PA 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 659-3000 Facsimile: (561) 650-5300 Email: tfoels@jonesfoster.com djakeman@jonesfoster.com HANLEY CENTER: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLA COLBERT, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, v. HANLEY CENTER FOUNDATION, a Florida not for profit corporation, Case No. 9:24-cv-81569-WM (S.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order: -- granting unopposed motion for extension of time to respond to plaintiff's motion for conditional certification, -- enlarging the time for Defendant to file its response through and including Monday, July 28, 2025, and -- granting all such other and further relief as the Court deems necessary, just, and proper under the circumstances. The Plaintiff filed her motion for conditional certification on June 30, 2025. Hanley provides substance use prevention, advocacy, mental health and addiction treatment, recovery support, and education programs. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ganvhm at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Paul Scheck, Esq. Alexander S. Cumming, Esq. SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP 300 S. Orange Avenue, Suite 1600 Orlando, FL 32801-5403 Telephone: (407) 423-3200 Facsimile: (407) 425-8316 E-mail: pscheck@shutts.com acumming@shutts.com HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE: Hawkins Suit Removed to E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Crystal Hawkins, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25CV012391 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on July 7, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-at-00885. The Complaint brings putative class claims for alleged: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Breaks; Failure to Indemnify Necessary Business Expenses; Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at Termination; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; and Unfair Business Practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Mitchell A. Wrosch, Esq. Briana LaBriola, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. Park Tower, Fifteenth Floor 695 Town Center Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: 714-800-7900 Facsimile: 714-754-1298 Email: mitchell.wrosch@ogletree.com briana.labriola@ogletree.com - and - Catherine N. Van Farowe, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. Esplanade Center III, Suite 800 2415 East Camelback Road Phoenix, AZ 85016 Phone: 602-778-3700 Facsimile: 602-778-3750 Email: catherine.vanfarowe@ogletree.com HASBRO INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Dalton Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hasbro, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-02783 (D. Minn., July 7, 2025) alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act in connection with Defendant's failure to make its website accessible to individuals with visual disabilities. The Plaintiff found Defendant's website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important website content -- content Defendant makes available to its sighted website users. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the suit. Headquartered in Pawtucket, RI, Hasbro, Inc. owns and operates the website, shop.hasbro.com/en-us, which offers offers children’s toys and accessories for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER LAW OFFICE, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: chad@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com HAZEL VILLAGE: Anderson Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Website ----------------------------------------------------------- DERRICK ANDERSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hazel Village, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03742 (S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website provides to the public a wide array of services, price specials and other programs. However, it contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Headquartered in Brooklyn, NY, Hazel Village, LLC owns and operates the website, Hazelvillage.com, which offers stuffed animal toys, dolls, doll clothing, children’s clothing, accessories, books, and gift sets for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com HERTZ CORPORATION: Maharaj Suit Seeks Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZABEENA MAHARAJ, an individual; RODOLFO SCHULZ, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated and other aggrieved employees, v. THE HERTZ CORPORATION, Case No. 3:23-cv-04726-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Sept. 18, 2025, will move the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for class certification of the Plaintiffs' claims against the Defendant. The Plaintiffs move the Court for an order certifying the following Class pursuant to rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: "All persons employed by Hertz in California as exempt- classified Operations Managers ("OMs") at any time from June 30, 2021, through the date of class certification." The Plaintiffs satisfy the requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). Specifically, numerosity is met as Hertz confirms there are at least 160 Operations Managers employed in California during the relevant class period, rendering joinder impracticable. Commonality is satisfied because Plaintiffs present common claims that Hertz uniformly misclassified Operations Managers as exempt, causing systematic denial of overtime pay, meal and rest breaks, reimbursement for business expenses, and issuance of noncompliant wage statements. The Plaintiffs' claims are typical, as they arise from the same uniform corporate policies, practices, and employment conditions affecting all Operations Managers in California. The Plaintiffs and their counsel will adequately represent the interests of the Class, given their vigorous advocacy, extensive litigation experience in wage-and-hour class actions and demonstrated absence of conflicts. The Plaintiffs also satisfy Rule 23(b)(3) because the common questions regarding Hertz's uniform misclassification and wage-and-hour practices predominate over any individualized issues, and a class action is clearly the superior procedural mechanism for resolving these claims fairly, consistently, and efficiently. The Plaintiffs further move to designate the Plaintiffs Zabeena Maharaj and Rodolpho Schulz as class representatives and to appoint Haffner Law PC as class counsel. The case is brought as a class action on behalf of exempt-classified Operations Managers ("OMs") employed by Hertz throughout California. The Plaintiffs allege that Hertz uniformly misclassified these employees as exempt from California’s wage-and-hour laws, systematically denying them legally required compensation and other employment rights under the California Labor Code. Hertz is an American car rental company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=m090zr at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua H. Haffner, Esq. Alfredo Torrijos, Esq. Vahan Mikayelyan, Esq. HAFFNER LAW PC 15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1520 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (213) 514-5681 Facsimile: (213) 514-5682 E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com at@haffnerlawyers.com vh@haffnerlawyers.com HIGHER EDUCATION LOAN: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Maldonado, et al., v. Higher Education Loan Authority of the State of Missouri, Case No. 3:24-cv-07850 (N.D. Cal., Filed Nov. 8, 2024), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order denying motion for judgment on the Pleadings. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs do not seek, nor would this Court grant, any judgment that requires discharge of loans that DOE did not authorize. So DOE is not a required party under Rule 19. On Thursday, the parties should be prepared to discuss the case schedule for MSJ, including whether MSJ as to the named plaintiffs should proceed before class certification. The nature of suit states Other Statutes -- Other Statutory Actions. [CC] MOHELA is a holder and servicer of student loans in the United States. HOYT ARCHERY: Janochoski Sues Over Price-Fixing Conspiracy ---------------------------------------------------------- ALEX JANOCHOSKI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOYT ARCHERY, INC. ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 0:25-cv-02788 (D. Minn., July 7, 2025) seeks to recover overcharge damages on archery products resulting from an agreement between Defendants to artificially raise prices, including through the collective implementation and enforcement of minimum advertised pricing policies, and using Defendant Archery Trade Association to implement and enforce the agreement across its membership, which spans the majority of archery products manufacturers, distributors, and retailers. The Defendants' blitz messaging and agreement to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices were effective across the industry. As a result, archery products consumers continue to pay artificially high prices. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings this action pursuant to Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act to obtain injunctive relief and to recover damages costs of suit, and reasonable attorneys' fees arising from Defendants’ violations of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act. Headquartered in Salt Lake City, UT, Hoyt Archery, Inc. manufactures bowhunting and target archery equipment. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Heidi M. Silton, Esq. Jessica N. Servais, Esq. Joseph C. Bourne, Esq. Michael J.K.M. Kinane, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 E-mail: hmsilton@locklaw.com jnservais@locklaw.com jcbourne@locklaw.com mjkmkinane@locklaw.com INDEPENDENT LIVING: Settlement in Geleng Gets Initial OK -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELINDA GELENG, et al., v. INDEPENDENT LIVING SYSTEMS, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-21060-KMW (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Kathleen Williams entered an order as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is granted. 2. The Court finds, for settlement purposes, that the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 factors are present, and that certification of the proposed Settlement Class is appropriate under Rule 23. The Court therefore provisionally certifies the following Settlement Class: "All persons residing in the United States whose personal information was exposed or potentially accessed in the Data Breach at ILS." 3. The Court appoints Plaintiffs David Asato, Katrina Berres, Ge Xiao Fang, Melinda Geleng, Mathew George, Maria Gomez, Dimitri Gutierrez, Chelsea Jensen, Rhianna McMullen, David Perez, Mark Salzano, Ernest Scoggan, and Ryan Smith as the Class Representatives. 4. The Court appoints (i) Stuart A. Davidson of Robins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP; (ii) Alexandra M. Honeycutt of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC; and (iii) John A. Yanchunis of Morgan & Morgan as Class Counsel. 5. A Final Approval Hearing shall be held on Monday, Nov. 17, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. Independent is a health-services company that develops, delivers and manages community-based services and nutritional support. A copy of the Court's order dated July 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rplZmB at no extra charge.[CC] INDONESIAN IMPORTS: Dalton Sues Over Online Store's Access Barriers ------------------------------------------------------------------- JULIE DALTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INDONESIAN IMPORTS, INC. d/b/a THE SAK, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-02712-DSD-DLM (D. Minn., June 27, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. 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, www.thesak.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 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. Indonesian Imports, Inc., doing business as The Sak, is a company that sells online goods and services in Minnesota. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com INGERSOLL-RAND: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Bowman Due August 8 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bowman, et al., v Ingersoll-Rand Industrial U.S. Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-00285 (N.D. Ind., Filed April 9, 2024), the Hon. Judge Cristal C. Brisco entered an order granting motion for extension of time to complete discovery: -- Phase I Fact Discovery deadline is: Sept. 5, 2025 -- Discovery related non-Dispositive Aug. 8, 2025 Motions due by: -- The deadline for Plaintiffs to file a Oct. 15, 2025 Motion for Conditional Certification and/or Class Certification is extended to: The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Ingersoll provides flow creation and industrial products.[CC] INSIGHT GLOBAL: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply in Paul ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WISLINE PAUL, JASMINE MCDOWELL, DAWN MAXFIELD, and MELINA TSILFOGLOU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. INSIGHT GLOBAL, LLC Case No. 1:25-cv-02679-SDG (N.D. Ga.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time through July 16, 2025, to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification. Insight is a global staffing & professional services agency. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZonDgP at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Zheyao Li, Esq. Barry J. Miller, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 1075 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 2500 Atlanta, GA 30309-3958 Telephone: (404) 885-1500 Facsimile: (404) 892-7056 E-mail: yaoli@seyfarth.com bmiller@seyfarth.com INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Parties Seek to Amend Order on Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT SCOTT BATCHELAR, v. INTERACTIVE BROKERS, LLC, INTERACTIVE BROKERS GROUP, INC., and THOMAS A. FRANK, Case No. 3:15-cv-01836-AWT (D. Conn.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order altering and amending the Court's Aug. 25, 2023, ruling on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The deadlines would be revised as follows: Action Deadline Fact witness depositions and inspections, Oct. 14, 2025 including code and data discovery, shall be completed: Dispositive motions due: March 26, 2026 Replies in support of dispositive motions May 21, 2026 due: Interactive is an American multinational brokerage firm headquartered in Greenwich, Connecticut. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RQ15Z0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: William M. Bloss, Esq. Christopher M. Mattei, Esq. KOSKOFF, KOSKOFF & BIEDER, P.C. 350 FAIRFIELD AVENUE BRIDGEPORT, CT 06604 Telephone: (203) 336-4421 Facsimile: (203) 368-3244 E-mail: bbloss@koskoff.com cmattei@koskoff.com - and - Gilbert I. Low, Esq. Jack P. Carroll, Esq. Gary N. Reger, Esq. ORGAIN BELL & TUCKER, LLP 470 Orleans St., 4th Fl. Beaumont, TX 77701 Telephone: (409) 838-6412 E-mail: jpc@obt.com mcroshaw@obt.com gnr@obt.com - and - L. DeWayne Layfield, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF L. DEWAYNE LAYFIELD, PLLC Beaumont, TX 77704 Telephone: (409) 832-1891 E-mail: dewayne@layfieldlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Andrew J. Levander, Esq. Gary J. Mennitt, Esq. Tamer Mallat, Esq. DECHERT LLP 1095 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 698-3500 Facsimile: (212) 698-3599 E-mail: andrew.levander@dechert.com gary.mennitt@dechert.com tamer.mallat@dechert.com - and - Thomas D. Goldberg, Esq. Andraya Pulaski Brunau, Esq. Matthew W. Austin, Esq. DAY PITNEY LLP 242 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 275-0100 Facsimile: (860) 275-0343 E-mail: tgoldberg@daypitney.com abrunau@daypitney.com IROBOT CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sept. 5 ------------------------------------------------------------ Robbins LLP reminds stockholders that a class action was filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired iRobot Corporation (NASDAQ: IRBT) securities between January 29, 2024 and March 11, 2025. iRobot designs, builds, and sells robots and home innovation products in the U.S., Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Japan, and internationally. iRobot is primarily known for its robot vacuum cleaner ("RVC") products sold under the "Roomba" brand name. For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas, Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003. The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that iRobot Corporation (IRBT) Misled Investors Regarding the Impact of the Amazon Acquisition Termination According to the complaint, in January 2024, iRobot and Amazon announced they had mutually agreed to terminate Amazon's acquisition of iRobot. Notwithstanding the termination of the Amazon acquisition and looming job cuts, the Company consistently maintained that it is "confident in [its] ability to build on [its] legacy of innovation as a standalone company and to navigate this period successfully." Moreover, in the wake of the Amazon acquisition's termination, iRobot touted that it would be implementing an operational restructuring plan (the "Restructuring Plan") -- which the Company has sometimes referred to as "iRobot Elevate" -- "designed to position the Company for stabilization in the current environment, while focusing on profitability and advancing key growth initiatives to extend its market share in the mid-tier and premium segments." Plaintiff alleges that on March 12, 2025, iRobot announced disappointing fourth quarter and full year 2024 financial results and canceled its fourth-quarter and full-year 2024 results conference call and webcast, indicating it would not provide a 2025 outlook. On this news, iRobot's stock price fell $3.255 per share, or 51.58%, over the following two trading sessions, to close at $3.055 per share on March 13, 2025. Plaintiff further alleges that during the class period, defendants failed to disclose 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. What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against iRobot Corporation. Shareholders who want to serve as lead plaintiff for the class should contact the firm before September 5, 2025. The lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. For more information, click here. All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. [GN] IT WORKS: Perez Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Marites Perez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. It Works Marketing, Inc.; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-04829-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Aug. 26, 2025, will move the Court for an order to certify the following class pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(b)(3): "All individuals who performed work for the Defendant in the state of California who were classified as independent contractors from March 27, 2017, to the date of trial." The Plaintiff further seeks to have certified for resolution each of the causes of action alleged in her Complaint, including her claims for the Defendant's failure to pay minimum wages under California law, the Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages under California law, the Defendant's failure to provide compliant meal periods and rest breaks, the Defendant's failure to timely pay all earned wages, the Defendant's failure to pay wages upon separation of employment and within the required time, the Defendant's failure to furnish accurate and itemized wage statements, the Defendant's failure to reimburse all business expenses, and the Defendant's violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. Lastly, the Plaintiff will move for the Court to appoint the Plaintiff as Class Representative and the Plaintiff's counsel – Lebe Law, APLC and attorneys Jonathan M. Lebe and Rayne A. Brown – as Class Counsel under Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Defendant has misclassified the Plaintiff and the proposed class members as independent contractors, resulting in It Works' systematic violation of the protections afforded to employees by the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission's Wage Orders. It Works is a Multi-Level Marketing company in the business of recruiting Distributors, who constitute the core of its workforce and business. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YMHX3q at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq. Rayne A. Brown, Esq. LEBE LAW, APLC 3900 W Alameda Avenue, Fifteenth Floor Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (213) 444-1973 E-mail: Jon@lebelaw.com Rayne@lebelaw.com JANIE AND JACK: Bid to Dismiss Hernandez Class Action Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. JANIE AND JACK, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-05354-BMC (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Brian Cogan entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss. Because the Court finds that plaintiff has stated a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Thus, the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL") claim is also denied. The Plaintiff, a visually impaired individual, brings this action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated against defendant, Janie and Jack, LLC, for failure to comply with ADA and NYCHRL. The Plaintiff alleges that, because the defendant failed to build a website compatible with screen access programs, he was unable to use the defendant's website to purchase a pajama set. The Plaintiff has filed more than 50 similar complaints against other website operators in the Eastern District of New York since 2023. This case is before the Court on the defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to adequately allege standing and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Plaintiff alleges that he attempted to purchase a pajama set, the Good Night Short Sleeve Pajama in Airplane Adventure, on defendant's website, but he was unable to complete the purchase because of the website’s inaccessibility and lack of conformity with screen readers. Janie offers classic, designer children's clothing in rich fabric, design and detail. A copy of the Court's order dated July 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=v6fRpL at no extra charge.[CC] JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Deadline for Daubert Bids Extended to August 13 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as GROUP HOSPITALIZATION AND MEDICAL SERVICES, INC., and CAREFIRST BLUECHOICE, INC., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, V. JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JANSSEN BIOTECH, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00629-JKW-LRL (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Lawrence R. Leonard entered an order granting a J&J's unopposed motion for leave to extend the existing deadlines for Daubert motions and responses relating to class certification experts by one week. 1. Aug. 13,2025: Amended deadline for J&J's Daubert motions related to class certification experts. 2. Sept. 24,2025: Amended deadline for Plaintiffs' oppositions in response to J&J's Daubert motions related to Plaintiffs' class certification experts. 3. J&J's deadline for replies in support of their Daubert motions will not be adjusted. Johnson is an American multinational pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical technologies corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated July 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=k8bePb at no extra charge.[CC] JOHNSON CONTROLS: Alkhatib Sues Over Failure to Secure PII ---------------------------------------------------------- Mohammad Alkhatib, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00968 (E.D. Wis., July 7, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated Defendant employees' and clients' sensitive information ("Private Information" or "PII"). Former and current employees and clients of Defendant are required to entrust Defendant, directly or indirectly, with sensitive, non-public PII, without which Defendant could not perform its regular business activities. Defendant retains this information for at least many years and even after the employee-employer relationship has ended. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. On June 30, 2025, Defendant began issuing public disclosures about the Data Breach. The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members PII––and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted PII was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and their utter failure to protect employees' and clients' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and continuing risk to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was a former employee of Defendant. The Defendant is "a world leader in smart buildings, creating safe, healthy and sustainable spaces."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 866.252.0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com JUST NATURAL: Faces Senior Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- MILAGROS SENIOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUST NATURAL PRODUCTS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05352 (S.D.N.Y., June 27, 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://justnutritive.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. Just Natural Products 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 KELSIER VENTURES: Davis Seeks to Dismiss LIBRA Scam Class Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Insights reports that Hayden Davis, co-founder of Kelsier Ventures behind the LIBRA cryptocurrency, is attempting to dismiss a class-action lawsuit filed against him in New York. The lawsuit accuses Davis of misleading buyers and siphoning over $100 million from the project, claiming it was meant to economically support Argentina. On Thursday, July 10, Davis filed a motion to a federal court in New York asking for the case to be thrown out, arguing that the court lacks jurisdiction. "Davis does not reside in New York, does not transact business in New York, was not physically present in New York when the allegedly tortious conduct occurred," the filing stated. It added that he "made no specific effort to advertise to or serve the New York market in connection with the worldwide offering of $LIBRA meme coins." Project was 'conceived in Argentina,' Davis says In his defense, Davis insisted that the LIBRA initiative had no direct connection to New York. "The project was conceived of in Argentina," he asserted in the court filing, telling prosecutors that it was "offered to any buyer worldwide" and not marketed to any specific jurisdiction. The motion is also seeking to nerf the project's online presence, describing its website as "passive" and saying it "does not knowingly transmit goods or services to users in other states." Davis claimed the site's function was limited to "collecting applications from businesses in Argentina." The plaintiffs allege that Davis, along with his brothers and fellow Kelsier Ventures co-founders Gideon and Thomas Davis, built LIBRA under the false promise of boosting Argentina's economy. The lawsuit reiterated that the real intent was to drain money from one-sided liquidity pools and move more than $100 million into wallets controlled by the Davis family and their associates. It blames the defendant for making public statements that helped build trust around the token, including a promise that he would repurchase certain LIBRA tokens to support their value. Still, Davis countered the allegations in the court filing, saying such statements were not directed specifically at New York residents and that the complaint "does not allege that Davis was physically present in New York when he made any such statements." In May, the plaintiffs secured a temporary court order requiring Circle, the issuer of the USDC stablecoin, to freeze approximately $57.65 million in assets allegedly tied to the LIBRA project. At its peak, LIBRA had a market cap of $4.6 billion before crashing by 94%, leaving thousands of investors in the red. The class-action suit also names other entities believed to be linked to the LIBRA operation, including blockchain company KIP Protocol and its CEO Julian Peh, and crypto platform Meteora, alongside its co-founder Benjamin Chow. Suspicious transactions from Davis and President Milei In other related news, blockchain forensics sleuth Fernando Molina testified before Congress about large transfers from wallets linked to Davis. Molina mentioned several transactions timed around certain points in the LIBRA scandal and its political ties in Argentina. On January 30, the same day Davis met with Argentine President Javier Milei at the Casa Rosada, Davis transferred $507,500 via the Bitget exchange just 40 minutes after Milei posted a photo with Davis on X. Another suspicious transaction took place on February 13, a day before LIBRA's launch. According to Molina, Davis sent $1.275 million to an exchange platform "he does not usually use." "The source wallet was the same wallet that returned the money to Dave Portnoy," he told lawmakers, referring to the US crypto entrepreneur who distanced himself from the project before it fell. On February 3, Davis made another large transaction of $1.991 million to a different wallet. The following day, trader Mauricio Novelli, supposedly Davis's connection to Milei, opened two safe deposit boxes at Banco Galicia's Martínez branch. Molina asserted that these boxes "would later have been emptied by his mother and sister." [GN] KOCO LIFE: Senior Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Online Store ---------------------------------------------------------------- MILAGROS SENIOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KOCO LIFE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05353 (S.D.N.Y., June 27, 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://koparibeauty.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. Koco Life 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 KRISPY KREME: Fails to Protect Customers' Personal Info, Lavor Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- ANDY LAVOR AND I. L., a minor by and through her parent and legal guardian Andy Lavor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KRISPY KREME DOUGHNUT CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00458 (W.D.N.C., June 26, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and invasion of privacy. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach that occurred on November 19, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiffs and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corporation is a doughnut manufacturer, with a principal place of business located in Charlotte, North Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David M. Wilkerson, Esq. WILKERSON JUSTUS PLLC P.O. Box 54 Asheville, NC 28802 Telephone: (828) 316-6902 Email: dwilkerson@wilkersonjustus.com - and - J. Gerard Stanch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com - and - T. J. Jesky, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF T. J. JESKY 205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 810 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 894-0130 Facsimile: (312) 489-8216 Email: tj@jeskylaw.com LIBERTY MUTUAL: Class Cert. Bid Ruling Deferred in Harrison Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRISTINA HARRISON, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:25-cv-00703-O (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Reed O'Connor entered an order deferring ruling on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Court defers ruling on the motion until the Plaintiff is able to confer with Counsel for the Defendant on the matter. The Plaintiff shall submit an updated certificate of conference once she has done so, the Court says. Liberty is a property and casualty insurer. A copy of the Court's order dated July 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PnZPRI at no extra charge.[CC] LONG BEACH, CA: Guma Bid for Class Certification Tossed ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL GUMA, MICHAEL D'ANTONI, KEVIN HORN and TIMOTHY LYONS, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. THE CITY OF LONG BEACH, ALL COUNTY HOOK UP TOWING, INC. d/b/a ALL COUNTY TOWING & RECOVERY, JOSEPH CALVAGNO, individually, Case No. 2:23-cv-04529-GRB-JMW (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge James M. Wicks entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification: "Individuals whose vehicles were seized by the City of Long Beach for tickets issued by the City of Log Beach for unpaid parking violations, including tickets issued for parking without a permit, parking with an expired permit, parking beyond a permitted parking time, parking too close to a driveway, or the parking of a car which is otherwise unlawful, for being parked on a public street with an expired inspection sticker, registration or insurance, without having been provided any pre-seizure or post seizure hearing." The Plaintiffs challenge the City's "Boot and Tow" policy and program, pursuant to Long Beach City Code ("LBCC") Section 1, Chapter 15, Article VI, Division 2. The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants engaged in unconstitutional warrantless seizure of their personal vehicles and deprived the Plaintiffs of their due process rights and just compensation in relation to the seizure. Long Beach is a coastal city in southeastern Los Angeles County, California, United States. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated July 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=H3aExb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew J. Campanelli, Esq. CAMPANELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1757 Merrick Avenue, Suite 204 Merrick, NY 11566 The Defendants are represented by: Matthew DeLuca, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. CUTHBERTSON 434 New York Avenue Huntington, NY 11743 - and - Alexander Sendrowitz, Esq. QUATELA CHIMERI, PLLC 888 Veterans Memorial Hwy., Ste. 530 Hauppauge, NY 11788 LOS AMORES: Beltran Suit Alleges Labor Law Breaches --------------------------------------------------- KARLA BELTRAN, on behalf of the general public as private attorney general, Plaintiff v. LOS AMORES de JULIA, a California CORPORATION, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV1 9668 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 7, 2025) accuses the Defendants of violating the California Labor Code, the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, the California Code of Civil Procedure, the California Civil Code, and the California Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in approximately September 2023 as a non-exempt employee and worked at Defendants' Pico Rivera, California location with the title of hostess. The Plaintiff separated from Defendants' employment in May 2024. As a consequence of Defendants' staffing and scheduling practices, lack of coverage, work demands, and Defendants' policies and practices, the Defendants frequently failed to provide Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees legally compliant uninterrupted 30-minute meal periods on shifts over ten hours as required by law. Among other things, the Defendants also failed to provide accurate, lawful itemized wage statements to Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees, says the suit. Los Amores de Julia operates Mexican Bistros 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 E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com Lauren@jameshawkinsaplc.com Ava@jameshawkinsaplc.com LUMINARY GENETICS: Johnson Sues Over PGT-A Test's False Advertising ------------------------------------------------------------------- DEJANNE JOHNSON, EVE EPSTEIN-ORTIZ, and SANDRA GAMLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LUMINARY GENETICS f/k/a NEXTGEN GENETICS, LLC, and LUMINARY LIFE SCIENCES, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-01629-WQH-BLM (S.D. Cal., June 26, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and Virginia Consumer Protection Act, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of implied warranty of usability, fraud, fraud by concealment, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of their preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A). The Defendants market PGT-A testing to people pursuing in vitro fertilization as increasing the chance of a healthy and successful pregnancy, increasing implantation rates, increasing live birth rates, benefiting every couple especially those of advanced maternal age, reducing the number of abnormal embryos for cryopreservation, decreasing the rate of miscarriage, and being superior to all others' testing. The Defendants also market their PGT-A testing as being 98 percent accurate. However, studies show that when looking at clinic pregnancy, miscarriage, or live-birth rates, there is no difference between cycles utilizing PGT-A and cycles not utilizing PGT-A. Studies also show the accuracy rating for PGT-A is significantly lower than 98 percent accurate. As a result of the Defendants' false and misleading statements, the Plaintiffs and Class members suffered economic losses, says the suit. Luminary Life Sciences is a provider of advanced genetic services, headquartered in Santa Clara, California. Luminary Genetics, formerly known as NextGen Genetics LLC, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Luminary Life Sciences, headquartered in Santa Clara, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Karen Barth Menzies, Esq. JUSTICE LAW COLLABORATIVE LLC 6701 Center Drive West, 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90045 Telephone: (310) 363-0030 Email: karen@justicelc.com - and - Paula S. Bliss, Esq. JUSTICE LAW COLLABORATIVE LLC 210 Washington Street No. Easton, MA 02356 Telephone: (508) 230-2700 Email: paula@justicelc.com - and - Allison S. Freeman, Esq. CONSTABLE LAW, PA 139 6th Avenue S. Safety Harbor, FL 34695 Telephone: (727) 797-0100 Email: allison@constable-law.com - and - Shanon J. Carson, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Email: scarson@bm.net LUNDBECK LLC: Files Petition for Writ of Certiorari to Supreme Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------------ MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, et al., filed on June 26, 2025, a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking a review of the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case captioned MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, vs. Lundbeck LLC, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-422-HEH. The case is brought by purported purchasers of third-party healthcare payors' claims. At issue is whether a pharmaceutical manufacturer, Lundbeck; a data analysis company, Theracom LLC; and a now defunct patient assistance nonprofit charity, Caring Voice Coalition, Inc. ("CVC") (collectively, "Defendants") worked in concert to artificially inflate the unit price and quantity dispensed of Xenazine -- a specialty drug used to treat symptoms associated with Huntington's Disease. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 6, 2023, Judge Henry E. Hudson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division: a. granted the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss; b. denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction; and c. granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Supplement the Complaint. On April 21, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion to alter judgment or amend judgment or for relief from judgment. On January 3, 2024, the Court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order signed by Judge Hudson denying Plaintiff's motion. On January 5, 2024, the Plaintiffs appealed the Order. On February 26, 2025, the judgment of the district court is affirmed in part and reversed in part. The case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the court's decision. On March 26, 2025, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' petition for rehearing en banc. [BN] Defendants-Petitioners LUNDBECK LLC, et al. are represented by: Aida M. Landa, Esq. MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM 3150 SW 38 Ave., Suite 1100 Miami, FL 33146 Telephone: (305) 614-2222 - and - David Hilton Wise, Esq. William N. Evans, Esq. WISE LAW FIRM, PLC 10640 Page St., Ste. 320 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 934-6377 - and - Shereef H. Akeel, Esq. Adam S. Akeel, Esq. Samuel R. Simkins, Esq. Daniel W. Cermak, Esq. Hayden Pendergrass, Esq. AKEEL & VALENTINE, PLC 888 W. Big Beaver Rd., Ste. 350 Troy, MI 48084 Telephone: (248) 269-9595 Email: shereef@akeelvalentine.com MARRIOTT INT'L: Camas Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL ESTEBAN CAMAS LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03308-RMR-KAS (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time to file his upcoming reply in support of his motion for class certification. The Plaintiff's reply in support of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is currently due July 11, 2025. The Plaintiff requires a seven-day extension of time to file his reply due to his counsel's unanticipated personal obligations and family medical issues. The seven-day extension would shift the Plaintiff's deadline to file his reply to July 18, 2025. The Plaintiff previously received one fourteen-day extension of time to file his Reply. Marriott is an American multinational company that operates, franchises, and licenses lodging brands that include hotel, residential, and timeshare properties. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=o9o9VI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander Hood, Esq. Brianne Power, Esq. TOWARDS JUSTICE Denver, CO 80237 Telephone: (720) 239-2606 E-mail: alex@towardsjustice.com brianne@towardsjustice.com MARSH & MCLENNAN: Court Sends Data Breach Case to Jury Trial ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a Civil Case Management Plan in the case captioned as SHANTEL JONES, On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and NANCY BOHNAK, individually, v. MARSH & MCLENNAN COS., INC and MARSH & MCLENNAN AGENCY LLC, Case No. 21 Civ. 6096 (AKH) (S.D.N.Y.). The case is to be tried to a jury. All non-expert discovery is due by January 16, 2026. Fact Discovery is due by January 16, 2026. A settlement conference will be held on January 23, 2026 at 2:30 p.m. A Case Management Conference will be held on Friday, February 6, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. In May, Judge Hellerstein granted, in part, and denied, in part, Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc. and Marsh & McLennan Agency LLC's motion to dismiss the case, which stems from a 2021 data breach suffered by defendants, two New York-based corporate entities, which allegedly exposed the personally identifiable information of at least 7,000 individuals. On July 15, 2021, Bohnak and Janet Lea Smith, former employees of defendants, filed a putative class action against defendants, alleging negligence, breach of implied contract, and breach of confidence. On January 17, 2022, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), holding that the complaint failed plausibly to allege cognizable damages proximately caused by defendants. The Second Circuit reversed, holding that since Bohnak pleaded a sufficient Article III injury in fact, she also plausibly alleged a cognizable claim for damages. Subsequently, defendants moved to strike Bohnak's class allegations on the basis of a waiver she signed in exchange for an enhanced severance package, which precluded her from "participating in any class or collection action against" defendants. The court granted the motion to strike the class allegations, and the Second Circuit denied Bohnak leave to appeal. In response, Bohnak filed an unopposed motion to add Jones, another former employee of defendants, as class representative, and to continue Bohnak's individual claims, which the court granted. On March 17, 2025, plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint, which avers that the Amended Complaint avers that defendants failed properly to safeguard plaintiffs' personally identifiable information, which may be sold on the dark web and pose a risk of identity theft to plaintiffs for the rest of their lives. Accordingly, plaintiffs allege that the value of their personally identifiable information has been diminished, that they have had to bear out-of-pocket expenses and opportunity costs to prevent, detect, and recover from identity theft, and that their personally identifiable information continues to be in jeopardy. The Amended Complaint comprised of four counts: Bohnak's claims for negligence (Count I) and breach of implied contract (Count III), and Jones' putative class action claims for negligence (Count II) and breach of implied contract (Count IV). Choice of Law Analysis Since defendants' argument as to Jones' claims is predicated on Iowa law, as a threshold matter, the court determined whether New York or Iowa law governs. As the forum state, the court applied New York's choice of law rules. Under these rules, the first step in any choice of law inquiry is to determine whether there is an "actual conflict" between the laws invoked by the parties. According to the court, an actual conflict exists as to Jones' negligence claim. As to negligence, New York law does not require an economic loss in data breach cases, but Iowa law does. Since there is an actual conflict of laws, the court proceeded to the next step in conflicts analysis. In tort cases, New York utilizes the "interest analysis" to determine which of two competing jurisdictions has the greater interest in having its law applied in the litigation. Here, Jones' injuries occurred in Iowa, the state of her domicile. Thus, Iowa law governs as to Count II. Under Iowa law, "as a general proposition, the economic loss rule bars recovery in negligence when the plaintiff has suffered only economic loss." Iowa law does not permit a negligence claim in a data breach suit where only economic loss is suffered. The Amended Complaint alleges damages as to Jones and the putative class in the forms of: (i) actual identity theft (ii) the loss of the opportunity of how their personally identifiable information is used (iii) the compromise, publication, and theft of their personally identifiable information (iv) out-of-pocket expenses associated with the prevention, detection, and recovery from identity theft (v) lost opportunity costs (vi) costs associated with placing freezes on credit reports (vii) the continued risk to their personally identifiable information (viii) future costs in terms of time, effort, and money (ix) anxiety, emotional distress, loss of privacy, and other economic and non-economic losses. However, Iowa's economic loss rule plainly precludes recovery for these damages, which are purely economic in nature. Jones' non-economic emotional distress damages subsumed within Count II fare no better. A data breach plaintiff "cannot escape the economic loss rule by pleading emotional distress" since "allowing plaintiffs to simply plead emotional harms based on purely economic injuries would swallow the economic loss rule." Accordingly, Count II fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted as to negligence, and thus, the court dismissed it from the Amended Complaint. Count IV - Jones' Breach of Implied Contract Claim According to the court, an actual conflict of laws also exists as to Jones' breach of implied contract claim. Defendants aver that Iowa law imposes more stringent elements for breach of implied contract claims that stem from data breaches than New York law does. In contract cases, New York's choice of law rules generally consider the contacts that obtain significance in the particular contract dispute, traditional choice of law factors, and the policies underlying conflicting laws. The court held that New York substantive law governs Count IV. As the site of defendants' principal place of business, New York bears the most significant relationship to this action, since that is likely where the breakdown of its security protocols and its failure to safeguard the information took place. Under New York law, the elements of a breach of implied contract claim are the same as those of a traditional breach of contract claim: (1) the existence of a contract, (2) performance by the party seeking recovery, (3) breach by the other party, and (4) damages suffered as a result of the breach. The court found these elements are properly pleaded. The Amended Complaint alleges that defendants required plaintiffs to provide their personally identifiable information as a condition of employment, which they did, and which defendants breached in failing to safeguard their personally identifiable information, and in further failing to provide timely notice of the data breach, thereby causing plaintiffs to suffer damages. Accordingly, the court declined to dismiss Count IV of the Amended Complaint. The court does not have original jurisdiction over this case since Bohnak's individual claims do not meet the amount in suit requirement, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her individual claims for negligence (Count I) and breach of implied contract (Count III) since the court found that these claims substantially predominate over Jones' remaining claim, which serves as the sole basis for this court's original jurisdiction. The court found that Bohnak's claims in the Amended Complaint substantially predominate over Jones' sole remaining cause of action. In light of the court's rulings, Bohnak's claims would be more expansive in scope than that of Jones' and the putative class she seeks to represent. Bohnak's claims also would be subject to a separate choice of law analysis, since Bohnak is not a resident of Iowa. Moreover, exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Bohnak's claims would not promote the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity. Accordingly, the court declined, within its discretion, to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Bohnak's claims. The court dismissed Counts I, II, and III of the Amended Complaint, and dismissed Bohnak as an individual plaintiff from this action, but denied defendants' motion to dismiss Count IV of the complaint. Within five days from the entry of this Opinion and Order, Jones shall file a Second Amended Complaint consistent with this Opinion and Order. Within fourteen days from the filing of Jones' Second Amended Complaint, defendants shall file their answer to the Second Amended Complaint. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=k9iGTx MAZDA MOTOR: Appeals Settlement Agreement Order in Guthrie Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to enforce settlement agreement in the lawsuit entitled Gary Guthrie, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 8:22-cv-01055-DOC-DFM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability for Contract Dispute. On Apr. 11, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce settlement agreement, which Judge David O. Carter granted on June 5, 2025. The appellate case is entitled Guthrie, et al. v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., Case No. 25-4012, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 27, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on July 2, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on July 9, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on August 8, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on September 17, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on October 17, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees GARY GUTHRIE, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Sergei Lemberg, Esq. Stephen Taylor, Esq. LEMBERG & ASSOCIATES LLC 43 Danbury Road Wilton, CT 06897 Defendant-Appellant MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC. is represented by: Jahmy S. Graham, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP 19191 S. Vermont Avenue, Suite 900 Torrance, CA 90502 META PLATFORMS: Illegally Collects Sensitive Data, Ginder Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN GINDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. META PLATFORMS, INC. and GOOGLE LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-05447 (N.D. Cal., June 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, and the California Unfair Competition Law, breach of contract, and common law invasion of privacy. The case arises from the Defendants' development of a system for gaining unauthorized access to millions of Android devices by exploiting vulnerabilities in Google's Android operating system. Due to this, the Defendants were able to track, intercept, collect, and monetize massive amounts of sensitive data pertaining to specific individuals as those individuals used their internet browsers. As a result of the Defendants' conduct, the Plaintiff and Class members have suffered numerous injuries, including invasion of privacy, loss of benefit of the bargain, diminution of value of their private information, statutory damages, and the continued and ongoing risk to their private information. Meta Platforms, Inc. is a technology company, headquartered in Menlo Park, California. Google LLC is a technology company headquartered in Mountain View, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Heather Lopez, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 Email: hlopez@milberg.com - and - William Edelman, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: wedelman@milberg.com - and - Christian Levis, Esq. Amanda Fiorilla, Esq. Rachel Kesten, Esq. Yuanchen Lu, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 Email: clevis@lowey.com afiorilla@lowey.com rkesten@lowey.com ylu@lowey.com META PLATFORMS: Tracks and Collects Mobile Use Data, Messenger Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- ELIZABETH MESSENGER, UGOCHUKWU ATULOBI, IVETH RODRIGUEZ, LORINE DERHAM, TATIANA BRODISKI, ARA SARDARBEGIANS, AND MARK CAMPLESE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-05067-SK (N.D. Cal., June 13, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the California Consumer Privacy Act, the Illinois Eavesdropping Act, the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, and the Washington Privacy Act, and for invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, declaratory judgment, and larceny/receipt of stolen property. The case arises from the Defendant's unauthorized tracking and surveillance of the mobile use of millions of Android device users by exploiting vulnerabilities in Google's Android operating system. By intentionally bypassing security and privacy settings in the Android operating system, in conjunction with the Meta Pixel, Meta's proprietary tracking and advertising tool, the Defendant was able to collect and use mobile users' private information without their consent. As a result of the Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiffs and Class members have suffered numerous injuries, including invasion of privacy, emotional distress and heightened concerns related to the release of private information to third parties, loss of benefit of the bargain, diminution of value of their private information, statutory damages, and the continued and ongoing risk to their private information, says the suit. Meta Platforms, Inc. is a technology company, headquartered in Menlo Park, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Yana Hart, Esq. Bryan P. Thompson, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (231) 788-4070 Email: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com yhart@clarksonlawfirm.com bthompson@clarksonlawfirm.com MGM RESORTS: Lassoff Requests for Writ of Certiorari to Supreme Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------------- SAUL LASSOFF, et al., filed on June 27, 2025, a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, Case No. 24-1321, seeking a review of the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in the case captioned Saul Lassoff, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, vs. MGM Resorts International, Case No. 24-2060. [BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners SAUL LASSOFF, et al. are represented by: Samuel Jarrad Lassoff, Esq. LASSOFF LAW LLC Unit 2343 5006 Wellington Avenue Ventnor, NJ 08406 Email: lawfirm25@aol.com MIDEA AMERICA: Bradshaw Files Contract Suit in D.N.J. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midea America Corp. The case is captioned as STEPHEN BRADSHAW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MIDEA AMERICA CORP., Case No. 2:25-cv-11055-ES-LDW (D.N.J., June 13, 2025). The suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged contract violation. Midea America Corp. is an electronics company in Parsippany-Troy Hills, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary P. Arbitman, Esq. FELDMAN SHEPHERD WOHLGELERNTER TANNER WEINSTOCK DODIG LLP 1845 Walnut St., 21st Fl. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 567-8300 Facsimile: (215) 567-8333 Email: zarbitman@feldmanshepherd.com MORGAN STANLEY: Court Denies Appeal on Deferred Compensation Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Donachie of WealthManagement.com reports that a federal appeals court shot down Morgan Stanley's attempt to appeal a lower court's decision that its deferred compensation plans were protected by federal law. The decision could impact numerous arbitration proceedings filed against the wirehouse by former employees. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued its dismissal of Morgan Stanley's appeal, arguing it didn't have proper jurisdiction, and denied Morgan Stanley's request that the district court judge who filed the previous opinion "strike its legal conclusion that the deferred-compensation plans" fell under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. It's the latest development in a years-long class action filed by several former Morgan Stanley advisors, who collectively accused the wirehouse of denying them millions in deferred compensation when they left for other firms. In an interview with WealthManagement.com, Motley Rice Attorney Douglas Meedham (who helped bring the initial class action complaint) said the decision marked the end of "quite a saga of twists and turns," and looked forward to assisting clients to prevail in arbitration. The original class action was filed in 2020 and led by Matthew Shafer, a Florida-based rep who left Morgan Stanley for Raymond James in 2018. He estimates he forfeited over $500,000 in deferred compensation. Shafer and the other plaintiffs brought the class action for all former advisors in similar positions when they left the firm. The plaintiffs claimed Morgan Stanley deemed some of their compensation "deferred" and placed it in plans to vest for several years. According to the suit, if the reps left before the vesting dates, they'd forfeit that compensation. Shafer and the plaintiffs argued these plans were "employee benefit pension plans" under ERISA protections and asked the court to decide that Morgan Stanley's rule violated federal law. In 2023, New York Southern District Court Judge Paul Gardehpe partially ruled for the wirehouse, deciding that advisors had agreed to argue claims in private arbitration. However, in the same ruling, Gardehpe agreed with the reps that the compensation plans were covered under ERISA, making it easier for reps to make that argument in arbitration proceedings (Gardehpe reconfirmed the decision at Morgan Stanley's request in 2024.) In its appeal, Morgan Stanley argued that Gardehpe wasn't required to rule on whether the plans fell under ERISA protections, and that the findings "impaired Morgan Stanley's right to arbitrate" because its defenses "turn on the contention that the plans fell outside of ERISA and its anti-forfeiture rules." The appeals court agreed that merely assuming the plans fell under ERISA could have been "a better course" for the district court, but didn't think that warranted striking the language. "Though arbitrators may consider the district court's opinion, Morgan Stanley is free to argue to those arbitrators that the district court's conclusion that the plans were governed by EIRSA was . . . legally incorrect," the order read. "Indeed, Morgan Stanley admits that it has already done so -- successfully -- in some of the intervening arbitrations." According to Needham, Morgan Stanley had argued in several arbitration proceedings that panel judges shouldn't consider the district court's decision, claiming the appellate judges could overturn it. The Second Circuit's ruling "takes Morgan Stanley's argument completely off the table," he said. "Morgan Stanley remains free to argue why it believes the decision wasn't correct, and likewise, we are going to argue why it is correct," he said. "But we think that the New York Court's decision. . . will provide a great road map for the arbitration panels on how they should decide the issue of whether ERISA applies." According to a Morgan Stanley spokesperson, the appellate court determined that it lacked jurisdiction because the district court didn't bind the arbitration panels deciding the case. "These awards are not a pension, as multiple arbitration panels have now recognized," the spokesperson said. "We remain confident that, as individual arbitrators see all the evidence, they will reach exactly the same result." Though it was impossible to determine exactly how many former Morgan Stanley advisors were in arbitration, Needham said a "tremendous number" were pursuing claims (Needham said his firm consistently had arbitration sessions scheduled for the next year-and-a-half). While the Second Circuit's decision was largely procedural, Needham hoped its merits extended further. "I'm not necessarily in a position to predict how other firms may or may not respond," he said. "But we do think it's an overall important issue in the general space of ERISA law and also financial advisor compensation." [GN] NESTLE WATERS: Patane Plaintiffs Seek to Seal Class Exhibits ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK J. PATANE, JULIE HARDING, HEATHER HARRIGAN, STEPHEN S. SHAPIRO, CATHERINE PORTER, ERICA RUSSELL, TINA MORETTI, BRIDGET KOPET, JENNIFER S. COLE, BENJAMIN A. FLETCHER, DIANE BOGDAN, and PARESHKUMAR BRAHMBHATT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. NESTLE WATERS NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 3:17-cv-01381-VDO (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order sealing Exhibits 5 and 6 to the declaration of Jesse-Justin Cuevas in support of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs seek to file under seal because the Defendant designated Exhibit 5 as Confidential pursuant to the Protective Order and Exhibit 6 quotes from and references Exhibit 5. The Plaintiffs make this motion in an abundance of caution and solely to preserve Defendant's claim to confidentiality. Nestle produces and distributes bottled water. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=POLfex at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven G. Sklaver, Esq. Bryan Caforio, Esq. Oleg Elkhunovich, Esq. Jesse-Justin Cuevas, Esq. Max Straus, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 E-mail: oelkhunovich@susmangodfrey.com ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com bcaforio@susmangodfrey.com jcuevas@susmangodfrey.com mstraus@susmangodfrey.com - and - Alexander Schmidt, Esq. ALEXANDER H. SCHMIDT, ESQ. Fairways Professional Plaza 5 Professional Circle, Suite 204 Colts Neck, NJ 07722 Telephone: (732) 226-0004 E-mail: alex@alexschmidt.law - and - Steven Williams, Esq. STEVEN WILLIAMS LAW, P.C. 250 W 55th Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10019 - and - Craig A. Raabe, Esq. Robert A. Izard, Esq. Christopher M. Barrett, Esq. IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE, LLP 29 S. Main St., Suite 305 West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 493-6292 E-mail: craabe@ikrlaw.com rizard@ikrlaw.com cbarrett@ikrlaw.com NESTLE WATERS: Patane Suit Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK J. PATANE, JULIE HARDING, HEATHER HARRIGAN, STEPHEN S. SHAPIRO, CATHERINE PORTER, ERICA RUSSELL, TINA MORETTI, BRIDGET KOPET, JENNIFER S. COLE, BENJAMIN A. FLETCHER, DIANE BOGDAN, and PARESHKUMAR BRAHMBHATT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. NESTLE WATERS NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 3:17-cv-01381-VDO (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the following classes and subclasses pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (collectively referred to in this motion as the "Proposed Classes" or, for the proposed subclasses alone, the "Proposed Subclasses"): 1. The Post-2003 Purchaser Class "All natural persons and entities in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island who purchased Poland Spring brand bottled still water after Nov. 5, 2003, and did not purchase or consume Poland Spring brand bottled still water between Jan. 1, 1996, and Nov. 5, 2003;" 2. The "Post-2014 Purchaser Class "All natural persons and entities in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island who purchased Poland Spring brand bottled still water after April 1, 2014, and purchased or consumed Poland Spring brand bottled still water between January 1, 1996, and November 5, 2003;" 3. The Massachusetts Subclass "All natural persons in the 2003 Purchaser Class in Massachusetts;" 4. The New Hampshire Subclass "All members of the 2003 Purchaser Class in New Hampshire;" 5. The Post-2003 New Jersey Subclass "All members of the 2003 Purchaser Class in New Jersey 6. The Post-2014 New Jersey Subclass "All members of the 2014 Purchaser Class in New Jersey;" 7. The Post-2003 New York Subclass "All natural persons in the 2003 Purchaser Class in New York who purchased Poland Spring brand bottled still water on or after August 15, 2014 8. The Post-2014 New York Subclass "All natural persons in the 2014 Purchaser Class in New York who purchased Poland Spring brand bottled still water on or after August 15, 2014 9. The Pennsylvania Subclass "All natural persons in the 2014 Purchaser Class in Pennsylvania who purchased Poland Spring brand bottled still water for personal, family or household purposes;" 10. The Post-2014 H&O Purchaser Subclass "All members of the 2014 Purchaser Class in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island who purchased Poland Spring brand bottled still water for consumption directly from Nestle through its ReadyRefresh business (previously known as Poland Spring Direct);" 11. The Post-2003 H&O Purchaser Subclass "All members of the 2003 Purchaser Class in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island who purchased Poland Spring brand bottled still water for consumption directly from Nestlé through its ReadyRefresh business (previously known as Poland Spring Direct);" and 12. The New York H&O Purchaser Subclass All members of the 2003 Purchaser Class in New York who purchased Poland Spring brand bottled still water for consumption directly from Nestlé through its ReadyRefresh business (previously known as Poland Spring Direct) on or after August 15, 2013." Excluded from the Proposed Classes and Proposed Subclasses are Nestle, any of its affiliates or subsidiaries throughout the duration of this lawsuit, and any entity in which it has a controlling interest, as well as their respective officers, directors, employees, agents, legal representatives, successors, and assigns; the Plaintiffs' counsel; and the judicial officers presiding over this matter and their immediate family members. The Plaintiffs also request that the Court appoint them as class representatives for the Proposed Classes and Proposed Subclasses as follows: -- Stephen S. Shapiro, Diane Bogdan, and Jennifer S. Cole as class representatives for the Post-2003 Purchaser Class; -- Julie Harding, Heather Harrigan, Catherine Porter, Erica Russell, Tina Moretti, Bridget Kopet, Benjamin A. Fletcher, and Pareshkumar Brahmbhatt as class representatives for the Post-2014 Purchaser Class; -- Jennifer S. Cole as class representative for the Massachusetts Subclass; -- Diane Bogdan as class representative of the New Hampshire Subclass; -- Stephen S. Shapiro as class representative for the Post-2003 New Jersey Subclass, Post-2003 New York Subclass, Post-2003 H&O Purchaser Subclass, and New York H&O Purchaser Subclass -- Heather Harrington, Tina Moretti, Catherine Porter, and Erica Russell as class representatives for the 2014 New Jersey Subclass; -- Julie Harding, Heather Harrigan, and Tina Moretti as class representatives for the Post-2014 New York Subclass; -- Pareshkumar Brahmbhatt as class representative for the Pennsylvania Subclass; and -- Heather Harrigan as class representative for the Post-2014 H&O Purchaser Subclass. Finally, the Plaintiffs further request that the Court appoint Alexander H. Schmidt, Esq.; Susman Godfrey L.L.P.; and Steven Williams Law, P.C. as Class Counsel for the Proposed Classes and Proposed Subclasses. Nestle produces and distributes bottled water. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3Q5Zjw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven G. Sklaver, Esq. Bryan Caforio, Esq. Oleg Elkhunovich, Esq. Jesse-Justin Cuevas, Esq. Max Straus, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 E-mail: oelkhunovich@susmangodfrey.com ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com bcaforio@susmangodfrey.com jcuevas@susmangodfrey.com mstraus@susmangodfrey.com - and - Alexander Schmidt, Esq. ALEXANDER H. SCHMIDT, ESQ. Fairways Professional Plaza 5 Professional Circle, Suite 204 Colts Neck, NJ 07722 Telephone: (732) 226-0004 E-mail: alex@alexschmidt.law - and - Steven Williams, Esq. STEVEN WILLIAMS LAW, P.C. 250 W 55th Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10019 - and - Craig A. Raabe, Esq. Robert A. Izard, Esq. Christopher M. Barrett, Esq. IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE, LLP 29 S. Main St., Suite 305 West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 493-6292 E-mail: craabe@ikrlaw.com rizard@ikrlaw.com cbarrett@ikrlaw.com NEW DIRECTION: Court Consolidates Theriault & Wallace Cases ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH THERIAULT and WILLIAM WEIGEL, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. NEW DIRECTION IRA, INC., NEW DIRECTION TRUST COMPANY, and MAINSTAR TRUST, Case No. 23-2477-JWB-ADM (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Angel D. Mitchell entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to consolidate related actions and appoint interim class counsel. The Court further entered an order that: "Theriault v. New Direction IRA, Inc., Case No. 23- 2477-JWB- ADM," and "Wallace v. New Direction IRA, Inc., Case No. 24-2007-JWB-ADM," are consolidated for purposes of discovery. The lower-numbered case, Theriault, is designated as the lead case. Unless a filing concerns a matter unique to only one of the cases, all future nondispositive filings in the consolidated action are to be made only in the lead case until further order. The court is not convinced that the appointment of interim class counsel is necessary or useful as the actions now stand. The request to appoint interim class counsel therefore is denied without prejudice. The court finds that consolidation of the cases is appropriate for discovery purposes. Plaintiffs in both actions are individual account holders of self-directed individual retirement accounts that New Direction administers. They allege similar facts in each complaint. Consolidation would promote judicial (and party) economy by eliminating duplication in discovery, particularly depositions, because witnesses in both cases may significantly overlap. Defendants do not contest consolidation for discovery purposes. The Defendant offers a self-directed IRA administration. A copy of the Court's order dated July 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uQsM9r at no extra charge.[CC] NEW ENGLAND: Agrees to Settle Privacy Class Suit for $2.16-Mil. --------------------------------------------------------------- William C. Gendron of ClaimDepot reports that consumers who used the New England Patriots mobile app with location services enabled and watched any prerecorded video between Feb. 1, 2022, and May 30, 2025, may qualify to claim a cash payment from a class action settlement. New England Patriots LLC agreed to pay $2.16 million to resolve a class action lawsuit alleging the company unlawfully shared users' personally identifiable information with third parties and without user consent through its mobile app. The lawsuit claimed this practice violated the Video Privacy Protection Act. Who can file a New England Patriots claim? Class members must meet all of the following criteria: -- They reside in the United States. -- They used the New England Patriots mobile app at least once between Feb. 1, 2022, and May 30, 2025. -- They had location services enabled on the app during use. -- They requested or watched any prerecorded (including on-demand replay) video available on the Patriots app during the class period. How much can class members get? Pro rata payment: Each eligible class member who submits a valid claim will receive an equal share of the net settlement fund. The total settlement fund is $2,160,000, but this amount will be reduced by court-approved attorneys' fees and expenses, a service award to the class representative and settlement administration costs. How to claim a data privacy payment Class members can submit the online claim form or download, print and complete the PDF claim form to mail to the settlement administrator. The claim deadline is Nov. 23, 2025. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Serra v. New England Patriots LLC, Settlement Administrator, PO Box 2448, Portland, OR 97208-2448 Class members who installed the Patriots app on their device prior to July 11, 2025, may have received a notice in the app's "my inbox" or as a push notification. This notice includes a unique ID and PIN to use on the claim form. Those you did not receive this notice can still file a claim by certifying their eligibility. The settlement administrator may request further verification if needed. Payout options -- PayPal -- Venmo -- Physical check $2.16 million VPPA settlement fund breakdown The $2,160,000 settlement fund includes: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees and expenses: Up to $720,000 -- Service award to the class representative: Up to $5,000 -- Payments to eligible class members: The remainder of the fund Important dates -- Exclusion deadline: Aug. 28, 2025 -- Final approval/fairness hearing: Oct. 9, 2025 -- Claim deadline: Nov. 23, 2025 When is the Patriots app settlement payout date? Payments will be issued within 90 days after the court grants final approval and any appeals are resolved. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit alleged New England Patriots LLC violated the Video Privacy Protection Act by disclosing users' personally identifiable information to third parties without user consent via the Anvato API and Rover SDK in its mobile app. The Patriots deny any wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid the risks and expenses of ongoing litigation. The settlement also requires the Patriots to suspend certain transmissions of geolocation data through the app unless the law changes or proper consent is obtained. [GN] NEW YORK, NY: Lewis Suit Seeks Class Certification -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY LEWIS, MICHAEL FARRELL, ROBERT DINKINS, AND LUIS D SANCHEZ, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND A CLASS OF AT LEAST 134 PERSONS LISTED IN THE COMPLAINT AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, AND LYNELLE MAGINLEY-LIDDIE, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Case No. 1:24-cv-08428-LAK (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (1) certifying class, (2) appointing Plaintiffs as class representatives, (3) appointing Law Office of Caner Demirayak, Esq., P.C. and Lord Law Group as class counsel, (4) directing that notice be sent to the class(es), and (5) granting them all such other relief as the Court deems necessary and appropriate. New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lxaVDY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Caner Demirayak, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF CANER DEMIRAYAK, ESQ., P.C. 1500 Astor Avenue, 2nd Floor Bronx, NY 10469 Telephone: (718) 344-6048 E-mail: cd@canerlaw.com - and - Masai Lord, Esq. LORD TRIAL GROUP PLLC 14 Wall Street, Ste. 1603 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (718) 701-1005 E-mail: mlord@lordlawgroup.com OM NAMHSHIVAY: Mortland Sues Over Disabled's Access to Property --------------------------------------------------------------- DEREK MORTLAND, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OM NAMHSHIVAY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00434-SJD (S.D. Ohio, June 26, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its facility to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other persons with disabilities. The Defendant has continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of its property. The Plaintiff and similarly situated disabled individuals encountered architectural barriers in common areas such parking, entrance access and path of travel, and restrooms. The Plaintiff and Class members seek injunctive relief to remove the existing architectural barriers to the physically disabled when such removal is readily achievable for the place of public accommodation. OM Namhshivay, LLC is a hotel owner and operator in Piketon, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Owen B. Dunn, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF OWEN DUNN, JR. The Offices of Unit C 6800 W. Central Ave., Suite C-1 Toledo, OH 43617 Telephone: (419) 241-9661 Facsimile: (419) 241-9737 Email: obdjr@owendunnlaw.com PARTS AUTHORITY: Filing for Conditional Cert Bid Due August 1 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cranmore, v. Parts Authority, LLC et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-05842-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis J. Liman entered an order approving the extension to deadlines as proposed. The deadline for submission of a stipulation or motion for conditional certification of an FLSA collective is extended to Aug. 1, 2025. The deadline to complete fact and expert discovery is extended to Oct. 1, 2025. The deadline to move for class certification and summary judgment is extended to Oct. 15, 2025. The Post-Discovery Status Conference previously set for Aug. 7, 2025, is rescheduled to Oct. 9, 2025, at 11:00AM in Courtroom 15C at the 500 Pearl Street Courthouse. Parts operates as a distributor of automotive and truck parts to the aftermarket auto parts industry in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated July 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KYuEsE at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Galen C. Bayne, Esq. PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC 488 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 583-9500 E-mail: www.pechmanlaw.com PARTY CITY: Court Certifies Class in Hanlon WARN Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- Judge Alfredo R. Perez of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas granted Gwendolyn Hanlon's motion for class certification and notice in the class action adversary proceeding captioned as GWENDOLYN HANLON, Plaintiff, VS. PARTY CITY HOLDCO, INC., et al., Defendant, ADVERSARY NO. 24-3273 (Bankr. S.D. Tex.). As alleged by Hanlon, beginning on Dec. 20, 2024, Party City Holdco Inc., and its related affiliates laid off approximately 400 employees who reported to Defendants' Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey headquarters. Defendants sent the employees a Separation Notice via email. Plaintiff alleges employees did not receive any written notice prior to Dec. 20, 2024, that they would be terminated. The Defendants subsequently filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy on Dec. 21, 2024. Hanlon brought a Class Action Adversary Proceeding Complaint against Defendants on Dec. 22, 2024. Craig Smith brought a Class Action Adversary Proceeding Complaint against Defendants on Dec. 31, 2024. Hanlon argues Defendants did not give the employees notice as required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 2101 et seq., and, the New Jersey Millville Dallas Airmotive Plant Job Loss Notification Act, N.J.S.A..34:21-1 et seq., as amended. Hanlon filed a Motion for Class Certification on Feb. 14, 2025. Smith filed an Amended Complaint on Jan. 30, 2025, and a Motion for Class Certification on March 20, 2025. Defendants filed a Brief in Opposition to Hanlon's Motion for Class Certification. Both Hanlon and Smith sought to represent the class. Hanlon is represented by Raisner Roupinian LLP. Smith is represented by Harrison, Harrison & Associates On April 8, 2025, the Court held a hearing on the interim counsel issue and took the matter under advisement. Both Hanlon and Smith provided compelling evidence of their chosen counsel's qualifications. Based on the Rule 23(g) considerations and Raisner Roupinian's bankruptcy experience, the Court chose to appoint Raisner Roupinian as interim counsel. Subsequently, the Court entered an Order Appointing Raisner Roupinian as Interim Class Counsel. On April 29, 2025, the Court held a Status Conference to set a timeline for class certification and discuss Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court imposed a 45-day pause on the Motion for Summary Judgment and permitted Hanlon to file a motion to file an amended complaint. On April 30, 2025, Hanlon filed a Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint. Smith filed an Objection to the Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. On June 26, 2025, Hanlon filed a Notice of Revised Proposed Order on Class Certification and Revised Proposed Class Notice to include Patrick Bartels, Robert F. Hull, Barry Litwin and Neal Goldman as defendants, along with Party City Holdco, Inc., et al. In response, Smith filed two Objections based on an action filed by Smith on Feb. 7, 2025, in the District of New Jersey, alleging claims against eight individual directors and officers of Defendants under the NJ WARN Act. On June 27, 2025, the Court held a hearing and announced it would issue rulings on the Motion for Class Certification and the Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. In the Objection to Class Certification, Defendants argue class certification is inappropriate for three reasons: (i) failure to provide facts necessary for the Court to conduct the Rule 23 analysis; (ii) failure to show Hanlon is an adequate representative and her claims are typical of the class; and (iii) failure to show common questions predominate over individual ones as required by Rule 23(b)(3). According to the Proposed Class Certification Order and Notice, the class is comprised of: "Plaintiff Hanlon and all similarly situated former employees (i) who worked at, reported to or received assignments from Defendants' facility at 100 Tice Blvd, Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey, (ii) who were terminated without cause on or about December 20, 2024 or within 30 days of that date, or as the reasonably foreseeable consequence of the mass layoffs and/or plant closings ordered by Defendants on or about December 20, 2024, (iii) who are affected employees within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. Sec. 2101(a)(5) and N.J.S.A..34:21-1, et. seq., and (iv) who have not filed a timely request to opt-out of the class." Hanlon argues the Proposed Class meets the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a). According to the Hanlon Declaration, there are approximately 400 individuals who were terminated on or around Dec. 20, 2024. A showing that the class consists of more than 40 members raises a presumption that joinder is impracticable. Defendants' argument that Hanlon does not know how many of the 400 employees work remotely or outside of New Jersey is not persuasive, the Court finds. According to the Hanlon Declaration, Hanlon was terminated on Dec. 20, 2024, from Defendants' facility at 100 Tice Blvd, Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey, without cause and without notice. Hanlon states the circumstances of the termination are the same as the other terminated employees, making the factual and legal issues of Hanlon's claim the same as the claims of the other proposed class members. Therefore, Hanlon argues there are questions of law or fact common to the class. Hanlon further claims she has not received, and to the best of her knowledge no other former employees of the Defendants have received, 60 days' pay under the WARN Acts or severance pay as required by New Jersey law. Hanlon's claims against Defendants are under the WARN Acts and New Jersey law, and Hanlon believes the other terminated employees are similarly situated. Therefore, Hanlon argues her claims or defenses are typical of the claims or defenses of the class. Defendants argue Hanlon has not demonstrated the Proposed Class is similarly situated to her. According to Defendants, Hanlon stated in her deposition that Barry Litwin, who, Defendants argue, is included in the Proposed Class definition, would not be similarly situated to her because Litwin is the CEO of the company and "privy to lots of information that me and 400 other plus employees were not privy to." However, the Court is not persuaded by Defendants' arguments. According to the Court, the Proposed Class definition defines who would be part of the Proposed Class: those who (1) worked at, reported to or received assignments from Defendants' facility and (2) were terminated without cause or on around December 20, 2024, as the reasonably foreseeable consequence of the mass layoffs and/or plant closings ordered by Defendants on or about December 20, 2024. Judge Perez explains, "It is possible Barry Litwin is similarly situated to Hanlon, and he may be entitled to WARN damages as a member of the Proposed Class. It is also possible that Barry Litwin departed voluntarily and would not be entitled to WARN damages as a member of the Proposed Class. Regardless, this is a factual issue involving a single person that will not impair the Proposed Class." The Court says Rule 23 does not include a personal knowledge requirement. Rather, Hanlon's claims or defenses must only be "typical of the claims or defenses of the class." Hanlon, serving as class representative, is not required to have personal knowledge of conversations members of the Proposed Class may or may not have had. Hanlon argues the proposed class meets the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3). Hanlon's declaration weighs against a class members' interest in individually controlling the prosecution. Additionally, Defendants are in bankruptcy in the Southern District of Texas, increasing the desirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in this Court. Defendants argue that the determination of whether the WARN Act applies to a remote employee requires fact specific, individualized inquiries. According to the Court, under 20 C.F.R. 639.3(i)(6), the single site in which the terminated employees would be covered for WARN purposes is the Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey headquarters. Defendants have not demonstrated why individual, fact specific inquiries are needed to determine whether the WARN Act applies to remote employees, the Court concludes. The Court finds Hanlon's Motion for Class Consideration and the Proposed Class contained in the Proposed Class Certification Order and Notice meet the requirements necessary under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for a member of a class to bring a class action on behalf of all class members. According to the Court, the proposed notice outlined by Hanlon in the Proposed Class Certification Order and Notice meets the notice requirements necessary under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, the proposed language dismissing the Smith case is too broad. Only the class allegations filed in the Smith case should be dismissed, the Court holds. The individual proofs of claim filed in the Smith case remain outstanding. A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated July 8, 2025, is available at http://urlcurt.com/u?l=197mz3from PacerMonitor.com. Party City Holdco Inc. (NYSE: PRTY) is the global leader in the celebrations' industry, with its offerings spanning more than 70 countries around the world. It is also the largest designer, manufacturer, distributor, and retailer of party goods in North America. Party City Holdco had 761 company-owned stores as of September 2022. It is headquartered in Woodcliff Lake, N.J. with additional locations throughout the Americas and Asia. Party City Holdco and its domestic subsidiaries sought protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Lead Case No. 24-90621) on Dec. 21, 2024. PARTY CITY: Hanlon Wins Bid to Amend Class Action Adversary Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Alfredo R. Perez of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas granted Gwendolyn Hanlon's motion for leave to amend her complaint in the class action adversary proceeding captioned as GWENDOLYN HANLON, Plaintiff, VS. PARTY CITY HOLDCO, INC., et al., Defendant, Adversary No. 24-03273 (Bankr. S.D. Tex.). As alleged by Hanlon , beginning on Dec. 20, 2024, Party City Holdco Inc., and its related affiliates laid off approximately 400 employees who reported to Defendants' Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey headquarters. Defendants sent the employees a Separation Notice via email. Plaintiff alleges employees did not receive any written notice prior to Dec. 20, 2024, that they would be terminated. The Defendants subsequently filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy on Dec. 21, 2024. Hanlon brought a Class Action Adversary Proceeding Complaint against Defendants on Dec. 22, 2024. Craig Smith brought a Class Action Adversary Proceeding Complaint against Defendants on Dec. 31, 2024. Hanlon argues Defendants did not give the employees notice as required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 2101 et seq., and the New Jersey Millville Dallas Airmotive Plant Job Loss Notification Act, N.J.S.A..34:21-1 et seq., as amended. Hanlon filed a Motion for Class Certification on Feb. 14, 2025. Smith filed an Amended Complaint on Jan. 30, 2025, and a Motion for Class Certification on March 20, 2025. Defendants filed a Brief in Opposition to Hanlon's Motion for Class Certification. Both Hanlon and Smith sought to represent the class. Hanlon is represented by Raisner Roupinian LLP. Smith is represented by Harrison, Harrison & Associates. On April 8, 2025, the Court held a hearing on the interim counsel issue and took the matter under advisement. Both Hanlon and Smith provided compelling evidence of their chosen counsel's qualifications. Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, made applicable to this proceeding by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7023 governs Class Actions. Based on the Rule 23(g) considerations and Raisner Roupinian's bankruptcy experience, the Court chose to appoint Raisner Roupinian as interim counsel. Subsequently, the Court entered an Order Appointing Raisner Roupinian as Interim Class Counsel. On April 29, 2025, the Court held a Status Conference to set a timeline for class certification and discuss Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court imposed a 45-day pause on the Motion for Summary Judgment and permitted Hanlon to file a motion to file an amended complaint. On April 30, 2025, Hanlon filed a Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint to add allegations against four of Party City's officers and directors. The officers and directors Hanlon includes as defendants in the amended complaint are: -- Patrick Bartels, -- Robert F. Hull, -- Barry Litwin, and -- Neal Goldman. Smith objected to the Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. Smith argues the first-to-file rule prohibits the Court from granting the Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. Smith argued that his own lawsuit pending in the District of New Jersey already alleges claims against eight Party City directors and officers, including Litwin and Hull. The other two Officers and Directors are not included in the NJ Action. However, Smith alleges these two Officers and Directors have shared interests with Litwin and Hull. For purposes of the first-to-file rule, Smith argues the NJ Action should be treated as the first-filed case and the Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint should be treated as the second-filed case. To determine the appropriate application of the first-to-file rule, Judge Perez reviewed the timeline of the filings by Defendants, Hanlon, and Smith in the Southern District of Texas Court and in the NJ Action. Defendants filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy in this Court on Dec. 21, 2024. Hanlon filed her complaint against Defendants on Dec. 22, 2024, and Smith filed his complaint against Party City on Dec. 31, 2024. Smith filed the NJ Action on Feb. 7, 2025. The core issue of the Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint and the NJ Action -- whether the Officers and Directors violated the NJ WARN Act -- is the same and the proof adduced in both cases would likely be the same, according to Judge Perez. Furthermore, the facts and circumstances of the proposed amended complaint and the NJ Action both substantially overlap with the facts plead in the Hanlon complaint filed Dec. 22, 2024. Minimally, the cases substantially overlap. According to Smith, the two cases are substantially identical. However, if the Court determines the overlap between the two suits is less than complete, it must exercise its judgment of the overlap based on factors such as the extent of overlap, the likelihood of conflict, the comparative advantage, and the interest of each forum in resolving the dispute. According to Hanlon, granting the Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint will provide class members the benefit of Raisner Roupinian leveraging the claims against Defendants and against the Officers and Directors together toward settlement. Furthermore, the NJ Action has been stayed because of the bankruptcy proceedings in this Court. The Officers and Directors Hanlon is seeking to include as defendants in the amended complaint are considered Insured Persons under the relevant directors and officers insurance policy. Based on Defendants' financial outlook, the insurance policy covering the Officers and Directors provides a potential opportunity for meaningful recovery for class members. Because the insurance policy is a wasting policy, it makes economic sense for all claims to be heard in one court. Therefore, if the first-to-file rule is applicable, the Court finds compelling circumstances to exercise its discretion and decline application of the rule. In determining whether to grant leave to amend a complaint, the Court must examine five considerations: 1) undue delay, 2) bad faith or dilatory motive, 3) repeated failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendments, 4) undue prejudice to the opposing party, and 5) futility of the amendment. According to Judge Perez, "There is no undue delay here. No scheduling order has been entered by the Court. Defendants were given the opportunity to object to the Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint and chose not to. There is no bad faith or dilatory motive here. Hanlon believes there is a basis to pursue liability against the Officers and Directors. This is Hanlon's first request to amend the complaint. Therefore, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendments is not applicable. There is no undue prejudice to Defendants. No scheduling order has been entered by the Court, there has been no discovery, and the Court has not set a trial date. As demonstrated by the relevant facts and the entry of the Order filed by this Court on July 8, 2025, there is no futility of amendment here." The Court finds Hanlon's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint meets the requirements necessary for a party to amend its pleading under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons stated in the Memorandum Opinion filed by the Court on July 8, 2025, Raisner Roupinian is appointed Class Counsel and Hanlon is the Class Representative. The Court concluded that granting the Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to add the Officers and Directors as defendants is in the best interests of the class members. A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated July 8, 2025, is available at http://urlcurt.com/u?l=BqREZpfrom PacerMonitor.com. Party City Holdco Inc. (NYSE: PRTY) is the global leader in the celebrations' industry, with its offerings spanning more than 70 countries around the world. It is also the largest designer, manufacturer, distributor, and retailer of party goods in North America. Party City Holdco had 761 company-owned stores as of September 2022. It is headquartered in Woodcliff Lake, N.J. with additional locations throughout the Americas and Asia. Party City Holdco and its domestic subsidiaries sought protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Lead Case No. 24-90621) on Dec. 21, 2024. PECO FOODS: Faces Brown Suit Over Alleged ERISA Violations ---------------------------------------------------------- Jayson K. Brown, individually and as a representative of a Class Of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the Peco Foods, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan, Plaintiff v. Peco Foods, Inc., and Does 1 to 10 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00491-TSL-RPM (S.D. Miss., July 7, 2025) alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The case arises from Defendant's failure to comply with the Peco Foods, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan document; (2) breach of ERISA's fiduciary duties; and (3) violation of ERISA's prohibited transaction rules. During the class period, the Plan document required Plan Fiduciaries to first use Forfeited Plan Assets to pay administrative expenses, and any remaining forfeitures, if any, may then be used to reduce Peco's contribution obligations. However, throughout the Class period, the Defendants consistently did not use the Forfeited Plan Assets to offset Plan Administrative Expenses prior to using the Forfeited Plan Assets to reduce Peco's contractually obligated contributions to the Plan resulting in a reduction in the value of Plaintiff and the Plan's accounts. Instead, the Plan Fiduciaries have consistently chosen to utilize essentially all Forfeited Plan Assets to benefit Peco by reducing Peco's contractually obligated contributions to the Plan and paying Plan Administrative Expenses from Plan assets other than Forfeited Plan Assets, i.e., participants' accounts, says the suit. Peco is an Alabama-incorporated company that provides poultry products for industrial, retail and food service markets. The company operates facilities in Mississippi, including in Canton, MS. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Kevin Horan, Esq. Bradley D. Daigneault, Esq. HORAN & HORAN, PLLC 1500 Gate Way Post Office Box 2166 Grenada, MS 38902 Telephone: (662) 226-2185 Facsimile: (662) 226-2127 E-mail: horanmain@horanandhoranlaw.com - and - Tulio D. Chirinos, Esq. CHIRINOS LAW FIRM PLLC 370 Camino Gardens Blvd., Ste 106 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 299-6334 E-mail: tchirinos@chirinoslawfirm.com PELOTON APPAREL: Faces Suit Over Illegal Apparel Promo Texts ------------------------------------------------------------ Meghan Hall, writing for msn, reports that according to a proposed class action against Peloton, one consumer believes the company has been "pedal"-ing its apparel goods too hard. Alicia Armas filed a proposed class-action lawsuit against the fitness and activewear company, alleging that it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TPCA) by sending repeated, unwanted text messages after she opted out. Armas said despite her choice to opt out of Peloton's marketing text messages in March by responding "stop" to one such message, the company "continued to text message [her] and the class members to harass them into making purchases from [Peloton]." The complaint includes two screenshots of texts allegedly sent by Peloton in June, advertising its apparel products, but Armas contends that those messages are just two of "approximately 12 marketing text messages after [the] initial stop request." That, her legal team stated in the complaint, means that Peloton has not done its due diligence on respecting consumers' decisions to end communications about sales and products the company wants to sell. "[Peloton's] refusal to honor [Armas'] opt-out requests demonstrates that [the company] has not instituted procedures for maintaining a list of persons who request not to receive text messages from [it]," Armas' attorneys contend in the complaint, further alleging that the company gives improper training to marketing employees required to send solicitation texts and that it lacks the proper mechanisms to maintain a do-not-call registry of its own. Armas' complaint proposes a class she defines as follows: "All persons within the United States who, within the four years prior to the filing of this lawsuit through the date of class certification, received two or more text messages within any 12-month period, from or on behalf of [Peloton], regarding [the company's] goods, services or properties, to said person's residential cellular telephone number, after communicating to Defendant that they did not wish to receive text messages by replying to the messages with a ‘stop' or similar opt-out instruction." The complaint alleges that there are "at least 50 individuals that fall within the class definition given Defendant's use of automated robotexts to solicit consumers and refusal to honor stop requests." In her prayer for relief, which alleges that Peloton violated multiple portions of the TPCA, Armas asks the court to certify the proposed class, which would allow the legal action to proceed; declare that Peloton has violated the TPCA and issue applicable monetary damages to impacted consumers. Armas filed the complaint on June 27 in the Southern District of Florida; as of that day, court records show that Peloton had not responded to Armas' complaint, nor had a judge certified the class as requested. Peloton did not immediately return Sourcing Journal's request for comment on the allegations set forth in Armas' complaint. [GN] PENNEY OPCO: Appeals Court Denial of Arbitration Bid to 9th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Penney Opco LLC has taken an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from the district court order denying its motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings in the case captioned as JACY GAMBLE, for herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PENNEY OPCO LLC; and DOE DEFENDANTS 1 to 5, Defendants, Case No. 6:24-cv-01414-MTK (D. Or.). Oregon District Court Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai denied Penney Opco LLC's motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings early this month. In denying Defendant's Motion to Compel, the Court concluded that: (1) Plaintiff did not agree to the website's Terms and Conditions because the relevant links were not reasonably conspicuous and she took no affirmative action indicating agreement; (2) the Court, not an arbitrator, should determine the scope of the Rewards Program arbitration agreement; and (3) Plaintiff's claims do not fall within the scope of the Rewards Program arbitration agreement. Plaintiff Jacy Gamble brings this action alleging that Defendant violated Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act by conducting a massive false discount advertising scheme across nearly all of its products on both its website and in its retail stores." Plaintiff alleges that Defendant advertises perpetual or near-perpetual discounts from a false higher reference price in order to trick its customers into believing the advertised 'sale' price represents a special bargain from Defendant's usual and regular prices. The parties agreed that two arbitration agreements were at issue. The first arbitration agreement stems from the "Terms and Conditions" relating to the use of Defendant's website. Those Terms of Use provide: "Any dispute or claim arising out of or relating in any way to your use of this Website, to any purchases made through this Website, or to the sale of any products or services sold or distributed by Defendant on this Website, will be resolved by binding arbitration, rather than in court." The second agreement stems from Defendant's Rewards Program. The Rewards Program Terms and Conditions provides: "Any dispute or claim arising out of or relating in any way to a Member's participation in the Program, including, without limitation, the issuance of Points, the issuance or redemption of Rewards, or the receipt of any Program benefits, will be resolved by binding arbitration, rather than in court." The Court found that Plaintiff did not agree to the website's Terms and Conditions. The Court noted that "Defendant provides no evidence indicating that Plaintiff saw, let alone clicked on, any link taking her to the website's Terms and Conditions." The Court analyzed the visual conspicuousness of the relevant links and determined that neither the Terms and Conditions link nor the Legal link are conspicuous when viewed in the context of the entire webpage. The Court explained that the links are buried at the bottom of a page essentially overridden with an abundance of other links of the same size and color. The Court emphasized that "ordinary website users expect that hyperlinks with important provisions -- such as those that disclose the existence of proposed contractual terms -- will be prominently displayed, not buried in fine print. Regarding the Rewards Program arbitration agreement, the Court addressed two key issues: (1) whether the Court or an arbitrator should determine the scope of the agreement, and (2) whether the agreement covers the dispute at issue. The Court noted that Plaintiff is an unsophisticated layperson who is untrained in the law and found that the arbitration agreement's reference to the AAA rules did not clearly and unmistakenly delegate questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator. The Court analyzed whether Plaintiff's claims fall within the scope of the Rewards Program arbitration agreement. The Court found persuasive the Tenth Circuit's decision in Cavlovic v. J.C. Penney Corp., which involved a nearly identical dispute. The Court noted that "Plaintiff's claims do not arise out of, or relate in any way, to her membership in Defendant's Rewards Program." The Court explained that by including specific examples of disputes that may be subject to the arbitration clause -- i.e., "the issuance of Points, the issuance or redemption of Rewards, or the receipt of any Program benefits" -- the arbitration agreement here appears narrower than that analyzed in Cavlovic. The Court applied the Federal Arbitration Act standards, noting that "the basic role for courts under the FAA is to determine: (1) whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists and, if it does, (2) whether the agreement encompasses the dispute at issue. The Court emphasized that for browsewrap agreements, "an enforceable contract will be found based on inquiry notice theory only if: (1) the website provides reasonably conspicuous notice of the terms to which the consumer will be bound (2) the consumer takes some action, such as clicking a button or checking a box, that unambiguously manifests his or her assent to those terms. A copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pliD7T PEOPLEREADY INC: Torres Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Antonio Torres, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. PEOPLEREADY, INC., a Washington Corporation; ATHERTON HOMES, LLC, a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-5784 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Joaquin, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on June 27, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01814-CKD. In his Complaint, Plaintiff asserts the following claims for relief against the Defendants: Failure to Provide Meal Periods, Failure to Provide Rest Periods, Failure to Pay all Wages, Knowing and Intentional Failure to Comply with Itemized Employee Wage Statement Provisions, Failure to Timely Pay Wages Due at Termination, Failure to Reimburse for Business Expenses, Failure to Pay for All Hours Worked, Including Overtime Hours, Violation of Business and Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: David R. Ongaro, Esq. Cara R. Sherman, Esq. ONGARO PC 1604 Union Street San Francisco, CA 94123 Phone: (415) 433-3900 Facsimile: (415) 433-3950 Email: dongaro@ongaropc.com csherman@ongaropc.com PGATOUR.COM LLC: Britt Sues Over Disclosed Video Info to Facebook ----------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID BRITT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PGATOUR.COM, LLC, PGA TOUR, INC., PGA TOUR ENTERPRISES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00667-MMH-PDB (M.D. Fla., June 13, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Video Privacy Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants have disclosed to Meta Platforms, Inc., a third party, the personally identifiable information and video information of their website subscribers without consent. The Defendants embedded Meta Tracking Pixel to collect users' data. That pixel tracked the Plaintiff's and the Class members' video viewing history while on the website and reported their viewing history to Facebook. As a result, the Defendants violated the Plaintiff's and the Class members' statutorily protected privacy rights. PGATour.com, LLC is a company that offers video streaming services, headquartered in Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. PGA Tour, Inc. is a company that offers video streaming services, headquartered in Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. PGA Tour Enterprises, LLC is a company that offers video streaming services, headquartered in Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Levin, Esq. Brandon T. Grzandziel, Esq. LEVIN LAW, P.A. 2665 South Bayshore Drive, PH2 Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 402-9050 Email: brian@levinlawpa.com brandon@levinlawpa.com PINEHURST RADIOLOGY: Faces Wall Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- RUBY WALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PINEHURST RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 25CV001215-620 (N.C. Super., Moore Cty., June 24, 2025) is a class action arising out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant on January 20, 2025. The Defendant held in its possession certain personally identifiable information and protected health information of its current and former patients, including Plaintiff's. According to the complaint, the data breach resulted from the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect the private information of the Plaintiff. 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. Because of the data breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft, says the suit. Pinehurst Radiology Associates, PLLC is a North Carolina professional limited liability company that operates as a healthcare provider and medical diagnostic imaging center.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah A. Knox, Esq. HUNTER & EVERAGE, PLLC Charlotte, NC 28299 Telephone: (704) 377-9157 Facsimile: (704) 377-9160 - and - Benjamin J. Eisner, Esq. EKSM, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd. Ste 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 E-mail: beisner@eksm.com POMPA PROGRAM: Connors Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Felicia Connors and Haley Rice, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. POMPA PROGRAM, LLC; and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2025-01476114-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of Orange, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 9, 2025, and assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-01493. The Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges the following ten causes of action: Failure to Pay Minimum and/or Regular Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods and/or Pay Premium Wages; Failure to Provide Rest Periods and/or Pay Premium Wages; Failure to Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Timely Pay All Wages Due and Owing Upon Separation of Employment and/or the Required Waiting Time Penalties; Failure to Reimburse for Necessary Business Expenses; Violation of California's Unfair Competition Law; Violation of the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004; and Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Bryan Benard, Esq. Adam Bouka, Esq. HOLLAND & HART LLP 222 S. Main Street, Suite 2200 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Phone: (801) 799-5800 Email: bbenard@hollandhart.com abouka@hollandhart.com POWDR COPPER: Chaney Contract Suit Removed to D. Colo. ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled GARY CHANEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. POWDR COPPER MOUNTAIN, LLC, Case No. 2025CV30093, was removed from the Summit County District Court to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on June 13, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the District of Colorado assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-01860-TPO to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action against the Defendants for alleged contract violation. Powdr Copper Mountain, LLC is an adventure lifestyle company doing business in Colorado. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Ellie Lockwood, Esq. SNELL & WILMER LLP 675 15th Street, Suite 2500 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 634-2132 Facsimile: (303) 634-2020 Email: elockwood@swlaw.com PRITCHARD SPROTS: Kadow Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pritchard Sprots & Entertainment Group, LLC. The case is styled as Eric Kadow, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Pritchard Sprots & Entertainment Group, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0009286 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., July 8, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Pritchard Sprots & Entertainment Group, LLC -- https://www.pritchardsports.com/ -- are a 100% venue-focused, full-service cleaning provider for any sports or entertainment facility, regardless of the size or scope of the operation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lynsey D. Johnson, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP 1801 Century Park E., Ste. 850 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2346 Email: lj@melmedlaw.com PTT LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Larsen Due Sept. 26 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICK LARSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PTT, LLC (d/b/a HIGH 5 GAMES, LLC), and HIGH 5 ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-05275-TMC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Tiffany M. Cartwright entered an order adopting deferral of fee petition and proposed deadlines: -- Deadline for any motion(s) to amend July 9, 2025 judgment to conform with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23: -- Deadline for fee petition regarding Aug. 29, 2025 discovery sanctions: -- Deadline for responses: Sept. 26, 2025 -- Deadline for replies: Oct. 14, 2025 -- Deadline for class-certification Sept. 26, 2025 related motions: -- Deadline for responses: Oct. 17, 2025 -- Deadline for replies: Oct. 24, 2025 High 5 is an independent casino games provider. A copy of the Court's order dated July 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MfUGmB at no extra charge.[CC] READY CAPITAL: Goebel Class Action Consolidated with Quinn Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as David Goebel, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. Ready Capital Corporation, Thomas E. Capasse, and Andrew Ahlborn, Case No. 1:25-cv-03373-PAE (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer entered an order consolidating the Goebel action with: "Jerry Quinn, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. Ready Capital Corporation, Thomas E. Capasse, and Andrew Ahlborn, Case No. 1:25-cv-01883-PAE (S.D.N.Y.)" Ready is a non-bank real estate and small business lender. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated July 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yARU6h at no extra charge.[CC] REALMANAGE LLC: Moscardelli Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against RealManage LLC. The case is styled as Ryan Moscardelli, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ReaManage LLC, Case No. 25-003706-CI (Fla. Cir. Ct., Pinellas Cty., July 9, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." RealManage -- https://realmanage.com/ -- is a community management company that specializes in HOA management and condominium management.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey L. Newsome, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A. 400 N Ashley Dr., Suite 1900 Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (352) 753-8600 Email: jvarnell@vandwlaw.com REGINA CATERERS: Faces Hereida Suit Over Labor Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- JUAN MIGUEL BELEN HEREDIA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REGINA CATERERS, INC., and FOZAN PIRZADA, Defendants, Case No.1:25-cv-03759 (E.D.N.Y., July 7, 2025) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act. From in or about August 2018 through in or about June 2025, the Defendants employed Plaintiff to work at the Catering Business as a non-exempt porter, stock person, and assembly line worker preparing food trays for packing and delivery. Allegedly, Plaintiff's work performed in excess of 40 hours per week was not paid at the statutory rate of time and one-half as required by state and federal law. Among other things, the Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not paying the New York State minimum wage to Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees. Regina Caterers, Inc. owns and operates a catering enterprise doing business as "Regina Caterers," located at 86 Beadel Street, Brooklyn, NY. [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 REPUBLIC SERVICES: Seeks More Time for Class Cert Discovery ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAMELA VINES, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, v. REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC. d/b/a BFI WASTE SYSTEMS NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00697-WO-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order extending the class certification discovery and briefing deadlines by approximately 30 days: Action or Event Extended Deadline The Defendant's deadline for disclosing Aug. 11, 2025 expert(s), providing all required expert disclosures, and producing expert report(s): Deadline for completing all discovery on Sept. 15, 2025 class certification issues: The Plaintiff's deadline to move for class Sept. 29, 2025 Certification: The Defendant's deadline to file opposition Oct. 29, 2025 to motion for class certification: The Plaintiff's deadline to file reply to Nov. 14, 2025 the Defendant's opposition to class certification: Republic is a North American waste disposal company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xLDAFe at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Steven D. Weber, Esq. Mallory S. Sparks, Esq. PARKER POE ADAMS & BERNSTEIN LLP 620 South Tryon St., Ste. 800 Charlotte, NC 28202 Telephone: (704) 372-9000 E-mail: steveweber@parkerpoe.com mallorysparks@parkerpoe.com RJ NY RESTORATIONS: Underpays Laborers, Garcia Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- GERARDO GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RJ NY RESTORATIONS INC., NORTH SHORE CONTRACTOR SERVICES CORP., and SURJIT SINGH, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-05336 (S.D.N.Y., June 26, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay proper wages, including overtime, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Mr. Garcia worked for the Defendants as a laborer. RJ NY Restoration Inc. is a contractor based in Valley Stream, New York. North Shore Contractor Services Corp. is a contractor based in Greenvale, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 ROBERT H. CLARKSON: Mangum Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Robert H. Clarkson Insurance Agency, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Jessica Mangum, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Robert H. Clarkson Insurance Agency, LLC doing business as: Clarkson Insurance, RH Clarkson Financial Services, Inc. doing business as: Clarkson Financial, Case No. 3:25-cv-00414-GNS (W.D. Ky., July 7, 2025), The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Robert H. Clarkson Insurance Agency, LLC doing business as Clarkson Insurance -- https://clarkson-group.com/ -- is a leading regional provider of insurance brokerage services, risk management services, medical insurance services and employee benefits consultancy.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT 65 Overhill Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Phone: (954) 525-4100 Fax: (954) 525-4300 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - John C. Whitfield, Esq. WHITFIELD CROSBY & FLYNN PLLC 19 North Main Street Madisonville, KY 42431 Phone: (270) 821-0656 Fax: (270) 825-1163 Email: JWhitfield@wcfjustice.com ROBERT H. CLARKSON: McIntyre Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Robert H. Clarkson Insurance Agency, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Peter McIntyre, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Robert H. Clarkson Insurance Agency, LLC doing business as: Clarkson Insurance, RH Clarkson Financial Services, Inc. doing business as: Clarkson Financial, Case No. 3:25-cv-00415-RGJ (W.D. Ky., July 7, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Robert H. Clarkson Insurance Agency, LLC doing business as Clarkson Insurance -- https://clarkson-group.com/ -- is a leading regional provider of insurance brokerage services, risk management services, medical insurance services and employee benefits consultancy.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 800 S. Gay ST, Ste. 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: cturner@milberg.com - and - John C. Whitfield, Esq. WHITFIELD CROSBY & FLYNN PLLC 19 North Main Street Madisonville, KY 42431 Phone: (270) 821-0656 Fax: (270) 825-1163 Email: JWhitfield@wcfjustice.com RUSHMAID LLC: Herzbrun Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rushmaid, LLC. The case is styled as Kenneth Herzbrun, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rushmaid, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-23068-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 9, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Rushmaid, LLC -- https://www.rushmaid.com/ -- is a professional cleaning service provider based in Hialeah, Florida, offering a range of residential and commercial cleaning solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com SALVATION ARMY: Sandman Files Personal Injury Claims in E.D. Va. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Salvation Army. The case is captioned as BRETT SANDMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE SALVATION ARMY, Case No. 1:25-cv-01015-PTG-LRV (E.D. Va., June 13, 2025). The suit is brought against the Defendant for personal injury claims. The Salvation Army is a Protestant Christian church and an international charitable organization in Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Hilton Wise, Esq. WISE LAW FIRM, PLC 10640 Page Avenue, Suite 320 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 934-6377 Facsimile: (703) 934-6379 Email: dwise@wiselaw.pro SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Bid to Certify Classes Due July 16, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARILYN DELAHOY, MARY DUNAHOE, FRANK TASTINGER, TERRY TIGHE, JOANNE MICHANOWICZ, ERIC BOSCH, and CHRIS KUGLER on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-04132-CCC-CLW (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Cathy L. Waldor entered an amended pretrial scheduling order: 1. Fact discovery is to remain open through March 4, 2026. 2. Any motion to add new parties, whether by amended or third- party complaint, must be electronically filed no later than March 20, 2026. 3. Any motion to amend pleadings must be electronically filed no later than March 20, 2026. 4. All affirmative expert reports relating to class certification shall be delivered by April 3, 2026. All responsive expert reports shall be delivered by May 4, 2026. Depositions of all experts to be completed by June 11, 2026. 5. Any motion to certify a class(es), must be electronically filed no later than July 16, 2026. Any opposition must be electronically filed no later than Aug. 17, 2026. Any reply must be electronically filed no later than Sept. 17, 2026. Samsung manufactures electronic products. A copy of the Court's order dated July 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9P7gjC at no extra charge.[CC] SANDAIR CORPORATION: Jimenez-Padilla Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sandair Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Juan Jimenez-Padilla, an individual; on behalf of Plaintiffs, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Sandair Corporation d/b/a California Freight Sales, Superior Truck Lines, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0009283 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., July 8, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Sandair Corporation doing business as California Freight -- https://www.calfreight.com/ -- has provided customized transportation services to all industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq. JCL LAW FIRM, APC 5440 Morehouse Dr., Ste. 3600 San Diego, CA 92121-6720 Phone: 619-599-8292 Fax: 619-599-8291 Email: jlapuyade@jcl-lawfirm.com SCHUSTER COMPANY: Class Cert Bid Filing Due July 3, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATRINA MCALISTER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. SCHUSTER COMPANY, Case No. 5:25-cv-04015-CJW-KEM (N.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge Kelly K.E. Mahoney entered an initial scheduling order and discovery plan: -- Initial disclosures: July 11, 2025 -- Motions to add parties: Oct. 2, 2025 -- Motions to amend pleadings: Oct. 2, 2025 -- Expert witness disclosures: Plaintiff's expert(s): Mar. 5, 2026 Defendant's expert(s): Apr. 2, 2026 Plaintiff's rebuttal expert(s): May 5, 2026 -- Class certification deadlines: Completion of class discovery: June 2, 2026 Motion for class certification: July 3, 2026 Response: July 17, 2026 Reply: July 24, 2026 Schuster provides trucking transportation services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eaqa6h at no extra charge.[CC] SCOUT COFFEE: Class Cert. Bid in Stracener Suit Due Feb. 2, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HANNA STRACENER, v. SCOUT COFFEE HOUSE, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00256-FJG (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr. entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. Close of phase I discovery: Jan. 5, 2026 2. Motion for Conditional Certification: Oct. 3, 2025 3. Motion for Class Certification: Feb. 2, 2026 4. Asserting party's expert report(s): Sept. 5, 2025 Defending party's expert report(s): Sept. 5, 2025 Rebuttal report(s): Oct. 21, 2025 Challenges/Daubert motions: Feb. 2, 2026 5. Status reports: Nov. 21, 2025 Scout is a coffee house. A copy of the Court's order dated July 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DEp9KP at no extra charge.[CC] SEATTLE PUBLIC: Fitch Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. ------------------------------------------------ The case styled BENJAMIN FITCH, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. SEATTLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, et al., Case No. 25-2-04060-7, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of King to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on June 26, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned Case No. 25-01079-CMA to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as determination of removed claim or cause. Seattle Public Schools is a school district in Washington. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Thomas W. Stilley, Esq. SUSSMAN SHANK LLP 1000 SW Broadway, Ste. 1400 Portland, OR 97205 Telephone: (503) 227-1111 Email: tstilley@sussmanshank.com SENTARA HOSPITALS: Ward Seeks to Certify Sentara Employee Class --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASMINE WARD, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v. SENTARA HOSPITALS, Case No. 2:25-cv-00203-EWH-DEM (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting conditional certification and authorizing notice to be sent to: "All hourly Sentara employees who received a meal period deduction and/or had their punch times rounded at any time during the past 3 years (the FLSA Collective Members)." To facilitate Court-approved notice, the Plaintiff requests the Court (1) approve the Notice and Consent forms attached to the Plaintiff's Motion as Exhibit 1; (2) approve the email and text message scripts attached to the Plaintiff's Motion as Exhibit 2; (3) order Sentara to produce to Class Counsel the contact information for the FLSA Collective Members within 10 days; (4) authorize a 60-day notice period for the FLSA Collective Members to join the case; (5) authorize an identical reminder notice halfway through the notice period; and (6) allow the Notice and Consent forms, and identical reminders, to be sent via mail, email, and text. The Plaintiff's motion is supported by the attached memorandum and exhibits. Sentara is an integrated, not-for-profit health care delivery system. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1rCiHi at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harris D. Butler, III, Esq. Craig J. Curwood, Esq. Zev H. Antell, Esq. Samantha R. Galina, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 648-4848 Facsimile: (804) 237-0413 E-mail: harris@butlercurwood.com craig@butlercurwood.com zev@butlercurwood.com samantha@butlercurwood.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Travis J. Grefenstette, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com tgrefenstette@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com SHADE STORE: Class Cert Reply Filing Extended to August 15 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHARON CROWDER, JOEL LUMIAN, ROBERT SMITH, AMANDA GOLDWASSER, and MARK ELKINS individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE SHADE STORE, LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-02331-NC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Nathanael M. Cousins entered an order for extension of time to file as follows 1. The Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion for class certification and opposition to motion to exclude shall be filed by Aug. 15, 2025. 2. The Defendant's reply in support of its motion to exclude the testimony of the Plaintiffs' experts shall be filed by Sept. 19, 2025. 3. The hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, hearing on the Defendant's motion to exclude, and case management conference shall be continued to Oct. 8, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. The Shade Store sells custom window treatments such as shades, drapes, and blinds. A copy of the Court's order dated July 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oj4Boh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Simon C. Franzini, Esq. Martin Brenner, Esq. Grace Bennett, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: simon@dovel.com martin@dovel.com grace@dovel.com The Defendant is represented by: Steven N. Feldman, Esq. Shlomo Fellig, Esq. Johanna Spellman, Esq. Kevin Jakopchek, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 100 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 Telephone: (213) 485-1234 E-mail: steve.feldman@lw.com shlomo.fellig@lw.com johanna.spellman@lw.com kevin.jakopchek@lw.com SHADE STORE: Extension of Class Cert Briefing Deadline Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEE FITZGERALD and KATHERINE ADLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE SHADE STORE, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-01435-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadlines for the Parties' class certification briefing by 30-days. Case Event Deadline The Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion Aug. 22, 2025 for class certification and opposition to motions to exclude: The Defendant's Reply in support of Sept. 26, 2025 motions to exclude: On March 27, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification. On April 30, 2025, the Defendant filed its Opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and its Motions to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiffs' experts. On May 20, 2025, the Court granted the Parties' Stipulated Motion for Extension of Time to File Briefing on Class Certification and Motions to Exclude Shade is a home decoration products provider. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ujb0Yx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Simon C. Franzini, Esq. Martin Brenner, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: simon@dovel.com martin@dovel.com - and - Wright A. Noel, Esq. CARSON & NOEL, PLLC 20 Sixth Ave. NE Issaquah WA 98027 Telephone: (425) 395-7786 Facsimile: (425) 837-5396 E-mail: wright@carsonnoel.com The Defendant is represented by: Maren R. Norton, Esq. James M. Shore, Esq. Jenna M. Poligo, Esq. STOEL RIVES LLP 600 University Street, Suite 3600 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 624-0900 Facsimile: (206) 386-7500 E-mail: maren.norton@stoel.com jim.shore@stoel.com jenna.poligo@stoel.com - and - Steven N. Feldman, Esq. Shlomo Fellig, Esq. Johanna Spellman, Esq. Kevin Jakopchek, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 100 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 Telephone: (213) 485-1234 E-mail: steve.feldman@lw.com shlomo.fellig@lw.com johanna.spellman@lw.com kevin.jakopchek@lw.com SHADE STORE: Fitzgerald Must File Class Cert Reply by August 22 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEE FITZGERALD and KATHERINE ADLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE SHADE STORE, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-01435-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Ricardo S. Martinez entered an order granting stipulated motion for extension of time to file briefing on class certification and motions to exclude: Case Event Deadline The Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion Aug. 22, 2025 for class certification and opposition to motions to exclude: The Defendant's reply in support of Sept. 26, 2025 motions to exclude: Shade is a home decoration products provider. A copy of the Court's order dated July 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1JAoSt at no extra charge.[CC] SHENZHEN SMOORE: Plaintiff Drops Suit After Name Disclosure Order ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as H.H., Plaintiff, v. Shenzhen Smoore Technology Company Limited, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. CV-25-02259-PHX-DWL, the Hon. Dominic W. Lanza of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona ordered the plaintiff to either file a motion for permission to proceed under initials or file a Second Amended Complaint with the true name. The Court noted that the need to justify anonymity seems particularly heightened where H.H. seeks to serve as the lead plaintiff in a class action. H.H. decided, instead, to dismiss the lawsuit. H.H. filed a notice of voluntary dismissal hours after the Court's order. This is a putative antitrust class action where the lead plaintiff is identified only as "H.H." in the First Amended Complaint. The plaintiff pleads that H.H. is more than an adequate representative of the Classes because H.H.'s claims are typical of the members of the Classes, H.H. has the incentive and is committed to prosecuting this action for the benefit of the Classes, and H.H. has no interests that are antagonistic to those of the Classes. According to the Court, normal presumption in litigation is that parties must use their real names. The Court referenced that "Plaintiffs' use of fictitious names runs afoul of the public's common law right of access to judicial proceedings and [Fed.R.Civ.P.] 10(a)'s command that the title of every complaint include the names of all the parties." The Court found it unclear why H.H. believes these rules and presumptions are inapplicable and observed that it would be one thing if H.H. were a minor, "as Rule 5.2(a)(3) allows that when a filing with the court. . . contains. . . the name of an individual known to be a minor, the filing may include only the minor's initials." However, the First Amended Complaint does not suggest that H.H. is a minor and alleges that H.H. was a lawful purchaser of cannabis products, which seems inconsistent with being a minor. The Court considered that H.H. might be seeking to proceed under initials for some other reason, such as "the belief that this is the 'unusual case' when nondisclosure of the party's identity is necessary to protect a person from harassment, injury, ridicule or personal embarrassment." However, the Court emphasized that a party must obtain leave from the court in order to proceed under a fictitious name or under initials. The Court referenced that the general presumption in favor of public disclosure of a plaintiff's identity is even stronger in a case which is pled as a putative class action, because the named plaintiff is purporting to represent other members of the public. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nDmdi3 SIG SAUER: Seeks Leave to File Class Opposition Second Notice ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA GLASSCOCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SIG SAUER, INC., Case No. 6:22-cv-03095-MDH (W.D. Mo.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting leave to file the case second notice in support of its opposition. On June 27, 2025, after Sig Sauer submitted its Opposition, an en banc panel for the Sixth Circuit in Speerly v. Gen. Motors, LLC vacated the district court's class-certification order because Rule 23(b)(3) was not satisfied. Because the Speerly decision was issued after Sig Sauer's Opposition was filed, Sig Sauer requests that it be permitted to file the attached Second Notice in further support of its Opposition. Sig designs and manufactures firearms for military, law enforcement, and commercial markets. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OwWI8z at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Colleen Carey Gulliver, Esq. Jason E. Kornmehl, Esq. Connor D. Rowinski, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 335-4500 E-mail: colleen.gulliver@us.dlapiper.com jason.kornmehl@us.dlapiper.com connor.rowinski@us.dlapiper.com - and - Cara Rose, Esq. FRANKE SCHULTZ & MULLEN, P.C. 1919 E. Battlefield, Suite B Springfield, MO 65804 Telephone: (417) 863-0040 E-mail: crose@fsmlawfirm.com - and - Robert L. Joyce, Esq. B. Keith Gibson, Esq. LITTLETON JOYCE UGHETTA & KELLY LLP 4 Manhattanville Road, Suite 202 Purchase, NY 10577 Telephone: (914) 417-3400 E-mail: robert.joyce@littletonjoyce.com keith.gibson@littletonjoyce.com SKULLCANDY INC: Jones Suit Removed to S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Julie Jones, individually on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SKULLCANDY, INC., Case No. 25CU029105C 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 9, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01759-JLS-BLM. The Plaintiff pleads the following three causes of action: alleged violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"), codified at Cal. Penal Code Section 631; alleged violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"), codified at Cal. Penal Code Section 632; and Unjust Enrichment. Plaintiff seeks an award of statutory damages pursuant to CIPA, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, injunctive relief, and all other relief that would be just and proper as a matter of law or equity.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Craig J. Mariam, Esq. Alison M. Pringle, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 633 West Fifth Street, 52nd floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 270-7856 Facsimile: (213) 680-4470 Email: cmariam@grsm.com apringle@grsm.com SMARTFOODS INC: Flexer Sues Over Popcorn's "No Artificial" Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALYSSA FLEXER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SMARTFOODS, INC. and PEPSICO, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-03623 (E.D.N.Y., June 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the New York General Business Law and breach of express warranty. The case arises from the Defendants' false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of Smartfood Popcorn products. According to the complaint, the Defendants represent through their packaging that the products contain "NO ARTIFICIAL COLORS OR FLAVORS" and "NO ARTIFICIAL PRESERVATIVES." Unbeknownst to consumers, the Defendants' claims are false because the products do contain a synthetic non-natural flavoring and preservative ingredient: maltodextrin. Had the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers known the truth, they would not have purchased the products or would have paid less for them. Smartfoods, Inc. is a food product manufacturer, with its principal place of business located at Plano, Texas. PepsiCo, Inc. is the parent company of Smartfoods, Inc., with its principal place of business located in Harrison, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. ARISOHN LLC 94 Blakeslee Rd. Litchfield, CT 06759 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Email: josh@arisohnllc.com SONGJI LLC: Han Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime and Tips for Masseurs ---------------------------------------------------------------- ZHEN BIAO HAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SONGJI LLC d/b/a MoMA Nails & Spa; SONGJI LI a/k/a Michael Li; JANE DOE, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-01044 (D. Conn., June 28, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages and misappropriation of tips in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act, and the Connecticut General Statutes. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a masseur from on or about February 04, 2023, to April 30, 2023. Songji LLC, doing business as MoMA Nails & Spa, is a spa salon owner and operator, with a principal address in Litchfield, Connecticut. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 110 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 Email: johntroy@troypllc.com SOUTHERN VALLEY: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Brief Response ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARNULFO GARCIA-RAMOS, PABLO CASTILLO-OLGUIN, and all others similarly situated, v. SOUTHERN VALLEY FRUIT & VEGETABLE, INC.; HAMILTON GROWERS, INC.; KENT HAMILTON; HAMILTON PRODUCE, L.P.; KENDA PROPERTIES, L.P.; WK HOLDINGS, LLC; and WKW, LLC, Case No. 7:24-cv-00054-WLS (M.D. Ga.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting amended motion for an extension of time for the filing of a brief in response to the Plaintiff's motion for Rule 23 class certification. The Defendants seek this extension of 14 additional days, through and including July 28, 2025, to allow the parties to focus on preparing an effective and efficient response brief, and to allow for an extension due to summer schedules and vacation that counsel took over the Fourth of July weekend which impacted work on this brief. The Amended Motion responds to the Court's Order entered this morning and provides clarification regarding why their previously filed Motion for Extension under Rule 6.2 was timely filed prior to the deadline. The Plaintiffs' counsel agrees that the deadline as stated in this Motion is calculated correctly, but Plaintiffs do not consent to the extension request. The Plaintiffs filed their Rule 23 Motion on May 30, 2025. On Feb. 26, 2025, this Court entered the most recent scheduling order setting forth the briefing deadlines, and in part, stated, "A response to any motion relating to Rule 23 class certification must be filed within 45 days after such motion is filed." Southern offers a variety of vegetables and fruits. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tnqmos at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Martin B. Heller, Esq. David Lerner, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 1075 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 3500 Atlanta, GA 30909 Telephone: (404) -231-1400 Facsimile: (404) 240-4249 E-mail: mheller@fisherphillips.com dlerner@fisherphillips.com SOUTHWOOD FINANCIAL: Balde Sues Over Ransomware Attack ------------------------------------------------------ Oumou Balde, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. SOUTHWOOD FINANCIAL LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01109 (E.D. Va., July 7, 2025), is brought arising out of the recent targeted ransomware attack and data breach ("Data Breach") on Defendant's network that resulted in unauthorized access to the highly sensitive data. The specific information compromised in the Data Breach includes, but is not limited to, personally identifiable information ("PII"), such as name, Social Security number, date of birth, address, telephone number, email address and other account Information. up to and through March 2025, Defendant obtained the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members and stored that PII, unencrypted, in an Internet-accessible environment on Defendant's network, from which unauthorized actors used an extraction tool to retrieve sensitive PII belonging to Plaintiff and Class Members. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII—which was entrusted to Defendant, their officials, and agents—was compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the Data Breach. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII that Defendant collected and maintained, and for Defendant's failure to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their PII had been subject to the unauthorized access of an unknown, unauthorized party As a result of the Data Breach, Class Members suffered ascertainable losses in the form of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack, emotional distress, and the present risk of imminent harm caused by the compromise of their sensitive personal information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an individual citizen of Ohio and received a letter from the Defendant notifying her of the Data Breach on June 27, 2025. Southwood Financial LLC is a financial institution.[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 Phone: (804) 351-9040 Facsimile: (804) 351-9170 Email: Lee@bbtrial.com Justin@bbtrial.com - and - Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com SP DATA: Filing for Class Cert. in Veres Due Feb. 20, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Veres v. SP Data Digital LLC et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01356 (N.D. Ohio, Filed Aug. 8, 2024), the Hon. Judge Bridget Meehan Brennan entered an order establishing new deadlines: -- Non-expert discovery: Jan. 29, 2026 -- Motion for class certification: Feb. 20, 2026 -- Expert reports for party Feb. 27, 2026 bearing the burden of proof: -- Responsive expert reports: May 15, 2026 -- Expert discovery: May 15, 2026 -- Dispositive motions: May 15, 2026 -- Opposition to motion for class May 16, 2026 certification: The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). SP is a business consulting company that provides inbound sales, outbound sales, customer loyalty, and winback services.[CC] STAPLES CONTRACT: Hearing on Class Cert Bid Continued to August 28 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAVIER FELIX, individually‚ and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated‚ v. STAPLES CONTRACT & COMMERCIAL LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10‚ inclusive‚ Case No. 5:24-cv-01968-KK-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Kenly Kiya Kato entered an order granting stipulation to extend time to file class opposition and class reply: 1. The Defendant's deadline to file its opposition (the Class Opposition) to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification (the Class Motion) shall be extended by one week, from July 10, 2025 to and including July 17, 2025; 2. The Plaintiff's deadline to file his reply (the Class Reply) in support of the motion shall be set at four weeks, rather than one week, after the Defendant files the class opposition; and 3. The hearing on the Class Motion, currently noticed for July 31, 2025, is vacated and continued to Aug. 28, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 3 of the George E. Brown, Jr. United States Courthouse, located at 3470 12th Street, 3rd Floor, Riverside, California 92501. Staples provides workspace products and solutions to businesses and organizations. A copy of the Court's order dated July 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WPj6Sb at no extra charge.[CC] STATE FARM: Young Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gloria Celeste Young, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Case No. 2:23-cv-00175-HSO-MTP (S.D. Miss.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- certifying the proposed class, -- appointing her as class representative, and -- appointing David McMullan and Ned Nelson as class counsel. Pursuant to Rules 23(b)(1) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff, Gloria Celeste Young, moves for an order certifying a class to seek monetary damages. 1. The Plaintiff seeks certification of the following class: "All persons and legal entities insured under a State Farm homeowner or property policy who submitted a claim for partial structural damage and which were not designated a "total loss" whose ACV and RCV payments were calculated by application of "New Construction" labor efficiency setting in Xactimate from Nov. 10, 2020, to the date of trial, inclusive, for property located in the State of Mississippi." 2. Excluded from the class are members of the Court and Plaintiff's counsel, as well as any policyholder who received the full limits of applicable coverage without having been to appraisal or whose claim is the subject of an individual lawsuit. 3. The following persons are expressly excluded from the Class: (1) Defendant and its subsidiaries and affiliates; (2) all persons who make a timely election to be excluded from the proposed Class; and (3) the Court to which this case is assigned and its staff. State is a group of mutual insurance companies. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UyDoab at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ned A. Nelson, Esq. Mark A. Nelson, Esq. NELSON LAW PLLC 7 Woodstone Plaza, Ste. 7 Hattiesburg, MS 39402 E-mail: ned@nelsonfirm.law mark@nelsonfirm.law - and - David McMullan, Jr., Esq. John W. ("Don") Barrett, Esq. BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A. 404 Court Square Lexington, MS 39095 E-mail: dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com - and - Anthony Sakalarios, Esq. Chuck Blackwell, Esq. Nicholas A. Sakalarios, Esq. SAKALARIOS, BLACKWELL, SCHOCK, PLLC 1817 Hardy St. Hattiesburg, MS 39401 E-mail: asakalarios@sbslawfirm.net cblackwell@sbslawfirm.net nick@sakalarioslaw.com - and - John M. Deakle, Esq. Ronald V. Johnson, IV, Esq. Russell L. Johnson, Esq. Richard J. LaJaunie, Esq. DEAKLE-JOHNSON LAW FIRM, PLLC 802 Main St. Hattiesburg, MS 39401 E-mail: jmd@deaklelawfirm.com rjlajaunie@djlawms.com rvjohnson@djlawms.com rljohnson@djlawms.com - and - Patrick W. Pendley, Esq. PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP Plaquemine, LA 70765 E-mail: pwpendley@pbclawfirm.com - and - Alvah H. Pasley, Esq. D. Chad Nuce, Esq. PASLEY, NUCE, MALLORY & DAVIS, LLC 300 W. Gordon St. Thomaston, GA 30286 E-mail: apasley@pnlawgroup.com cnuce@pnlawgroup.com - and - Jubal L. Hamil, Esq. DEAKLE, SHOLTIS & HAMIL, LLC Mobile, AL 36633 E-mail: jhamil@dshfirm.com STEINWAY AND SONS: Court OKs Website Accessibility Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- United States District Judge Margaret M. Garnett of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York approved a consent decree in the case captioned as BRAULIO THORNE, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. STEINWAY AND SONS, Case No. 1:25-cv-00788-MMG (S.D.N.Y.). The consent decree resolves claims that Steinway's website violated the Americans with Disabilities Act without any admission of liability by the defendant. On January 27, 2025, Plaintiff Braulio Thorne filed a purported class action complaint against Steinway Musical Instruments, Inc., incorrectly sued as Steinway and Sons. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's website at https://www.steinway.com was not fully accessible to individuals with disabilities in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law, New York City Human Rights Law, and New York State General Business Law. The defendant appeared in the action on March 12, 2025, and agreed to waive service of the summons. The defendant's answer was due on May 9, 2025, but the parties reached a settlement agreement before that deadline. Steinway disputes and expressly denies each and every material allegation in the complaint. The defendant specifically denies that the website is a place of public accommodation, that the website violates any federal, state or local law, including the ADA, and that the website is presently not reasonably accessible for use by individuals with a disability using commercially available screen reader technologies. The parties mutually agreed to settle the action to avoid cost and inconvenience of litigation without admission of fault, liability or wrongdoing by either party. Under the consent decree, Steinway shall not knowingly or negligently deny persons with a disability the opportunity to participate in and benefit from the goods, services, privileges, advantages, and accommodations through the website. The defendant must use reasonable efforts to provide persons with a disability an equal opportunity to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, privileges, advantages, and accommodations provided through the website. Additionally, Steinway shall use reasonable efforts to ensure that persons with a disability are not excluded, denied services, segregated, or otherwise treated differently because of the absence of auxiliary aids and services. Within 24 months of the effective date, Steinway shall modify the website as needed to substantially conform to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1 Level A and AA Success Criteria to the extent determined to be applicable. The website must be reasonably accessible to persons with vision disabilities. The defendant's obligations do not include substantial conformance with WCAG standards for user-generated content, content or advertisements not owned or controlled by Steinway, provision of narrative description for videos, and video or audio plugins from third parties including YouTube and Spotify. "Reasonable Efforts" means the efforts that a reasonable person or entity in defendant's position would use to achieve the goal or obligation. Reasonable efforts shall be interpreted so as to not require defendant to undertake efforts the cost, difficulty or impact of which could constitute an undue burden or result in a fundamental alteration in the manner in which defendant operates the website. The consent decree establishes specific procedures that must be exhausted in the event of disputes. If any party claims the consent decree has been violated, the party alleging the breach shall give written notice including reasonable particulars of such violation. The alleged breaching party must respond no later than sixty calendar days thereafter unless the parties agree to extend the time for response. There will be no breach of the consent decree unless an independent accessibility consultant determines that particular items cannot be accomplished by a person with a disability using commercially available screen readers such as JAWS, VoiceOver, or NVDA in combination with supported browsers including Microsoft Edge, Firefox, Safari, and Chrome. The term of the consent decree shall commence as of the effective date and remain in effect for the earlier of thirty-six months from the effective date, the date the United States Department of Justice adopts regulations for websites under Title III of the ADA, or such date as may be extended by mutual agreement of the parties. The interpretation and enforcement of the consent decree shall be governed by the laws of the State of New York. The court's jurisdiction over this matter shall continue for 36 months. The parties expressly intend that the consent decree shall inure to the benefit of all persons with vision disabilities as defined by the ADA including those who utilize a screen reader to access the website. However, the consent decree does not bind members of the putative class identified in plaintiff's complaint as no class has been identified. STS AVIATION: Class Certification Bids in Anderson Due Oct. 28 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Anderson v. STS Aviation Group, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-14201 (S.D. Fla., Filed June 21, 2024), the Hon. Judge Shaniek Mills Maynard entered an order partially granting joint motion to stay or, in the alternative, for extension of time: -- the Class Discovery Deadline shall Sept. 30, 2025 be Tuesday: -- Any motions for class certification Oct. 28, 2025 shall be filed and any Class Certification Expert Disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) shall be served by Tuesday: -- Defendant's Class Certification Expert Nov. 12, 2025 Disclosures Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 26(a)(2) and any Motion(s) challenging Plaintiff's class certification experts shall be filed by Wednesday: -- Plaintiff shall file any Rebuttal to Nov. 26, 2025 Defendant's Motion(s) challenging Plaintiff's Experts and any Motion(s) Challenging Defendant's Experts by Wednesday: Pursuant to the Joint Motion to Stay, the Defendants advise that they are proceeding through discovery and have tentatively scheduled mediation for Sept. 16, 2025. The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract. STS operates as an aircraft maintenance company.[CC] SUPERHUMN INC: Cavanagh Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices ---------------------------------------------------------- PATRICK CAVANAGH AND YOEL BILSKY on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiffs v. SUPERHUMN, INC., a corporation; DAPHNE JADE CHENG, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV18217 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 24, 2025) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code. The complaint is brought against the Defendants for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud and negligent misrepresentation, misclassification of employment status, failure to pay all wages due at time of termination, failure to timely pay earned wages, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and failure to reimburse expenses. The Plaintiffs were employees of the Defendants who were misclassified as independent contractors. Superhumn Inc. is a company created and run by Daphne Jade Cheng. The company is in the business of selling plant-based beef jerky.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Antoine D. Williams, Esq. Bart A. Seemen, Esq. WILLIAMS AND SEEMEN, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 16255 Ventura Blvd. Suite #1106 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 898-3300 Facsimile: (818) 574-3006 E-mail: bas@latrialteam.com TARGET CORP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Buckmaster Due Jan. 23, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASMINE BUCKMASTER, v. TARGET CORPORATION, Case No. 3:25-cv-05375-MLP (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Michelle Peterson entered an order setting the following class certification pretrial schedule: Event Date Deadline to amend pleadings and join Aug. 4,2025 other parties: Completion of expert discovery regarding Dec. 5, 2025 class certification: Completion of Discovery related to class Jan. 2, 2026 certification: The Plaintiff's deadline to file motion Jan. 23, 2026 for class certification: *Within 14 days of the Court's ruling on class certification, the Parties will meet and confer to propose a schedule for completing the remaining merits discovery and submit a joint proposal to the Court Target is an American retail corporation that operates a chain of discount department stores and hypermarkets. A copy of the Court's order dated July 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ywkCMI at no extra charge.[CC] TATA CONSULTANCY: Appeals Arbitration Order in Malave Labor Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings in the lawsuit entitled Rockwell Malave, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-22529, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint is brought against the Defendants for laying off a large number of employees, including the Plaintiff, without providing the pre-layoff notice and severance pay mandated by the New Jersey Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. On Oct. 11, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings, which Judge Brian R. Martinotti denied on May 28, 2025. The appellate case is entitled Rockwell Malave v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., et al., Case No. 25-2207, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on June 27, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee ROCKWELL MALAVE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Mitchell A. Schley, Esq. 197 Route 18 East Brunswick, NJ 08816 Telephone: (732) 325-0318 Defendants-Appellants TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD., et al. are represented by: Barbara E. Hoey, Esq. Patrick Soundy, Esq. KELLEY DRYE & WARREN 3 World Trade Center 175 Greenwich Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 808-7780 TD BANK: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Facebook Pixel Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as JEFFREY STEVENS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TD BANK, N.A., Defendant, Civil No. 24-8311 (D.N.J.), Chief United States District Judge Renee Marie Bumb of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted TD Bank N.A.'s motion to dismiss the complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend his pleadings to remedy the deficiencies identified in the Court's Opinion by July 27, 2025. Defendant must file its responsive pleading to the amended complaint no later than 30 days after the amended complaint is filed. The court held that plaintiff failed to adequately plead that his specific personal financial information was disclosed to third parties through Facebook's tracking technology. The court found that "Plaintiff's failure to explain the nature of the personal financial information allegedly captured by Meta Pixel is fatal to each of his claims." The plaintiff brought this putative nationwide class action against TD Bank, alleging that the defendant utilized certain third-party data tracking technology to improperly collect and disclose his and other customers' personal financial information to third parties, specifically Meta Platforms, Inc., without notice or consent. According to the complaint, TD Bank "embedded a hidden tracking code developed by Meta called the Facebook Tracking Pixel (the Pixel) into its website." The plaintiff alleged that "the Pixel transmits cookies and event data to Meta and that Meta, in turn, uses this information for marketing and advertising purposes. The plaintiff asserted nine claims: "(1) negligence, (2) negligence per se, (3) unjust enrichment, (4) declaratory judgment, (5) breach of confidence, (6) breach of contract, (7) breach of implied contract, (8) violation of New York General Business Law Section 349, and (9) unfair and deceptive trade practices under the laws of Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont. The plaintiff, "a TD customer living in New York, alleged that he accessed his TD account through the bank's website while logged into Facebook" and that his "interactions with TD Bank's online financial platform were disclosed to third parties, including Meta without his consent." However, the plaintiff "does not provide any information as to the nature of his interactions with TD's website or what products, if any, he viewed or applied for." The complaint alleged that "TD disclosed this information to Meta to improve its marketing efforts, including by enabling Meta to generate custom audiences for targeted advertising and to refine its own ad-serving algorithms. The court emphasized that while "the Complaint describes the functionality of the Pixel in considerable detail," the plaintiff's "case cannot ride solely on the general or theoretical capabilities of the Pixel. The Pixel must have captured and disclosed his personal financial information to state a claim." The court found that the plaintiff "merely alleges that he is a TD customer and that he accessed his TD account through TD's website while logged into his Facebook account. Nowhere does he allege which pages he visited, what financial products he viewed or applied for, or what information of his—if any—was actually transmitted from his browser to Meta. The court noted that "there is no allegation that Meta received Plaintiff's Facebook ID, that any specific event occurred during his website session, that Meta was able to identify him as a TD customer, or that he received any targeted advertisements from third parties. Judge Bumb distinguished this case from successful similar cases like Shah v. Capital One Financial Corp., noting that in Shah, the plaintiffs alleged that they had applied for credit cards via defendant's website and that certain plaintiffs were approved while others were denied." The Shah complaint also "provided screenshots showing the exact data captured and disclosed by the Pixel when a user applied for a credit card on defendant's website. Judge Bumb explained that "the allegations in these cases are abundant, specific, and well-pled. They do not rely on generalities or hypotheticals alone." In contrast, the plaintiff's "allegations here fall short" because he "improperly relies on the general functionality of the Pixel and its hypothetical capacity to transmit sensitive information." The court also addressed the defendant's standing argument regarding the multistate claims. The court found that the plaintiff, as a New York resident, lacks standing to assert claims under the laws of states in which he neither resides nor alleges any injury." The court explained that "a named plaintiff in a putative class action must establish standing for each claim he seeks to assert" and that "a plaintiff cannot assert a claim under the law of a state where he does not reside or did not suffer any injury. The court concluded that "each of Plaintiff's causes of action rests on the premise that TD wrongfully disclosed Plaintiff's personal financial information to a third party. Yet there are no well-pled allegations as to what personal financial information belonging to Plaintiff was allegedly improperly disclosed." The court determined that "without well-pled factual allegations establishing that TD disclosed Plaintiff's personal financial information, Plaintiff cannot plead the necessary elements of his claims, such as a breach of duty, causation, injury, or deception." Accordingly, the court dismissed "the Complaint in its entirety without prejudice on this ground." The court also dismissed the multistate unfair and deceptive trade practices claims under these states' laws without prejudice to renewal if a properly alleged representative from those jurisdictions is later added to the action. A copy of the court's opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=H1i8mk TD BANK: Cross-Bids for Summary Judgment Tossed in Dou Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINA DOU, et al., v. TD BANK N.A., Case No. 1:23-cv-04880-JPO (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge J. Paul Oetken entered an order denying the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. The Plaintiffs shall file any motion for class certification within 14 days of the publication of this opinion. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motions at ECF Numbers 103, 108, 127, and 129. Having reviewed the evidence, the Court concludes that there are unresolved factual disputes precluding summary judgment, which may be granted only if there is "no genuine dispute as to any material fact," considering the evidence "in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw[ing] all reasonable inferences in its favor," Moreover, TD Bank has not even conclusively proved that it adhered to the 2014 Agreement. While TD identifies one email it received from the Partnership requesting the release of $900,000.00 from escrow, the summary judgment record is devoid of any subsequent written requests. Thus, TD has proven at most that it was authorized to release $900,000, not the approximately $45 million it did release. The Plaintiffs are Chinese investors who allege that TD Bank, N.A. improperly released their investment funds from escrow, thereby allowing the funds to be misappropriated. TD filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court granted in part. The parties have filed crossmotions for summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' remaining claims. TD argues that the Plaintiffs' claims arise from a forged escrow agreement. However, while TD raises real questions as to the authenticity of the document, there remain triable disputes, and the parties’ cross-motions must be denied. TD is an American national bank and a subsidiary of TD Bank Group. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated July 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Mvhgz6 at no extra charge.[CC] THG NUTRITION: Chavez Sues Over False Advertising of Product Prices ------------------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN CHAVEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THG NUTRITION US INC. d/b/a US.MYPROTEIN.COM, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05014 (S.D.N.Y., June 13, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising of its products and pricing scheme on its website. According to the complaint, the Defendant violated California law by falsely advertising goods on "sale" from fictitious former prices. In truth, the "sales" are perpetual as the products are always sold at a purportedly discounted price, and never at the original reference prices displayed on its website. THG Nutrition US Inc., doing business as us.myprotein.com, is a manufacturer of sports nutrition and health and wellness products, headquartered in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Janove, Esq. JANOVE PLLC 500 7th Ave., 8th Floor New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (646) 347-3940 Email: raphael@janove.law TUFT & NEEDLE: Chebul Seeks Leave to File Docs Under Seal --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EMILY CHEBUL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TUFT & NEEDLE, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02707-JLS-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff ask the Court granting application for leave to file under seal. Pursuant to Civil L.R. 79-5.2.2, Plaintiff moves the Court to consider whether the following Tuft & Needle materials should be sealed. Plaintiff has reviewed and complied with Civil L.R. 79-5.2.2, and counsel contacted the designating parties in an attempt to eliminate or minimize the need for filing under seal by means of redaction. The materials that the Plaintiff seeks to file provisionally under seal are identified in the following chart: Document Portion(s) to Seal The Plaintiff's motion for class Identified text appearing certification on pages 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Declaration of Colin Weir in Identified text appearing support of the Plaintiff's motion on pages 16, 26, and 27. for class certification The information designated above has been designated as containing confidential information by counsel for Defendant Tuft & Needle, LLC. For those documents filed publicly with redactions, the Plaintiff has highlighted the specific redacted portions in the versions filed under seal. Tuft is a manufacturer of mattresses and craft beds. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RJ0X5n at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Lyon, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. Martin Brenner, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: rick@dovel.com simon@dovel.com martin@dovel.com TUFT & NEEDLE: Chebul Suit Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EMILY CHEBUL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TUFT & NEEDLE, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02707-JLS-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Sept. 26, 2025, will move the Court to certify a class of: "All persons who, during the class period, purchased one or more mattress product advertised at a discount from the Defendant's website while in the State of California." Excluded from the Class are persons who received a full refund on their purchase, any Judge or Magistrate presiding over this case, the Defendant and its employees or affiliates, anyone who opts out, anyone who has previously released their claims, and the Plaintiff's and the Defendant's counsel and experts. The Defendant markets and sells mattress products. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dBqlAN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Lyon, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. Martin Brenner, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: rick@dovel.com simon@dovel.com martin@dovel.com TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Settlement Approval Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL EDGE, MICHAEL J. DENNEHY and RALPH ESTEP, v. TUPPERWARE BRANDS CORPORATION, MIGUEL FERNANDEZ and CASSANDRA HARRIS, Case No. 6:22-cv-01518-RBD-LHP (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Leslie Hoffman Price entered an order denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The Plaintiffs and Defendants Miguel Fernandez and Cassandra Harris consented to the undersigned's jurisdiction to resolve this motion and all forthcoming motions for final settlement approval. Although the motion is unopposed, there are several issues therewith and its attachments that prevent the Court from granting it at this time. Tupperware is an American multinational company known for its kitchen and home products. A copy of the Court's order dated July 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aVBHck at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED PARCEL: Malone's Reply Due July 25 ----------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL MALONE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-03643-JDW (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Joshua D. Wolson entered an order that the Plaintiffs may file a reply to UPS's response to their motion for class certification on or before July 25, 2025. The Court further entered an order that my prior Order is amended as follows: Michael Malone's fee petition, as contemplated in my prior Order is due by Aug. 8, 2025. The fee petition and any responses (including any reply briefing) shall be filed in the form prescribed and by the deadlines set forth in my Policies and Procedures and in accordance with the Court's Local Rules of Civil Procedure. United is an American multinational shipping & receiving and supply chain management company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TCZYhD at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED SERVICES: Class Cert. Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tomczak et al v. United Services Automobile Association, et al., Case No. 5:21-cv-01564 (D.S.C., Filed May 26, 2021), the Hon. Judge Mary Geiger Lewis entered an order referring the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class, and Plaintiffs' Motion to Deny Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Preclude Defendants from Using a Report to Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges for entry of a Report and Recommendation. The nature of suit states Contract -- Insurance. United is a financial services company that primarily serves members of the U.S. military, veterans, and their families.[CC] UNITED STATES: Goodman Sues Over Wrongful Termination of NOAA Staff ------------------------------------------------------------------- ARIANNA GOODMAN, SARAH SCOTT, CHRISTINE BUCKEL, and JENNIFER RAULIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HOWARD LUTNICK, in his official capacity as Secretary of Commerce; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; LAURA GRIMM, in her official capacity as Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA Administrator; NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION; AMY GLEASON, in her official capacity as DOGE Administrator; U.S. DOGE SERVICE; U.S. DOGE SERVICE TEMPORARY ORGANIZATION; CHARLES EZELL, in his official capacity as Acting Director of U.S. Office of Personnel Management; U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT; RUSSELL VOUGHT, in his official capacity as Director of Office of Management and Budget; and OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, Defendants, Case No. 8:25-cv-02097-LKG (D. Md., June 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Privacy Act and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to maintain personnel records with accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness in connection with the mass termination of probationary employees at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). According to the complaint, the Defendants' maintenance of inaccurate, irrelevant, untimely, and incomplete records led to the wrongful termination of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated probationary employees at NOAA based on supposedly poor job performance. As a result, the Plaintiffs and the Class suffered damages. U.S. Department of Commerce is a government agency in the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is a government agency in the U.S. U.S. DOGE Service is a government agency in the U.S. U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization is a government agency in the U.S. U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is a government agency in the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is a government agency in the U.S. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jessica Merry Samuels, Esq. Clayton L. Bailey, Esq. CIVIL SERVICE LAW CENTER LLP 1325 G. Street NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 571-7840 Email: jsamuels@civilservicellp.com UNITED STATES: HUD Sued Over Refusal to Spend Appropriated Funds ---------------------------------------------------------------- NATIONAL FAIR HOUSING ALLIANCE, on behalf of itself and those similarly situated, and TENNESSEE FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL, Plaintiffs v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT and SCOTT TURNER, in his official capacity as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01965 (D.D.C., June 24, 2025) concerns the Defendant's refusal to abide by the Constitution and laws duly enacted by Congress and to spend funds that Congress has appropriated. The U.S. Congress amended the Fair Housing Act in 1992 to establish the Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP), which provides grants to certain private, nonprofit fair housing organizations -- like Plaintiffs -- to facilitate enforcement of the Act. According to the complaint, despite more than 30 years of unbroken interdependence between the federal government and fair housing organizations, HUD is now ignoring its FHIP mandate by refusing to spend appropriated funds. HUD is neither administering existing grants nor awarding new grants from pending application cycles. Specifically, HUD is refusing to implement the second and third years of existing multi-year awards and refusing to make additional grant awards under the FY2024 funding cycle. This loss of funding will harm Plaintiffs, NFHA members, and members of the class, asserts the complaint. Many affected organizations will be forced to curtail or cease operations, which will harm the individuals who rely on the services of privates fair housing organizations to access housing -- senior citizens, disabled veterans, people with disabilities, voucher recipients, survivors of domestic violence, and other home seekers, the complaint adds. The Plaintiffs seek to compel HUD to abide by the law and to administer FHIP grants, including prospective injunctive relief ordering HUD to (1) administer existing Private Enforcement Initiative grants by implementing years two and three for the Active PEI Class; and (2) award and obligate outstanding FY2024 appropriations pursuant to the FY2024 Notices of Funding Opportunity. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development is an executive branch agency of the United States government. It is charged with administering a variety of federal housing programs, including the Fair Housing Initiative Program grants at issue in this Complaint.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lila Miller, Esq. Reed Colfax, Esq. Robert Hunter, Esq. RELMAN COLFAX PLLC 1225 19th Street NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 728-1888 Facsimile: (202) 728-0848 E-mail: lmiller@relmanlaw.com rcolfax@relmanlaw.com rhunter@relmanlaw.com UNITED STATES: Parties Seek More Time to File Responsive Pleading ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CATHERINE JACKSON, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR., in his official capacity as Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01750-BAH (D.D.C.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order: -- extending the Defendants' responsive pleading deadline by three weeks from Aug. 4, 2025, to Aug. 25, 2025; and -- staying the 90-day deadline for the Plaintiffs to move for class certification pursuant to LCvR 23(b). Accordingly, the parties propose to stay the current deadline and set forth a briefing schedule for Plaintiffs' anticipated motion for class certification in the report regarding the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) and LCvR 16.3. If necessary, that conference would follow resolution of Defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss A three-week extension of the Defendants' responsive pleading deadline is necessary to accommodate the Defendants' and agency counsels' competing professional obligations and personnel limitations resulting from previously-scheduled leave. The parties submit that class certification will be most efficiently addressed following resolution of the Defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs also anticipate seeking pre-certification discovery. The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on June 3, 2025. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is a cabinet-level department within the executive branch of the U.S. federal government. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=trJQcs at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Clayton L. Bailey, Esq. Jessica Merry Samuels, Esq. CIVIL SERVICE LAW CENTER LLP 1325 G Street NW, Suite 500, PMB 801 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 571-7836 E-mail: cbailey@civilservicellp.com The Defendants are represented by: Brett A. Shumate, Esq. Elizabeth J. Shapiro, Esq. Alexander W. Resar, Esq. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL DIVISION, FEDERAL PROGRAMS BRANCH 1100 L ST. N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 616-8188 E-mail: alexander.w.resar@usdoj.gov UNITED STATES: Vera Bid for Class Cert Denied as Moot ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE, et al., v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01643-APM (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Amit P. Mehta entered an order that Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction is denied and the Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied as moot. Department of Justice enforces federal laws. A copy of the Court's order dated July 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zb7ous at no extra charge.[CC] UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS: Fails to Protect Info, Miller Says --------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS DARTMOUTH, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-11814-PBS (D. Mass., June 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information, stored within Defendant's information network. Early 2025, upon information and belief, unauthorized third-party cybercriminals gained access to Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII as hosted with Defendant, with the intent of engaging in the misuse of the PII, including marketing and selling Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII. According to the complaint, the Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. As a result, the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party -- an undoubtedly nefarious third party that seeks to profit off this disclosure by defrauding Plaintiff and Class Members in the future, says the suit. University of Massachusetts Dartmouth is a public research university in Dartmouth, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Reardon, Esq. REARDON SCANLON LLP 45 South Main Street, 3rd Floor West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 944-9455 E-mail: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com UPMC BENEFIT: Class Cert. Hearing Set for Dec. 1, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LIVINGSTON v. UPMC BENEFIT MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00914 (W.D. Pa., Filed June 25, 2024), the Hon. Judge Robert J. Colville entered an order as follows: -- Rule 23 Class Certification Hearing Dec. 1, 2026 set for: The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). UPMC provides insurance agent and broker services.[CC] UTILITY TRAFFIC: Moore Files Class Suit in California State Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Utility Traffic Control Services, Inc., et al. The case is captioned as SEAN MOORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UTILITY TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No. CGC25626696 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., June 27, 2025). The case type is stated as other non-exempt complaints. A case management conference is set for November 26, 2025, before Judge Rochelle East. Utility Traffic Control Services, Inc. is a traffic control services provider based in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. MOON LAW GROUP, PC 725 S. Figueroa St., 31st Fl. Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 232-3128 Email: kmoon@moonlawgroup.com VEGAS.COM LLC: Nixon Suit Removed to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Matthew Nixon and Markus Cohn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VEGAS.COM, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company, Case No. 25CV012391 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on July 7, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-05688-CRB. On May 23, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Complaint ("CAC") which sets forth three causes of action: a purported violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act; a purported violation of the California Unfair Competition Law; and a purported violation of the California False Advertising Law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Warren Metlitzky, Esq. Liz Kim, Esq. CONRAD | METLITZKY | KANE LLP 217 Leidesdorff Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 343-7100 Fax: (415) 343-7101 Email: wmetlitzky@conmetkane.com lkim@conmetkane.com - and - Timothy B. Hardwicke, Esq. Kathryn L. Couey, Esq. Miranda E. Wargo, Esq. Glenna E. Siegel, Esq. GOODSMITH GREGG & UNRUH LLP 150 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 3150 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 322-1980 Fax: (312) 322-0056 Email: thardwicke@ggulaw.com kcouey@ggulaw.com mwargo@ggulaw.com gsiegel@ggulaw.com VILLA VIE: Doerr Suit Seeks Sales Representatives' Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------------ HOLGER DOERR and MELISSA AUTRY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VILLA VIE RESIDENCES CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, MIKAEL PETTERSON, and KATHRYN VILLALBA, and VVR HOSPITALITY LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Defendants, Case No. 0:25-cv-61311 (S.D. Fla., June 27, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs Doerr and Autry were employed as non-exempt inside sales representatives from September 15, 2023, through November 26, 2024, and from March 27, 2024, through November 26, 2024, respectively. Villa Vie Residences Corporation is a residential cruising services provider, with its principal place of business in Broward County, Florida. VVR Hospitality LLC is a hospitality company, with its principal place of business in Broward County, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kenneth L. Minerley, Esq. MINERLEY FEIN, P.A. 1200 N. Federal Highway, Suite 420 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 362-6699 Facsimile: (561) 447-9884 Email: ken@minerleyfein.com VOLUME SERVICES: Garcia Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled MARIA C. GARCIA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. VOLUME SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV12655, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 30, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-05964 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to pay reimbursement expenses, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to pay all wages at termination, and unfair competition. Volume Services, Inc. is a company that provides food, merchandise, and other services for entertainment and convention venues, doing business in California. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Alexander M. Chemers, Esq. Matthew R. Richardson, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239-9800 Facsimile: (213) 239-9045 Email: zander.chemers@ogletree.com matthew.richardson@ogletree.com WAKE COUNTY, NC: Appeals Court Order Rejecting Motion to Dismiss ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wake County, North Carolina; Valerie Mitchell; Cindy Evans; and Cindy Wolfe have taken an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit from the Hon. Terrence W. Boyle's denial of their Motion to Dismiss the case captioned as VANES SA AGUILAR AYALA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:24-CV-524-BO-KS (E.D.N.C.). Plaintiff filed this putative class action seeking compensatory and punitive damages for the alleged failure to train and supervise James Otis Perry, a certified nurse assistant employed by defendant Wake County in its prenatal clinics, following Perry's surreptitious recording of countless women without their permission during their medical appointments. According to the allegations in plaintiff's complaint, Perry was employed by defendant Wake County from November 2011 until his termination in September 2021. Perry worked in two prenatal clinics, one on East Millbrook Road and one on Sunnybrook Road, both in Raleigh, North Carolina. Perry would film unsuspecting patient and other while they were naked or otherwise exposed in the bathroom or during medical examination. Perry's actions were discovered by a Wake County employee in September 2021, who reported it to Wake County. Perry was arrested and pleaded guilty to multiple felony charges. Plaintiff filed this action against Perry's employer, Wake County, as well as his nursing supervisor Valerie Mitchell, Cindy Evans, and Cindy Wolfe. Plaintiff allege claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against the supervisor defendant for failure to supervise Perry and against Wake County for failure to train and supervise Perry and for failure to supervise the supervisor defendant. Plaintiff further bring state law claims against the supervisor defendant for negligence and gross negligence as well as negligent infliction of emotional distress. Spousal class representative plaintiff also brings a claim for loss of consortium against all defendant. Defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint on several grounds. First, defendant argue that plaintiff's claims are barred by the rule against claim-splitting. Next, defendant contended that the prior pending action doctrine bars plaintiff's complaint. Defendant further argued that plaintiff's Section 1983 claim against the supervisor defendant for failure to supervise fails to state a claim because plaintiff have not alleged an underlying constitutional violation and the supervisor defendant lacked sufficient knowledge. Defendant sought dismissal of plaintiff's Monell claims, dismissal of the loss of consortium claim because the complaint is barred by the claim-splitting and prior pending action doctrines, and finally dismissal of plaintiff's punitive damages claim. The Court found that defendant's arguments relating to claim-splitting, prior pending action as well as Colorado River abstention are based on the existence of a lawsuit brought by the same plaintiff in Wake County Superior Court. The Court determined that "the rule against claim-splitting is inapplicable here and does not bar plaintiff's claims. Upon careful examination of the prior pending action doctrine, the Court noted that while the plaintiff and Wake County are or were parties to both actions, Perry is named only in the Superior Court action and the supervisor defendant are named only in this action. Federal claims have been alleged in this case, but not in the Superior Court action. Therefore, dismissal under the prior pending action doctrine is not necessary. According to the Court, abstention under Colorado River is not appropriate because there is no dispute that this Court has jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims, and defendant have made no persuasive argument that any exceptional circumstances exist which would support abstention. Section 1983 and Monell Claims The Court disagreed with defendant's argument that plaintiff have failed to plausibly allege their Section 1983 claims against the supervisor defendant and Wake County. Regarding supervisory liability, the Court found that plaintiff have adequately pleaded their Section 1983 failure to supervise claim against the supervisor defendant. Plaintiff have alleged that the supervisor defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of Perry's conduct, that the supervisor defendant failed to train Perry on patient privacy or the right to not be recorded or photographed during medical visits, and that the failure by the supervising defendant to adequately train Perry constituted deliberate indifference to plaintiff's rights as well as tacit approval of Perry's action, which occurred over a period of at least five years. The Court addressed defendant's contention that plaintiff have failed to allege a constitutional right which was violated by Perry. The Court noted that "the constitutional right to privacy extends to two types of interests: one is the individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters, and another is the interest in independence in making certain kinds of important decisions." The Court found that photographing and filming plaintiff's bodies while they used the bathroom and received obstetric and gynecological examination plausibly forced them to disclose highly personal and sensitive information, which they reasonably expected would not be subject to public scrutiny. Similarly, the Court found that plaintiff have plausibly alleged their claim for failure to train and supervise Perry against Wake County. Plaintiff have alleged that Wake County had actual or constructive knowledge of Perry's action, that those action took place over a period of years, and that the failure to provide Perry with training regarding patient privacy amounted to tacit authorization or deliberate indifference. The Court declined to dismiss plaintiff's request for punitive damages, noting that whether punitive damages are available will depend first on whether compensatory damages may be awarded. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jOvuuO WATA INC: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert. Bid by August 29 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACOB KNIGHT, JACK CRIBBS, and JASON DOHSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WATA, INC., and COLLECTORS UNIVERSE, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-01873-GPG-TPO (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Gordon P. Gallagher entered a scheduling order setting the deadlines for briefing Plaintiffs' Third Motion for Class Certification as follows: -- Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file Aug. 29, 2025 their third motion for class certification: -- Deadline for the Defendants to file Sept. 30, 2025 their opposition to the Plaintiffs' third motion for class certification: -- Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file Oct. 14, 2025: reply brief in support of their third motion for class certification: Wata operates as a video games company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=166u67 at no extra charge.[CC] WAYFAIR LLC: Rodriguez Balks at Misleading Sale Prices ------------------------------------------------------ REBEKA RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WAYFAIR LLC, a Delaware entity, d/b/a WWW.WAYFAIR.COM, Defendant, Case No. 25STCV18387 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 24, 2025) alleges that Defendant deceived consumers including Plaintiff by advertising the price of the product in a misleading manner in violation of the California's False Advertising Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The Defendant, through its Website, offers products for sale to California consumers. The Defendant advertises fictitious prices (and corresponding phantom discounts) on such products. This practice allows Defendant to fabricate a fake "reference" price, and present the actual price as "discounted," when it is not, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff alleges that the pricing and advertising practices reflecting high-pressure fake sales are patently deceptive. They are intended to mislead customers into believing that they are getting a bargain by buying products from Defendant on sale and at a substantial and deep discount. The reference price is, therefore, an artificially inflated price. In turn, the advertised discounts are nothing more than phantom markdowns, says the suit. On May 12, 2025, the Plaintiff purchased "Weather Resistant Rabbit Hutch" from Defendant for the "discounted" price of $159.99, which Defendant compared to a "strike-through" reference price of $269.99. Wayfair LLC is an American e-commerce company based in Boston, Massachusetts that sells furniture and home goods online.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com WEDGE MEDICAL: Krisch et al. Allege WARN Act Violations ------------------------------------------------------- SUSAN KRISCH, EBONIE CHAMPION, and JESSE GEGUZIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE WEDGE MEDICAL CENTER, INC., WMC, ARMAND MAGUNDAYAO, MINDA MAGUNDAYAO, and JASON MCLAUGHLIN, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-03448 (E.D. Pa., July 7, 2025) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have improperly terminated them and a class of similarly-situated former employees without 60 days' advance written notice as required by the WARN Act. The Plaintiffs further contend that Defendants unlawfully failed to pay them and a class of similarly-situated former employees wages for paid time off used prior to the end of their employment with Defendants, in violation of the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs bring this action as a representative action under the WARN Act and WPCL for monetary damages and penalties, to seek redress for Defendants' willful, unlawful, and improper conduct Based in Philadelphia, PA, The Wedge Medical Center, Inc. provides outpatient mental health, substance abuse, and psychiatric rehabilitation services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jake Daniel Novelli, Esq. Michael Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC 1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 2000 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 273-1054 Facsimile: (215) 525-0210 E-mail: jnovelli@phillyemploymentlawyer.com murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com WESTGATE RESORTS: Court Excludes Portion of Expert Testimony ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as MARILYN MOORE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WESTGATE RESORTS LTD., L.P., a/k/a Westgate Resorts, LTD., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-410-DCLC-JEM (E.D. Tenn.), United States Magistrate Judge Jill E. McCook of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions of Howard Nusbaum. The Court excluded two categories of expert opinions from Howard Nusbaum while allowing a third category to proceed. The case involves purchasers of timeshares at Westgate Smoky Mountain Resort who allege that Defendant used "a high-pressure scheme that involves convincing prospective purchasers to buy into their vacation timeshare program while failing to adequately disclose material and legally required information to buyers." On September 25, 2018, Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint, and subsequently filed the Third Amended Class Action Complaint on July 17, 2020. The plaintiffs allege that Defendant failed to disclose material facts to timeshare purchasers by: (1) failing to "adequately train or to supervise their sales agents, and, encouraging their sales agents to utilize high-pressure sales tactics," (2) providing "their sales and closing agents with a folio to give to purchasers with the purchasers' documentation; however, the folios provided by the Defendant contain a 'secret pocket' which Defendant know their sales and closing agents often use to conceal the required disclosures," (3) failing to "adequately disclose to purchasers that they are not purchasing a share in a specific unit but are instead buying into a 'floating use plan,'" (4) failing to "adequately disclose that the Defendant may delay delivery of a deed to the purchasers for a period of years," and (5) failing to "disclose to purchasers that because Defendant oversell and artificially restrict the availability of Resort properties they will not be able to use their timeshare purchase as advertised or as would be reasonably expected." The plaintiffs bring claims for violations of the Tennessee Time-Share Act of 1981, unjust enrichment, fraudulent misrepresentation by omission, fraud in the inducement, negligent misrepresentation by omission, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of contract, and civil conspiracy. In June 2020, Defendant disclosed Howard Nusbaum as an expert witness. Nusbaum was the president and chief executive officer of American Resort Development Association from 2000 to 2019. During his time with ARDA, he "led all three of its not-for-profit organizations and was responsible for leading the team that worked closely with regulators and lawmakers interpreting and educating on specific timeshare laws and regulations." Nusbaum provides an overview of timeshare history and its industry and regulatory matters, then sets forth his disagreements with Plaintiffs' expert, Kenneth Free. The parties dispute whether Nusbaum's three opinions about Free's opinions are relevant and reliable. The Court excluded Nusbaum's opinions regarding Defendant's sales practices. According to Plaintiffs, "Nusbaum opined that 'Free's assertions that somehow Defendant did not adequately or clearly disclose information about the use plan and booking availability is truly perplexing and is just plain wrong.'" The Court found that "Nusbaum's opinions about Defendant's sales practices are not helpful and will be excluded." The Court explained that "it is well within the experience of common men to determine whether availability was accurately and adequately disclosed." The Court noted that "similar to Free's opinion, Nusbaum does not discuss the industry standards to which he refers. The Court excluded Nusbaum's opinion about Defendant's corporate structure. Plaintiffs argued that "Nusbaum's opinion that Defendant's use of multiple company entities is 'legal' is obviously, a legal conclusion, and thus, inadmissible." The Court agreed that "Nusbaum's discussion of Defendant's structure is not reliable. During his deposition, Nusbaum stated that he did not "read any financial documents showing the interrelationship of the various Defendant entities in connection with the Resort" and his expert report reflects that he "did not review any documents regarding the relationships between the various Defendant entities." The Court concluded that Nusbaum therefore "has no basis to opine that Defendant's corporate structure" "is common-place, legal, and quite appropriate." The Court declined to exclude Nusbaum's statements about Free's claims of being a key founder of Hilton Grand Vacations Company. According to Plaintiffs, "Nusbaum takes particular issue with the background and qualifications of Plaintiffs' expert Kenneth Free." The Court found that "Nusbaum's statements appear to be factual testimony as opposed to expert testimony." The Court explained that Nusbaum's statement flows from his "two-decade experience" in the timeshare industry and his role in collecting information for commemorative publications. The Court noted that Plaintiffs' challenges "go to the weight of Nusbaum's statements" rather than admissibility, stating that "it is not proper for the Court to exclude expert testimony 'merely because the factual bases for an expert's opinion are weak.'" The Court applied the Daubert standard for expert testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The Court noted that "Rule 702 obligates judges to ensure that any scientific testimony or evidence admitted is relevant and reliable." The Court explained that "a party must show, by a 'preponderance of proof,' that the witness will testify in a manner that will ultimately assist the trier of fact in understanding and resolving the factual issues involved in the case." Therefore, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions of Nusbaum. The Court excluded Nusbaum's opinions regarding sales practices and corporate structure while allowing his statements about Free's qualifications to proceed. A copy of the court's Memorandum and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=y9603z WINN WINN: Leonard Sues Over Withheld Tips and Unpaid Proper Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOSEPH LEONARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WINN WINN LLC, AUDREY PLANT, and NATALIE DISABATO ROTHSCHILD, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00716-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio, June 27, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for withholding tips and failure to pay proper wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. Mr. Leonard was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt barista beginning May 2024 through approximately April of 2025. Winn Winn LLC is the owner of Winn Winn Cafe, located at 1212 W. 3rd Avenue, Columbus, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Contreras, Esq. CONTRERAS LAW, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Road Suite 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 787-4878 Facsimile: (614) 957-7515 Email: peter.contreras@contrerasfirm.com WISCONSIN DOC: Prison Officers Class Action May Proceed ------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as NICOLE MCDANIEL, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents-Petitioners, v. WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant-Appellant, No. 2022AP1759, Justice Janet C. Protasiewicz of the Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals decision and remanded the case to the circuit court for further proceedings. The Wisconsin Department of Corrections employs corrections officers and sergeants at prisons around the state. The DOC employs these officers to supervise prison inmates and maintain the security of prisons. The DOC pays officers for shifts covering the time spent at post but requires that officers complete activities before and after they arrive at their post, and by policy, it does not pay the officers for that time. Pre-shift activities include: "passing bags through X-ray machines; reporting to a supervisor to receive a daily posting and submit to visual inspection; proceeding through the prison, including clearing secured gates and sally ports; and obtaining equipment like keys, radios, and pepper spray." Post-shift activities include: "waiting, if necessary, for incoming staff to relieve officers from their posts; providing shift-change briefing to incoming staff; proceeding out of the prison, including clearing secured gates and sally ports; and returning equipment." The Plaintiff presents evidence that "while completing these activities -- indeed, at all times while in the prisons -- the officers must remain vigilant and may need to respond to emergency situations." The DOC employs approximately 5,000 corrections officers at 37 prisons across the state. The Plaintiff seeks certification of a class of prison staff, specifically: All current and former non-exempt, hourly-paid DOC employees who worked as security personnel in a correctional institution (including but not limited to Correctional Officers and Correctional Sergeants) in the State of Wisconsin at any time during the period starting two years before this action commenced through the date of judgment. Two named plaintiffs -- Nicole McDaniel and Matthew Davis -- requested appointment as class representatives. Nicole McDaniel was a correctional officer at a maximum security prison. Matthew Davis is a transportation officer at a correctional mental health care center. The Plaintiff contends that the pre- and post-shift activities are "integral and indispensable" to a correctional officer's principal activities, and thus are compensable under Wisconsin regulations. The Plaintiff argues that officers should be compensated for all time spent in the prisons because they must remain vigilant at all times while in the prisons. She also cites the "continuous workday" rule, under which a paid workday runs from an employee's first principal activity to her last principal activity. The circuit court granted the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. It determined that she made a "plausible" argument that the officers are entitled to compensation for the pre- and post-shift activities. The court also determined that the class met the requirements for class certification in Wisconsin Statute Section 803.08(1)(a)-(d) and (2)(c). The court of appeals reversed, holding that the class was improperly certified. The court focused on the overlap between the merits and the requirements of commonality and typicality. It said "a consideration of the merits of this case cannot be separated from the preliminary procedural question concerning certification of the proposed class action." The court reviewed whether the Plaintiff's claims for compensation "remain viable" under substantive law and determined that the employees' pre- and post-shift activities "are not compensable." The Wisconsin Supreme Court addressed the fundamental question of whether a court should consider the merits of the underlying claim when assessing class certification requirements. The Court clarified that "a court should not consider the viability of the class's claim on the merits when addressing commonality and typicality." The Court followed the approach from Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds, holding that a court has no license to engage in free-ranging merits inquiries at the certification stage. The Court stated that merits questions may be considered to the extent -- but only to the extent -- that they are relevant to determining whether the prerequisites for class certification are satisfied. The Court found that the Plaintiff presents a common question regarding compensability: "Is the officers' pre- and post-shift work sufficiently 'integral and indispensable' to the shift work to be compensable?" The Court determined that "answering the compensability question will resolve an issue that is central to the DOC's liability in one stroke. The Court rejected the Defendant's arguments that there is no common question because compensability may vary from officer to officer. The Court noted that the Plaintiff "does not rely on an officer-by-officer, activity-by-activity analysis" and that "thousands of officers are employed in the same role and complete the same activities. The Court found that the claims of the two class representatives arise from the same course of conduct as other class members and are based on the same legal theory. The Court rejected the Defendant's argument that typicality is not met because the claims would fail on the merits, reiterating that courts should not look at the viability of the class's claim on the merits when assessing typicality. The Court determined that the common question of compensability predominates over individualized questions. The Court found that "the compensation policies apply to the whole class and that officers across all institutions are required to complete pre- and post-shift activities. Regarding damages, the Court noted that the presence of individualized questions regarding damages does not prevent certification under the predominance requirement. The Court found that the Plaintiff's expert could determine how much time officers spend in the prisons through representative security footage analysis. The Court found that class action is superior to individual wage claims because each individual officer would face significant cost and effort to navigate a wage claim. The Court rejected the Defendant's arguments about unmanageability, noting that a single expert would be providing damages data rather than individual employees reporting their own work-hour data. The Court concluded that at the class certification stage, a court's role is not to adjudicate the case; rather, it is to select the method best suited to adjudication of the controversy fairly and efficiently. The Court found that the circuit court's decision reflects that this case -- which involves state-wide policy affecting thousands of employees -- can be fairly and efficiently resolved in a class action. The Court determined that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in certifying the class, and any decision on the merits is for another day. Accordingly, the Court reversed the court of appeals decision and remanded the case to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. A copy of the Court's opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=q2DUAf WORKFORCE7 INC: Con Edison Seeks to File BPAs Under Seal -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ballast et al., v. Workforce7 Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-03812-ER (S.D.N.Y.), Con Edison asks the Court to enter an order granting request to file its two Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPAs) with Workforce 7 under seal. Therefore, it is imperative to seal Con Edison's unredacted BPAs with Workforce 7, Inc. to protect such sensitive and confidential pricing and cost information. The BPAs are categories of documents "containing trade secrets, revenue [and] pricing information, and the like." Further, the proposed exhibits are not judicial documents that the public is entitled to access. Judicial documents are those that are "relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process.” Moreover, it would be impracticable to further redact the BPAs to protect such information. Redacted versions of the BPAs are already in the record and subject to public review. Workforce7 provides professional flagging services. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=S98yy3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Eli Z. Freedberg, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 900 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022.3298 Telephone: (212) 583-9600 Facsimile: (212) 954-5011 E-mail: efreedberg@littler.com XPO LOGISTICS: Court Denies Motion to Remand Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as ANTHONY REYES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. XPO LOGISTICS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. CV 23-00094 TJH (SHKx), Judge Terry Julius Hatter Jr. of the United States District Court for the Central District of California denied the plaintiff's motion to remand the case to state court. The court ruled that the amount in controversy for removed cases is determined as of the date of removal. Later developments cannot be used to defeat jurisdiction. On October 17, 2023, Reyes filed this putative class action in San Bernardino County Superior Court on behalf of all non-exempt employees who were employed by defendants XPO Logistics, Inc., XPO Logistics Freight, Inc., GXO Logistics, Inc., and GXO Logistics Supply Chain, Inc. beginning four years prior to the filing of the complaint. From September 2020 to December 2021, Reyes was a non-exempt employee of the XPO defendants. During the class period, the XPO defendants allegedly violated various provisions of California's Labor Code, including failing to provide required rest and meal breaks, failing to pay minimum and overtime wages, failing to reimburse for necessary work expenditures, and failing to provide itemized wage statements. Reyes alleged seven claims: (1) Failure to provide meal breaks, in violation of California Labor Code Section 226.7 and 512; (2) Failure to provide rest breaks, in violation of California Labor Code Section 226.7; (3) Failure to pay minimum wages and overtime, in violation of California Labor Code Section 204, 510, and 1194; (4) Failure to reimburse for expenses, in violation of California Labor Code Section 2802; (5) Failure to provide accurate wage statements, in violation of California Labor Code Section 226 and 1174; (6) Failure to pay wages due upon termination, in violation of California Labor Code Section 201, 202, and 203; and (7) Violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq. On January 18, 2023, the XPO defendants removed the case pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). The XPO defendants asserted in their notice of removal that the proposed class consists of approximately 5,279 members, and that the amount in controversy was at least $15,985,887.00, based on their own damage calculations for waiting time penalties and attorneys' fees. A class action is removable under CAFA where the putative class consists of at least 100 members and the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 for all claims. Reyes argued that the XPO defendants' asserted amount in controversy in their notice of removal was incorrect because on July 12, 2023, about six months after this case was removed, two related cases -- Quijano v. GXO Logistics Supply Chain, Inc., CV 22-01250 TJH, and Carlos v. GXO Logistics Supply Chain, Inc., CV 22-00418 TJH -- settled for $3,000,000. A copy of the Court's order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qTlyxW ********* 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 ***