250724.mbx

250724.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, July 24, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 147 Headlines 1-800-FLOWERS.COM: Radvansky Seeks More Time to File Class Cert 1100 QUITMAN: Mackey Sues Over Property's Architectural Barriers 3M COMPANY: Oliver Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Rendessy Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Snider Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ABLETO INC: Bid to Designate Expert in Sessa Tossed w/o Prejudice AFLAC INC: Fletcher Sues Over Unauthorized Personal Info Access AHOLD DELHAIZE: Fails to Protect Clients' Personal Info, Hart Says ALLIANCE COAL: Settlement Proposal in Branson Gets Initial Nod AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Arce Suit Removed to C.D. California AMAZON.COM SERVICES: McGee Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Calif. ANKER INNOVATIONS: Power Banks Pose Risk of Overheating, Suit Says APPLE INC: Class Certification Hearing in Affinity Due August 8 ASERETH MEDICAL: Mayboroda Sues Over Unpaid Compensations AVENA CONTRACTING: Chirinos Sues Over Failure to Overtime BADIA SPICES: Singer Sues Over Misleading Business Practices BAGELWORKS INC: Robles Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices BAM PIZZA: Bid to Strike West's State Law Class Claims Denied BENELUX CORPORATION: Mertens FLSA Suit Seeks Class Certification BIOHAVEN LTD: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit BRIAR RENO: Jones Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages BURLINGTON INSURANCE: Class Cert Filing in Dockside Due Sept. 22 C & H MOTORS: Yates Seeks Conditional Certification of Collective CANADA: Atikamekw Women Sue Over Non-Consensual Sterilizations CAPITAL VISION SERVICES: McClain Files Suit in N.D. Illinois CARMICHAEL DEVELOPMENT: Plaintiff Wins Conditional Cert Bid CKE RESTAURANTS: Evans Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff COMMUNITY CARE: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $1.09MM CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Faces Class Suit Over Sharing Wage Info COSTA DEL MAR: Bid for More Time to File Response Tossed as Moot DALLAS JONES: Settlement Proposal in McLurg Gets Initial Nod DATAVANT INC: Must File Class Cert Reply by July 24 DATAVANT INC: Seeks Leave to File Supplemental Response DENTSPLY SIRONA: Plaintiff Wins Bid for Class Certification DIAMOND BRACES: Isayeva Bid Conditional Cert Partly OK'd DOLLAR GENERAL: Court Dismisses Fraud Claims Without Prejudice DONALD TRUMP: Barbara Wins Provisional Class Certification Bid DONALD TRUMP: Joshua Harrell's Bid to Intervene in Orr Tossed E4 SERVICES: Ipaye Suit Seeks Conditional Cert of Collective EASY ICE: Faces Rhoden Wage-and-Hour Suit in W.D. Mich. ERIE INDEMNITY COMPANY: Long Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania ERIE INDEMNITY: Faces Hanns Suit Over Compromised Clients' Info FANTASIA TRADING: Hall Sues Over Sale of Defective Power Banks FARMERS HOME: Bids for Class Certification in Wright Due Dec. 8 FIESTA NISSAN: Alvarez Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Texas FINEST VITAMINS: Campos Files Suit in C.D. California FOLSOM INSURANCE: Bid to Compel Discovery Responses OK'd FOOT LOCKER: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With DICK'S Sporting Goods GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Rahaman Suit Over Defective Engines GENERAL MOTORS: Reaches Class Settlement for Defective LC9 Engines GO MACRO: Testone Sues Over Deceptively Marketed Products GOOGLE LLC: Rabin Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification GOOGLE LLC: To Appeal $314.6M Data Class Action Verdict in Calif. GREAT LAKES SERVICES: Fritts Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. HARCROS CHEMICALS: Jefferies Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Emissions HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Agrees to Settle Program Fees' Suit for $18.25MM ISLAND TRANSPORTATION: Denial of Bid to Toss Zatorski Suit Affirmed JERNIGAN CAPITAL: $12-Mil. Settlement in Securities Suit Approved JIMMY BRINGS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Driver Underpayments JM SMUCKER: Jeruchim Seeks to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal JM SMUCKER: Jeruchim Suit Seeks Class Certification JOSEPH STILWELL: Khoshaba Seeks to Seal Class Cert Exhibits JOSEPH STILWELL: Khoshaba Suit Seeks Class Certification KIMBERLY-CLARK: 2nd Cir Vacates Settlement Approval in Wipes Case KRISPY KREME: Pedela Sues Over Data Breach LEGOLAND NEW YORK: Settlement in Demmerle Suit Has Final Approval LENDBEE LLC: Hillow Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California LOEWE MIAMI: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Herrera Says LONDON ALLEY: Freeman Suit Removed to C.D. California LOS ANGELES, CA: Class Cert Hearing Modified to Feb. 6, 2026 LVNV FUNDING: W.D. Pennsylvania Dismisses Howard FDCPA Suit MARC H. BELL: Eaton Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. MCNAMARA CHIROPRACTIC: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia MELNOR INC: Settlement in Douglass Suit Gets Initial OK MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Class Cert Bid in Kruzel Due Feb. 6, 2026 NORTHBAY HEALTH: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $3.6MM OFF LEASH: Bid to Compel Discovery Responses Tossed w/o Prejudice PARADIES SHOPS: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $6.88MM PARTNERS PERSONNEL: Esperon Suit Removed to C.D. California PAUL HESSE: Court Strikes Class Cert Hearing Date in White PRAMUKH NJ LLC: Facility Inaccessible to the Disabled, Cheli Says PROSMILE HOLDINGS: $440,000 Deal in Privacy Suit Gets Prelim. OK PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: $4.75MM Data Breach Suit Deal Gets Prelim OK R.C. BIGELOW: Court Denies Banks' Bid for Prejudgment Interest RB GLOBAL: Fixes Construction Equipment Rental Prices, Hayden Says RENAISSANCE LEARNING: Reisberg Sues for Invasion of Privacy REVERA INC: Pandemic-Era Proposed $25M Class-Action Suit Paused ROBERT KENNEDY: Must File Response to Jackson Complaint by Sept. 5 SAINT ANTHONY: Esteves Sues Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info SAN BERNARDINO, CA: Bids for Reconsideration & Bifurcation Denied SECURITY BENEFIT: Must Oppose Clinton Class Cert Bid by Sept. 29 SENSIO INC: Court Dismisses Claims in Brandon Pressure Cooker Suit SHEIN DISTRIBUTION: Faces Class Suit Over Marketing Text Messages SHOALS AMBULANCE: Underpays Medical Technicians, Osborne Says SONNET BIOTHERAPEUTICS: M&A Investigates Merger With Rorschach STITCH FIX: Judge Declines to Dismiss Securities Class Action Suit SUNSHINE GASOLINE: Property Has Architectural Barriers, Pardo Says T. GOSSETT LLC: Faces Kemp Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages THRIVE AGENCY: Morton Has Until Oct. 9 to Conduct Discovery TREE TOP: Faces Johnson Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices UNITED HEALTHCARE: $3.49MM Class Settlement in Johnson Approved UNITED STATES: Class Certified in Doe Immigration Suit vs. DHS UNITED STATES: Court Won't Enforce Remand Order in Ackerman v. USDA VCE THEATERS: Production of Electronic Discovery Due July 25 WESTERN REFINING: Barden Seeks Extension of Class Cert Bid Filing WORKFORCE7 INC: Bid to Seal Class Opposition Docs OK'd WVMF FUNDING: Bid to Dismiss Claim in Renois Suit Granted in Part YOUNG ADULT: Court Conditionally Certifies Settlement Class ********* 1-800-FLOWERS.COM: Radvansky Seeks More Time to File Class Cert --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ethan Radvansky, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. 1-800-FLOWERS.com, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-02811-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the time for him to file a motion for class certification. The Plaintiff filed this Class Action Complaint, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act on behalf of a national class. The Defendant has not yet responded to the complaint and the Plaintiff will need to conduct discovery and secure expert testimony before a motion for class certification can be filed. 1-800-Flowers.com is a floral and foods gift retailer and distribution company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DjAbA1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com 1100 QUITMAN: Mackey Sues Over Property's Architectural Barriers ---------------------------------------------------------------- KIRK MACKEY, Plaintiff v. 1100 QUITMAN LLC and FIESTA MART, L.L.C., Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-03043 (S.D. Tex., June 30, 2025) is a class action based upon Defendants' failure to remove physical barriers and for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff is required to traverse in a wheelchair and is substantially limited in performing one or more major life activities, including but not limited to: walking and standing. On or about February 9, 2025, he was a customer at "Fiesta Mart," located in Houston, Texas. The Plaintiff travelled to the Property twice before as a customer and as an independent advocate for the disabled, encountered the barriers to access the Property that are detailed in this Complaint, engaged those barriers, suffered legal harm and legal injury, and will continue to suffer such harm and injury as a result of the illegal barriers to access present at the Property, asserts the complaint. 1100 QUITMAN LLC, is the owner or co-owner of the real property and improvements that Fiesta Mart is situated upon and that is the subject of this action.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas S. Schapiro, Esq. THE SCHAPIRO LAW GROUP, P.L 7301-A W. Palmetto Park Rd., #100A Boca Raton, FL 33433 Telephone: (561) 807-7388 E-mail: schapiro@schapirolawgroup.com 3M COMPANY: Oliver Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stayton Oliver, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.) UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-05170-RMG (D.S.C., June 10, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products, and / or as a result of Defendants' fluorochemical products in water. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Quillin, Esq. O'LEARY, SHELTON, CORRIGAN, PETERSON, DALTON, & QUILLIN, LLC 1034 S. Brentwood Blvd., 23rd Fl., PH 1-A, St. Louis, MO 63117 Phone: (314) 405-9000 Facsimile: (314) 405-9999 Email: quillin@osclaw.com 3M COMPANY: Rendessy Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams -------------------------------------------------------------- James Rendessy, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION (f/k/a UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC.); CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT, INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; EIDP, INC. (f/k/a E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY); FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC.; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MSA SAFETY, INC.; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO., INC.; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO THE ANSUL COMPANY; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION (n/k/a RTX CORPORATION); VERIDIAN LIMITED; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-05235-RMG (D.S.C., June 10, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish extremely hot fires involving materials like alcohol, petroleum greases, and other flammable or combustible liquids and gases ("Class B Fires"). AFFF has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B Fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear are made up of a thermal liner, a moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF and/or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products and relied on Defendants' instructions regarding the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products, caused Plaintiff significant and devastating injury. By 2008, Plaintiff was diagnosed with KIDNEY CANCER. Plaintiff suffered, and continues to suffer, the effects of his illness, which was caused by exposure to Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's Firefighting career. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and/or TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his career as a Military Officer and was diagnosed with Kidney Cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promoters, and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF or TOG products or underlying PFAS-containing chemicals used in the production of AFFF or TOG products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gale D. Pearson, Esq. Majed Nachawati, Esq. John W. Raggio, Esq. NACHAWATI LAW GROUP 310 4th Avenue South, Suite 5010 Minneapolis, MN 55415 Phone: (214) 890-0711 Email: gpearson@ntrial.com 3M COMPANY: Snider Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals -------------------------------------------------------- Nora Snider, as personal representative of the estate of Ronald Snider and on behalf of others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION (f/k/a UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC.); CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT, INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; EIDP, INC. (f/k/a E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY); FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC.; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MSA SAFETY, INC.; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO., INC.; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO THE ANSUL COMPANY; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION (n/k/a RTX CORPORATION); VERIDIAN LIMITED; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No 2:25-cv-05177-RMG (D.S.C., June 10, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish extremely hot fires involving materials like alcohol, petroleum greases, and other flammable or combustible liquids and gases ("Class B Fires"). AFFF has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B Fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear are made up of a thermal liner, a moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. PFAS bind to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remain and persist over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulate in the blood and bodies of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body and present significant health risks to humans. Decedent was exposed to and ingested Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products. Decedent was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF. Decedent's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Decedent to be diagnosed with and treated for Kidney Cancer. The Plaintiff alleges that PFAS or PFAS-containing materials developed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, released, sold, and/or used by Defendants in turnouts and Class B foam, as herein alleged, caused Decedent to be exposed to PFAS and/or PFAS-containing materials. Such exposure was a substantial factor and proximate cause of Kidney Cancer and related injuries suffered by the Decedent, as alleged herein, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Nora Snider is the surviving spouse of Ronald Snider, who was exposed to Defendants' defective products as alleged herein and was injured and died as a result. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promoters, and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF or TOG products or underlying PFAS-containing chemicals used in the production of AFFF or TOG products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gale D. Pearson, Esq. Majed Nachawati, Esq. John W. Raggio, Esq. NACHAWATI LAW GROUP 310 4th Avenue South, Suite 5010 Minneapolis, MN 55415 Phone: (214) 890-0711 Email: gpearson@ntrial.com ABLETO INC: Bid to Designate Expert in Sessa Tossed w/o Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sessa v. AbleTo, Inc., Case No. 8:23-cv-02219 (M.D. Fla., Filed Sept. 29, 2023), the Hon. Judge Thomas P. Barber entered an order denying without prejudice the following motions in light of the parties' "Notice of Class Action Settlement" and the Court's July 9, 2025, Order denying without prejudice the parties' summary judgment motions: -- Plaintiff's Motion to Designate an Expert; -- Parties' Joint Motion to Seal Materials Supporting Summary Judgment Briefing; -- Parties' Joint Motion to Seal Materials Supporting Class Certification Briefing; and -- Parties' Joint Motion to Seal Materials Supporting Briefing on Plaintiff's Motion to Designate an Expert. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). AbleTo is a technology-enabled provider of mental health care offering a digital platform to connect people with therapists.[CC] AFLAC INC: Fletcher Sues Over Unauthorized Personal Info Access --------------------------------------------------------------- SANDRA J. FLETCHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AFLAC INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-00216-CDL (M.D. Ga., July 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and invasion of privacy. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach 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: Daniel H. Wirth, Esq. ALONSO & WIRTH 1708 Peachtree Street, NW, Suite 303 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (678) 928-4472 Email: dwirth@alonsowirth.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 AHOLD DELHAIZE: Fails to Protect Clients' Personal Info, Hart Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ MARGARETANNA HART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AHOLD DELHAIZE USA SERVICES, LLC, FOOD LION, LLC, and GIANT FOOD, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00556-TDS-LPA (M.D.N.C., July 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, and breach of confidence. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within their network systems following a data breach between November 5 and 6 of 2024. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Ahold Delhaize USA Services LLC is a services provider for grocery stores in the U.S., headquartered in North Carolina. Food Lion, LLC is a grocery store operator, headquartered in North Carolina. Giant Food, LLC is an American regional supermarket chain headquartered in Landover, Maryland. [BN] The Plaintiff is 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 - Mark S. Reich, Esq. Melissa G. Meyer, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: mreich@zlk.com mmeyer@zlk.com ALLIANCE COAL: Settlement Proposal in Branson Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RANDY BRANSON, et al., v. ALLIANCE COAL, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-00155-RGJ-HBB (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Rebecca Grady Jennings entered an order granting in part and denying in part the parties' joint motion: The parties' settlement proposal is preliminarily approved. The proposed settlement class is: "All current and former non-exempt employees who performed work in the Commonwealth of Kentucky in underground mines or surface coal preparation plants owned or operated by Webster County Coal, LLC, River View Coal, LLC and/or Warrior Coal, LLC between Nov. 4, 2014 and April 22, 2024 ("Branson Relevant Class Period"); "All current and former non-exempt employees who performed work in the Commonwealth of Kentucky in underground mines or surface coal preparation plants owned or operated by Excel Mining, LLC and/or MC Mining, LLC between March 27, 2015 and April 22, 2024 ("Brewer Relevant Class Period"); "All current and former non-exempt employees who performed work in the Commonwealth of Kentucky in underground mines or surface coal preparation plants owned or operated by Sebree Mining, LLC or Hopkins County Coal, LLC between June 24, 2015 and April 22, 2024 ("Johnson Relevant Class Period"); "All current and former non-exempt employees who performed work in the State of Illinois in underground mines or surface coal preparation plants owned or operated by Hamilton County Coal, LLC or White County Coal, LLC between April 9, 2011 and April 22, 2024 ("Cates Relevant Class Period"); "All current and former non-exempt employees who performed work in the State of Indiana in underground mines or surface coal preparation plants at the Gibson North and Gibson South mines, and who were employed by Gibson County Coal, LLC between April 13, 2018 and April 22, 2024 ("Prater Relevant Class Period"); and "All persons who filed, prior to the date of execution of the Parties' Settlement Agreement, a consent to join in Rettig, from the date three years prior to the filing of each such consent, and all other current and former non-exempt employees who performed work in the State of West Virginia in underground mines or surface coal preparation plants owned or operated by Tunnel Ridge, LLC or Mettiki Coal (WV), LLC between April 1, 2021 and April 22, 2024 ("Rettig Relevant Class Period"). The Defendants shall provide Simpluris and Plaintiffs’ counsel with settlement class contact information and serve any outstanding Class Action Fairness Act notices within ten (10) days of this order's entry. The revised proposed notice of settlement is approved. Simpluris is appointed as settlement administrator and SHALL perform the duties and tasks assigned to the settlement administrator in the parties' settlement agreement. Simpluris SHALL distribute the notices within twenty (20) days of this order’s entry. The Plaintiffs shall move for approval of attorney's fees, costs, and service awards no later than ten (10) days before the settlement objection and opt-out deadline. The parties shall move for final approval of class action settlement no later than ten (10) days before this case’s final approval hearing. The final approval hearing remains scheduled for October 23, 2025 at 2:00 p.m. CDT at the U.S. Courthouse, Owensboro, Kentucky. [DE 343]. All matters in this case other than those relating to settlement approval remain stayed. The Plaintiffs are coal miners who allege that the Defendants required them to work pre- and post-shift without due compensation. Alliance is in the natural resources industry. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion & order dated July 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=H9x4nb at no extra charge.[CC] AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Arce Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Andrew Arce, Hyrum Potthast, Martha Lorenzana, and Jose Cardoso, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, as well as fellow Aggrieved Employees v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2512734 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 9, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-01715. The Plaintiffs allege nine causes of action against Amazon: failure to pay all earned wages; failure to pay all earned overtime wages; failure to permit paid 10 minute rest periods; failure to provide 30 minute meal periods; failure to timely pay all earned wages and compensation; failure to pay all earned wages and compensation upon termination of employment; failure to provide lawful wage statements; failure to indemnify for work related expenses; and unfair business practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Megan Cooney, Esq. Jessica M. Pearigen, Esq. Jennifer H. Roges, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1200 Irvine, CA 92612-4412 Phone: 949.451.3800 Facsimile: 949.451.4220 Email: mcooney@gibsondunn.com jpearigen@gibsondunn.com jroges@gibsondunn.com AMAZON.COM SERVICES: McGee Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as CALVIN W. McGEE III, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25CV012481, was removed from the Superior Court of California, Sacramento County to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on June 30, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-at-00851 to the proceeding. In this complaint, the Plaintiff alleges three causes of action against Amazon: (1) failure to authorize and permit rest periods; (2) wage statement penalties; and (3) unfair competition and unfair business practices in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. Among other things, the Plaintiff alleges that putative class members are entitled to unpaid wages, including premiums for missed rest breaks, statutory penalties for inaccurate wage statements, restitution, interest, and attorney's fees and costs. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC is a subsidiary of Amazon.com, Inc. It provides various services, including e-commerce, fulfillment, and web services.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Megan Cooney, Esq. Katie M. Magallanes, Esq. Andrew M. Kasabian, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 3161 Michelson Drive Suite 1200 Irvine, CA 92612-4412 Telephone: (949) 451-3800 Facsimile: (949) 451-4220 ANKER INNOVATIONS: Power Banks Pose Risk of Overheating, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that Anker Innovations faces a proposed class action lawsuit after recalling last month several models of PowerCore lithium-ion portable power banks due to a risk of overheating, fire and/or explosion. According to the 25-page false advertising lawsuit, the Chinese tech company on June 25 announced a global recall of multiple models of its PowerCore 10000 lithium-ion battery-powered portable chargers, which Anker acknowledged "may pose a fire safety risk due to a potential issue with the lithium-ion battery." The filing says that the Anker products at issue, A1263 models sold in the United States between June 2016 and December 2022, may overheat, which may result in the melting of plastic components, smoke and/or fire. Roughly five days later, the suit adds, Anker voluntarily recalled five more power bank models, this time including Power Bank 20000 models, due to the same fire risk plaguing the lithium-ion batteries. Although Anker touts itself as a company that "takes safety seriously," the lawsuit alleges that the defendant knew or should have known about the defects plaguing the Anker PowerCore models at issue, especially given that the company had implemented prior recalls over lithium-ion battery overheating concerns in March 2023 and June and October 2024. "Those representations about safety were false and misleading, and the Affected Products, by Anker's own admission, are not safe," the class action lawsuit reads, noting that Anker last month also rolled out recalls in China, the United Kingdom and Australia for the PowerCore power banks. The Anker power bank models recalled in the U.S. include: -- Anker PowerCore 10000 Model A1263; -- Anker Power Bank 10000 Model A1257; -- Anker Power Bank 20000 Model A1647; -- Anker MagGo Power Bank 10000 Model A1652; -- Anker Zolo Power Bank 20000 Model A1681; and -- Anker Zolo Power Bank 20000 Model A1689. The complaint contends that consumers are aware of the risks of lithium-ion batteries and must decide whether they will buy a more expensive option that purportedly has more safety features or a cheaper model without any, or as many, safety features. According to the lawsuit, the Anker power banks are marketed as having top-notch safety features and retail at a price nearly twice that of some generic competitors that reportedly do not advertise the same or any safety certifications. The suit claims that consumers who purchased the Anker power banks were willing to pay a higher price because of the company's safety claims and were cheated of both the money they spent and the product safety they expected due to the dangerous defects that prompted the recall. Finally, the complaint argues that the Anker recall provides insufficient reimbursement -- a replacement item or $30 gift card "from a company they may not trust anymore" -- to consumers who paid a premium price for the products. The Anker Innovations class action lawsuit seeks to represent anyone who bought one of the affected portable chargers in the U.S. for personal or household use within the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] APPLE INC: Class Certification Hearing in Affinity Due August 8 --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Hon. Judge Jeffrey S. White entered an order granting stipulation to modify hearing date on motion for class certification: On Feb. 7, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification. Pursuant to this Court's Standing Order, the Plaintiffs noticed a hearing on their motion for class certification for Aug. 8, 2025. On June 3, 2025, this Court granted Apple's request to set a briefing schedule for its motion to exclude the testimony of the Plaintiffs' class certification expert, Dr. Christopher Vellturo. Apple designs, manufactures, and markets smartphones, personal computers, tablets, wearables and accessories. A copy of the Court's order dated July 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dB2hlj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Ben M. Harrington, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Ave., Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com benh@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) 641-3200 Facsimile: (312) 641-6492 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 ASERETH MEDICAL: Mayboroda Sues Over Unpaid Compensations --------------------------------------------------------- Ruslan Mayboroda, on behalf of the general public as private attorney general v. ASERETH MEDICAL SERVICES, INC., a California Corporation; DEANCO HEALTHCARE, LLC dba MISSION COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, a California Limited Liability Company; MISSION COMMUNITY HOSPITAL FOUNDATION, a California Nonprofit Corporation and DOES 1 50, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV16777 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 10, 2025), is brought for recovery of penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"), seeking monetary relief against Defendants on behalf of himself and other aggrieved employees to recover, among other things, civil penalties, attorney's fees and costs and expenses pursuant to Labor Codes. In this case, Defendants violated various provisions of the California Labor Code. The Defendants implemented policies and practices which led to unpaid wage resulting from Defendants': failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to pay all wages earned and owed upon separation from Defendants' employ, failure to pay wages timely during employment, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failure to reimburse necessary business expenses. As a result Plaintiff seeks penalties under Labor Code 2698, et. seq. on behalf of the general public as private attorney general and all other aggrieved employees., says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants during November 30, 2023 as a Non-Exempt Employee with the title of Pharmacy Technician. ASERETH MEDICAL SERVICES, INC., is a California Corporation that operates as a staffing agency.[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 Phone: (949) 387-7200 Fax: (949) 387-6676 Email: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com Lauren@jameshawkinsaplc.com Ava@jameshawkinsaplc.com AVENA CONTRACTING: Chirinos Sues Over Failure to Overtime --------------------------------------------------------- Manuel De Jesus Hernandez Chirinos and Juan Roberto Rodríguez, individually on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. AVENA CONTRACTING, LLC and AR PRECISION, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00418-JKW-LRL (E.D. Va., July 9, 2025), is brought against Defendants for failing to pay their employees overtime in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), Virginia Overtime Wage Act ("VOWA"), and misclassifying their employees as independent contractors in violation of Virginia Misclassification Law. By misclassifying workers, employers are denying their employees from receiving lawful wages and benefits while simultaneously underfunding social insurance programs like Social Security, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, and workers' compensation. A common form of misclassification and wage theft is through subcontractors who fail to follow federal and state wage/hour and misclassification laws. Defendants and their subcontractors have engaged in such conduct, the effect of which is to deny employees on their construction sites their lawfully owed wages and benefits in violation of federal and Virginia wage and misclassification laws, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were individually hired to work as laborers for Avena on the Amazon Fulfillment Center in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Avena is a sub-contractor who contracts with general contractors on specific construction projects.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq. Zev H. Antell, Esq. Samantha R. Galina, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Phone: (804) 648-4848 Fax: (804) 237-0413 Email: craig@butlercurwood.com zev@butlercurwood.com samantha@butlercurwood.com BADIA SPICES: Singer Sues Over Misleading Business Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ Timothy Singer on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Badia Spices, Inc., Case No. 226836418 (Fla. 11th Judicial Ct., Miami-Dade Cty., July 8, 2025), is brought to remedy the deceptive and misleading business practices of the Defendant with respect to the manufacturing, marketing, and sale of Defendant's Badia Ground Ginger and Badia Ground Cinnamon products throughout the state of Florida and the country (hereinafter the "Products"). The Defendant has improperly, deceptively, and misleadingly labeled and marketed its Products to reasonable consumers, like Plaintiff, by omitting and not disclosing to consumers on its packaging that the Products are contaminated with unsafe levels of lead, which is a powerful neurotoxin that is known to cause cognitive deficits, mental illness, dementia, and hypertension. The Products' contamination is particularly egregious given the potentially severe and irreversible consequences of lead consumption. The Defendant lists explicitly the ingredients in the Products on the labeling; however, Defendant fails to disclose that the Products contain, or are at the risk of containing, lead. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated (hereinafter "Class Members") certainly expect that the food products they purchase will not contain, or risk containing, any knowingly harmful substances that cause disease. Unfortunately for consumers, like Plaintiff, the food Products they purchased contained, or were at risk of containing, lead. The Plaintiff and Class Members relied on Defendant's misrepresentations and omissions of the safety of the Products and what is in the Products when they purchased them. Consequently, Plaintiff and Class Members lost the entire benefit of their bargain when what they received was a food product contaminated with a known neurotoxin that is harmful to consumers' health, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased the Badia Products in 2025 from a local retailer. The Defendant manufactures, markets, advertises, and sells food products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Wright, Esq. Kelly Mata, Esq. THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE, P.A. 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 350 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: (561) 514-0904 Email: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com kellymata@wrightlawoffice.com BAGELWORKS INC: Robles Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices --------------------------------------------------------- ABEL LOPEZ ROBLES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAGELWORKS INC. and RAMSEY HINNAWI, MONA HINNAWI and DINA HINNAWI, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-05334 (S.D.N.Y., June 26, 2025) seeks to recover damages for Defendants' egregious violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law arising out of Defendants' unlawful labor practices. The complaint alleges the Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff proper overtime wages, failure to provide wage statements, and failure to furnish with a written wage notice. Plaintiff Robles was employed by Defendants from 2006 until April 2025. During Plaintiff's employment with the Defendants, his primary duties were as a baker and food preparer, while performing other miscellaneous duties at the instructions of the individual Defendants. BAGELWORKS INC. is a New York domestic business corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 BAM PIZZA: Bid to Strike West's State Law Class Claims Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled DEBORAH WEST, JOSEPH BELKA, AND LYNNE BALDERSON, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BAM PIZZA MANAGEMENT, INC.; BRIAN BAILEY; DOE CORPORATION 1-10; AND JOHN DOE 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00209-SMD-JMR (D.N.M.), Judge Sarah M. Davenport of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico denies the Defendants' motion to deny class certification and/or strike the Plaintiffs' state law class allegations. Judge Davenport notes the genuine issues of material fact continue to exist and discovery has not moved forward. The matter comes before the Court on Defendants BAM Pizza Management, Inc., Brian Bailey, Doe Corporations 1-10, and John Does 1-10's opposed motion under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(f) and 23 to deny class certification and/or strike the Plaintiffs' state law class allegations under the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act ("NMMWA"), the Colorado Wage Act ("CWA"), and Texas unjust enrichment law. On March 21, 2022, Deborah West filed a complaint against the Defendants, bringing individual and collective claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and individual and class NMMWA claims. The complaint does not make allegations regarding an arbitration agreement. The next day, West filed a motion for conditional certification of the FLSA collective action. The Plaintiffs filed the amended complaint on Feb. 26, 2024. The amended complaint does not make allegations regarding arbitration agreements. On April 11, 2024, the Parties filed a joint motion to stay proceedings pending mediation. The Court stayed proceedings, denied the Parties' pending motions as moot, and invited them to refile should the Parties fail to resolve the case. On Nov. 18, 2024, the Parties reported they had reached an impasse. On Dec. 3, 2024, the magistrate judge ordered the Parties to refile motions by Dec. 20, 2024, ordered the Parties to formulate a discovery plan, and set a Rule 16 scheduling conference for Jan. 23, 2025. The Parties filed their Rule 26(f) report on Jan. 16, 2025. This matter was transferred to Judge Davenport on Jan. 17, 2025. At the Jan. 23, 2025, scheduling conference, the magistrate judge directed that she would hold a conference to set discovery parameters and deadlines after the District Judge ruled on the Parties' motions. On Dec. 20, 2024, the Defendants filed, inter alia, the motion to deny class certification and/or strike the Plaintiffs' state law class allegations. The Defendants argue that none of the three named Plaintiffs seeking to represent state law classes are subject to binding arbitration agreements. The Defendants also proffer evidence purporting to show that 98% of the putative class members sign arbitration agreements in the Defendants' "regular business practice," and as such, argue that the Named Plaintiffs are not representative of the state law classes. Based on their submitted evidence, the Defendants request to deny class certification. Regarding the employees, who are subject to arbitration agreements, the Defendants argue that the Named Plaintiffs are not representative of the state law classes, and cannot meet the Rule 23 requirements of typicality, adequacy, predominance, or superiority. Regarding the employees, who are not subject to arbitration agreements, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs cannot establish numerosity of the class under Rule 23(a)(1). The Plaintiffs opposed the motion. The Court denies the Defendants' motion as premature. As Judge David H. Urias preliminarily ruled in August 2022, genuine fact issues remain regarding whether the Parties formed arbitration agreements. Judge Davenport says those issues of genuine fact include, fundamentally, whether the Defendants can prove that arbitration agreements were signed by either the Named Plaintiffs or putative class members. On this incomplete record, Judge Davenport finds the Defendants have not met their burden to conclusively demonstrate the authenticity of the signed arbitration agreements that have been and will be at issue in this case. In sum, the genuine issues of material fact that existed in January 2023, when the Parties declined to move forward with trial on arbitrability, remain today, and discovery has not moved forward, despite additional state law class claims in the amended complaint, Judge Davenport points out. Significant time has passed since initiation of a case that, as the Defendants state, remains in the "early stage of the proceedings." Regardless of the procedural reasons, Judge Davenport says this case should move forward to a resolution of the genuine issues of material fact, whichever Party may benefit from that resolution. For these reasons, the Court denies the Defendants' motion. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4b98zz83 from PacerMonitor.com. BENELUX CORPORATION: Mertens FLSA Suit Seeks Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as OCTAVIA MERTENS, ANGELICA HERRERA, BELEN CADENA, KELLY SANCHEZ, MAGGIE MONTES, and BREONA HORNE on Behalf of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated, V. BENELUX CORPORATION d/b/a PALAZIO MEN'S CLUB, ANTHANASES STAMATOPOULOUS, and MICHAEL MEALEY, Case No. 1:24-cv-00276-RP (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: -- certifying the proposed class, -- appointing as class representatives, -- appointing Kaplan Law Firm, PLLC as class counsel, and -- providing all other relief that this Court sees fit. The Plaintiffs bring this motion pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) to certify a class of: "All current and former wait staff employed by the Defendant Benelux at any time six years prior to the filing of this lawsuit to the present, to pursue claims under 26 U.S.C. section 7434 for fraudulent filing of information returns and for breach of contract and quasi-contract under Texas law." The Plaintiffs seek class certification because the Defendant's uniform payroll practices were centrally administered, liability turns on common legal questions, and a class action is superior to individual litigation for resolving these claims efficiently and fairly. The case is pled as a hybrid class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiffs claim the Defendants failed to pay them and all other wait staff at the Defendants' strip club the minimum wage, misappropriated their tips, and made unlawful deductions under the FLSA; committed tax fraud under 26 U.S.C. section 7434; and breached their employment contracts when they worked off-the-clock. Benelux operates a strip club in Austin, Texas. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1DmqE1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Caitlin Boehne, Esq. Ryan O. Estes, Esq. Austin Kaplan, Esq. KAPLAN LAW FIRM 2901 Bee Cave Rd., Suite G Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 814-7348 E-mail: cboehne@kaplanlawatx.com restes@kaplanlawatx.com akaplan@kaplanlawatx.com BIOHAVEN LTD: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------- A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Biohaven Ltd. ("Biohaven" or the "Company") (NYSE: BHVN). The lawsuit alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse information regarding Biohaven's business, operations, and prospects, including allegations that: (i) troriluzole's regulatory prospects as a treatment for spinocerebellar ataxia, and/or the sufficiency of data that Biohaven submitted in support of troriluzole's regulatory approval for this indication, were overstated; (ii) BHV-7000's efficacy and clinical prospects as a treatment for bipolar disorder were likewise overstated; and (iii) all of the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to have a significant negative impact on Biohaven's business and financial condition. If you purchased shares of Biohaven between March 24, 2023 and May 14, 2025, and experienced a significant loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832, or by visiting the firm's website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/biohaven/ for more information. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is September 12, 2025. Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law firm for 2021, 2022, and 2023, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content. CONTACT: Corey Holzer, Esq. (888) 508-6832 (toll-free) cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN] BRIAR RENO: Jones Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------- ALLEN JONES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BRIAR RENO FIRE DEPARTMENT, INC, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-00677-O (N.D. Tex., June 30, 2025) is a civil action brought by Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Portal to-Portal Pay Act for Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Action Members all overtime wages owed. The Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per seven-day workweek, but Defendant did not pay him time and one-half his regular rate of pay for all such overtime hours worked. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from approximately January 1, 2021 to approximately March 25, 2025. The Plaintiff was engaged in fire protection activities as an employee of Defendant and was paid on an hourly basis. Briar Reno Fire Department, Inc. is a fire station in Reno, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen R. Vaught, Esq. VAUGHT FIRM, LLC 1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 9150 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (972) 707-7816 Facsimile: (972) 920-3933 E-mail: avaught@txlaborlaw.com BURLINGTON INSURANCE: Class Cert Filing in Dockside Due Sept. 22 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ON THE EDGE DOCKSIDE, LLC, DOCKSIDE VIEW, LLC, and MICHAEL BRADLEY, as Personal Representative of the Estate of CLAUDIA BRADLEY, v. BURLINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:25-cv-14115-DMM (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Shaniek Mills Maynard entered a pretrial scheduling order and order referring case to mediation: The case is set for trial before U.S. District Judge Middlebrooks during the two-week trial period commencing February 23, 2026. Joint Discovery Plan shall be filed. July 21, 2025 Joinder of Additional Parties and Amend Pleadings Aug. 11, 2025 Any motions for class certification shall be filed Sept. 22, 2025 Overall Discovery Deadline* Nov. 10, 2025 Dispositive Motions (such as summary judgment motions) Dec. 8, 2025 Joint Pretrial Stipulation shall be filed. Jan. 26, 2026 Objections to designations of deposition testimony shall be filed. Feb. 9, 2026 Burlington offers property and casualty insurance services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eWhasx at no extra charge.[CC] C & H MOTORS: Yates Seeks Conditional Certification of Collective ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAREN A. YATES, Individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. C & H MOTORS, INC., et al., dba Lane & Kenny Body Shop, Case No. 2:25-cv-00151-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order as follows: (1) Conditionally certifying the Plaintiff's proposed collective FLSA class defined as: Collective Action Class: "All current and former hourly employees of the Defendants who were paid for 40 or more hours of work in one or more workweeks when considering the hours worked for the Defendants in the aggregate, beginning three (3) years prior to the filing of this Complaint and continuing through final disposition of this case (the "FLSA Collective" or the "FLSA Collective Members"); (2) Implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of the Plaintiff's FLSA claim is sent (via U.S. Mail and e- mail) to the Plaintiff's proposed class; and (3) Requiring the Defendants to, within 14 days of this Court's order, identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs by providing a list in electronic and importable format, of the names, addresses, and e-mail addresses of all potential opt-in plaintiffs who worked for Defendants in the time frame specified by the Plaintiff as set forth in part (1). The Plaintiff, Karen A. Yates, filed this action on February 14, 2025, alleging that Defendant C & H Motors, Inc. failed to pay her and similarly situated individuals for all wages earned, including overtime compensation. C & H operates an automobile repair garage providing parts and collision remediation services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dvpK0g at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Theodore R. Saker, Jr., Esq. SAKER LAW OFFICES 2929 Kenny Rd., Suite 280 Columbus, OH 43221-2400 Telephone: (614) 488-9900 Facsimile: (614) 488-5238 E-mail ted@saker-law.com CANADA: Atikamekw Women Sue Over Non-Consensual Sterilizations -------------------------------------------------------------- Educaloi reports that in February 2025, the Court of Appeal of Quebec authorized two Atikamekw women to go ahead with a class action lawsuit against the Centre integre de sante et de services sociaux de Lanaudiere (integrated health and social services centre or CISSS) and three doctors. The women say they were sterilized without their free and informed consent. In the class action, the women claim that the CISSS tolerated systemic discrimination within its walls and failed to provide a safe and adequate health care environment for Indigenous patients. They also claim that the doctors involved did not obtain proper consent from them before performing sterilization procedures. In Quebec, a judge must give permission to start a class action before it can go ahead. Judges only authorize class actions that show a reasonable chance of success. When a class action is authorized, the court identifies the alleged faults that will be examined during the trial. It's only at the trial stage that the court decides whether the CISSS and the doctors committed the alleged faults and whether Atikamekw women were sterilized against their will. Systemic discrimination in accessing safe health care Everyone in Quebec has the right to equality and to access safe, quality health care. This means that health and social services institutions, their staff, and doctors are required to provide safe, quality care to all patients—regardless of their ethnic or national origin, social condition, or gender. By authorizing this class action, the court recognizes the presence of racism and systemic discrimination against Indigenous patients at the Lanaudiere CISSS. One of the faults alleged is that the CISSS failed to act to end this discrimination. As a result, Indigenous patients may not have received the same standard of care as others. According to the allegations in the court documents, the systemic racism and discrimination tolerated within the CISSS may have contributed to forced sterilizations of Atikamekw women. Free and informed consent to health care Adults generally have the right to make free and informed decisions about their health care. Health and social services providers, including institutions and medical professionals, must make sure that patients give their consent before receiving any care. Consent is free if it's given voluntarily. This means the patient isn't forced or pressured to agree to the treatment. Consent is informed if the patient knows all the important facts when making their decision. This means that the health and social services providers must clearly explain the nature of any proposed treatment, along with its risks and benefits, before the patient makes their decision. In the case of anesthesia or surgery, the patient must give consent by signing a document that is kept in their medical record. In this authorized class action, one of the allegations is that the CISSS, its staff, and the doctors performed sterilizations on Atikamekw women without getting their free and informed consent. Some women reportedly had their Fallopian tubes tied without knowing it, or after having consented to the surgery because they were led to believe it could be reversed. Some say that they were pressured into giving consent, and that doctors and staff threatened, insulted or made racist remarks towards them. In at least one case, there is no written consent form in the patient's medical record. [GN] CAPITAL VISION SERVICES: McClain Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital Vision Services, LLC. The case is styled as Che'la McClain, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Capital Vision Services, LLC doing business as: MyEyeDr., Case No. 1:25-cv-07675 (N.D. Ill., July 8, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Fraud. Capital Vision Services, LLC doing business as MyEyeDr. -- https://www.capitalvisionservices.com/ -- provides optometric and retail optical services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alec M. Leslie, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Email: aleslie@bursor.com CARMICHAEL DEVELOPMENT: Plaintiff Wins Conditional Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANKLIN ALVARADO-HERNANDEZ, v. CARMICHAEL DEVELOPMENT, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01254-TRJ (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Tiffany Johnson entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification Under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). Within 21 days of this Order, to the extent Defendants possess such information, the Defendants shall provide Plaintiff with the most recent address and phone number for all of their employees dating back three years from the date of this Order, in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet format. The Defendants are required to post notice in their principal place of business. The notice must be displayed in a prominent location that is frequently trafficked by employees, which can be easily viewed. The Defendants shall be permitted to challenge the third-year of statute of limitations on grounds of willfulness and also be permitted to file a motion to decertify the collective after the close of the opt-in period. Nothing in this order shall prejudice the Defendants' rights in this regard. The parties are directed to submit a joint preliminary report and discovery plan by July 31, 2025. On July 7, 2025, the parties notified the Court that they have jointly agreed that the Plaintiff's Motion should be granted. Carmichael is a construction company, specializing in earthwork. A copy of the Court's order dated July 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AycGCY at no extra charge.[CC] CKE RESTAURANTS: Evans Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff ------------------------------------------------------------------- JEREMY ROBERT EVANS and KAYLA CHENOA WORKMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CKE RESTAURANTS HOLDINGS, INC. D/B/A HARDEES RESTAURANTS, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00738 (M.D. Tenn., July 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as hourly-paid employees. CKE Restaurants Holdings, Inc., doing business as Hardees Restaurants, is a restaurant owner and operator, located in Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq. Joshua Autry, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, HOLT, OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 Email: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com jautry@jsyc.com COMMUNITY CARE: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $1.09MM ------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Alder of The HIPAA Journal reports Woonsocket, RI-based Community Care Alliance has agreed to pay $1,090,000 to resolve a class action lawsuit over a July 2024 ransomware attack by the Rhysida ransomware group. Rhysida is a ransomware group that engages in double extortion tactics, stealing data and encrypting files. A ransom demand is issued, payment of which is required to obtain the decryption keys and to have the stolen data deleted. In contrast to many other groups that simply leak the stolen data if the ransom is not paid, Rhysida holds auctions and attempts to sell the stolen data, only leaking the stolen data if a sale cannot be secured. Rhysida claimed to have exfiltrated a 2.5 terabyte database in the attack. Community Care Alliance discovered the attack on July 6, 2024, and determined that the ransomware group had access to its network from July 1, 2024, to July 5, 2024. During that time, data was exfiltrated, including names, addresses, birth dates, driver's license numbers, Social Security numbers, diagnosis and condition information, lab test results, medications, health insurance information, and other sensitive data. The Community Care Alliance data breach involved the protected health information of 114,975 individuals. A lawsuit -- Flacco v. Community Care Alliance -- was filed in the Superior Court for the State of Rhode Island, Providence County, that alleged Community Care Alliance was negligent by failing to implement reasonable and appropriate cybersecurity measures, and that the ransomware attack could have been prevented if those measures had been implemented. The lawsuit also asserted claims of breach of implied contract and unjust enrichment. Community Care Alliance denies all wrongdoing and liability; however, it chose to negotiate a settlement to bring the litigation to an end to prevent further costs from protracted litigation and the uncertainty of the outcome at trial. A $1.09 million settlement fund will be established, out of which attorneys' fees ($363,333.33), legal costs and expenses, settlement administration costs, and a service award for the named plaintiff ($2,500) will be deducted. The remainder of the fund will be used to pay benefits to the class members. Class members may submit a claim for reimbursement of documented monetary losses incurred due to the data breach after July 29, 2024, which can include costs and charges, losses due to fraud and identity theft, and other costs reasonably related to the data breach. The claims are capped at a maximum of $5,000 per class member. Class members can also choose to receive a cash payment of $100 in addition to or instead of a claim for reimbursement of losses. The cash payments may be higher or lower based on the number of valid claims and will be paid pro rata. In addition to those benefits, class members may also claim two years of three-bureau credit monitoring, dark web monitoring, and identity theft protection and insurance services. The deadline for opting out of and objecting to the settlement is September 2, 2025. Claims must be submitted by October 1, 2025, and the final fairness hearing has been scheduled for October 8, 2025. The settlement has already received preliminary approval from the court. [GN] CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Faces Class Suit Over Sharing Wage Info ------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Scarcella of Reuters reports that Constellation Energy (CEG.O), Duke Energy (DUK.N), Pacific Gas & Electric and all other operators of the country's commercial nuclear power plants have been accused in a new lawsuit of conspiring to suppress pay for thousands of workers since 2003. Two power generation workers filed the proposed class action on July 11 in Maryland federal court, accusing 26 nuclear plant operators and two consulting firms of illegally sharing wage information with each other in a conspiracy to keep compensation artificially low. The lawsuit said the alleged information-sharing scheme violated antitrust law. The defendants, a group that also includes Dominion Energy (D.N), opens new tab and Entergy (ETR.N), opens new tab, produce all the nuclear-generated electricity sold to consumers in the U.S., according to the 129-page complaint, opens new tab. In a statement, Duke Energy called its compensation competitive and said it was "market-based, performance-oriented and aligned with the company's business priorities." Constellation, Pacific Gas & Electric, Dominion and Entergy did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Attorneys for the two plaintiffs -- former employees at Dominion and Entergy -- in a statement said they "are eager to fight for workers at nuclear power plants who have been victimized by a conspiracy to depress their wages." A former human resources executive in the industry said nuclear power companies exchanged compensation information "all the time," according to the lawsuit. Nuclear plants allegedly exchanged pay data for "compensation comparison reports" that showed current wages and future increases, allowing companies to illegally coordinate. The proposed class of nuclear plant workers contains at least tens of thousands of people, the lawsuit said. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages and a court order blocking any continued coordination on salaries and other benefits. Other industries too have been hit by lawsuits in recent years accusing major U.S. companies of suppressing employee pay. In one of those cases, a U.S. appeals court in May had revived a lawsuit accusing large shipbuilders of conspiring to deflate wages for naval architects and marine engineers. The case is Leo Dorrell and John Dunn v. Constellation Energy Corp et al, U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, No. 1:25-cv-02251-ABA. For plaintiffs: Matthew Handley and George Farah of Handley Farah & Anderson; Shana Scarlett and Steve Berman of Hagens Berman; Brent Johnson and Daniel Silverman of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll [GN] COSTA DEL MAR: Bid for More Time to File Response Tossed as Moot ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Roy Dalton, Jr. entered an order as follows: 1. The Defendant's motion for extension of time to respond is denied as moot. 2. The joint motion to set briefing schedule is granted in part and denied in part: a. The deadline for the Defendant to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is extended to July 27, 2025. b. The Plaintiff's request for leave to reply is denied without prejudice. The Plaintiff filed his motion for class certification on June 27, 2025, and the deadline for Defendant to respond is July 18. The Defendant moved for an extension of time because counsel asserts that she will be traveling with limited client availability to prepare a response. She requests an additional thirty-day extension of the deadline to August 18—or fifty two days total for the response. The parties initially conferred but could not come to an agreement. Costa is an American manufacturer of polarized sunglasses. A copy of the Court's order dated July 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=e83gkD at no extra charge.[CC] DALLAS JONES: Settlement Proposal in McLurg Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHNNY McCLURG, et al., v. DALLAS JONES ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a CLAY'S TRUCKING, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-00201-RGJ-HBB (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Rebecca Grady Jennings entered an order as follows: -- The parties' settlement proposal is preliminarily approved. The proposed settlement class is "Named Plaintiff, Opt-In Plaintiffs, and individuals who worked for the Defendants as truck drivers for any period of time from Dec. 7, 2015 to June 27, 2024." -- The Defendants shall provide the Plaintiffs' counsel with settlement class contact information and serve any outstanding Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA") notices within ten (10) days of this order's entry. -- The revised proposed notice of settlement is approved. The Plaintiffs' counsel shall distribute the notices within 20 days of this order's entry. -- The Plaintiffs shall move for approval of attorney's fees, costs, and service awards no later than ten (10) days before the settlement objection and opt-out deadline. -- The parties shall move for final approval of class action settlement no later than ten (10) days before this case's final approval hearing. -- The final approval hearing remains scheduled for Oct. 23, 2025 at 1:00 p.m. CDT at the U.S. Courthouse, Owensboro, Kentucky. -- All matters in this case other than those relating to settlement approval remain stayed. The Plaintiffs are truck drivers who allege that they worked overtime hours without due compensation Clay's "provides trucking services, including the transportation of coal from mines to power plants and rail and barge loadouts." A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion & order dated July 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kCkyEw at no extra charge.[CC] DATAVANT INC: Must File Class Cert Reply by July 24 --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Garbowit, et al., v. Datavant, Inc., et al., Case No. 9:25-cv-80345 (S.D. Fla., Filed March 13, 2025), the Hon. Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks entered an order granting motion for extension of time as follows: -- Defendants shall have until July 24, 2025, to respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property. Datavant is a health information technology company. [CC] DATAVANT INC: Seeks Leave to File Supplemental Response ------------------------------------------------------- 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 leave to file supplemental response to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on June 26, 2025. On July 7, 2025, the Defendants filed an unopposed motion for extension of time to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Datavant is a health information technology company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3kJoEr 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 DENTSPLY SIRONA: Plaintiff Wins Bid for Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAN ANTONIO FIRE AND POLICE PENSION FUND et al., v. DENTSPLY SIRONA INC. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-06339-AS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Arun Subramanian entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification: 1. This action is certified as a class action and the Class is defined as: "All persons and entities who purchased the publicly traded common stock of Dentsply Sirona Inc. between June 9, 2021 and Nov. 13, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby." Excluded from the Class are: (i) defendants Dentsply, Donald M. Casey, Jr., and Jorge Gomez; (ii) the officers and directors of Dentsply, at all relevant times; (iii) members of the immediate families and legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns of the individuals identified in (i) or (ii); and (iv) any entity in which any of the Defendants has or had a controlling interest. 2. City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System, El Paso Firemen & Policemen's Pension Fund, and Wayne County Employees' Retirement System are appointed as Class Representatives. 3. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is appointed as Class Counsel. The Defendants raise no objection to class certification under Rule 23(a). And the Court finds that plaintiffs have handily demonstrated that they satisfy each of Rule 23(a)'s requirements. The Plaintiffs accuse the defendants of making misleading statements to cover up falling demand, supply-chain constraints, and defective products, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5. Dentsply manufactures professional dental products and technologies. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated July 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Wzxlhf at no extra charge.[CC] DIAMOND BRACES: Isayeva Bid Conditional Cert Partly OK'd -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE ISAYEVA and KAHOLY FERNANDEZ, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiff and the Class, v. DIAMOND BRACES, an unincorporated entity, association, or affiliation, ORTHOCLUB, P.C. d/b/a DIAMOND BRACES, JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1-100 d/b/a DIAMOND BRACES, and OLEG DRUT, Case No. 1:22-cv-04575-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katherine Polk Failla entered an order granting in part the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of a collective and for Court facilitation of notice: The Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of a collective of dental assistants, marketing personnel, treatment coordinators, assistant office managers, head assistants, clinical assistants, billing specialists, lab technicians, administrative assistants, client relations representatives, HR assistants, marketing assistants, warehouse associates, flyer distributors, and business development representatives employed by the Defendants at any of the Defendants' locations within the three years prior to the filing of the Complaint in this action on June 2, 2022. The Court denies without prejudice the Plaintiffs' request for equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. The Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion to distribute the notice to this putative collection with the modifications outlined in this Opinion. The Plaintiffs are directed to submit a revised proposed notice, consistent with this Opinion, for the Court's approval on or before July 21, 2025. The Court denies the Plaintiffs' request that the consent forms be returnable to the Plaintiffs' counsel instead of the Clerk of Court. Finally, the Court denies the Plaintiffs' motion for production of social security numbers but otherwise grants Plaintiffs' motion for production of covered employees' titles, compensation rates, and dates of employment within 14 days of this Opinion. The Plaintiffs Michelle Isayeva and Kaholy Fernandez, on behalf of themselves and other hourly employees of the orthodontic practice Diamond Braces, bring this class and collective action against the Defendants, asserting wage-and-hour claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law (the "NYLL"). In light of the above, the Court will conditionally certify a modified collective, consisting of: "All employees who held the following non-exempt positions: dental assistant, marketing personnel, treatment coordinator, assistant office manager, head assistant, clinical assistant, billing specialist, lab technician, administrative assistant, client relations representative, HR assistant, marketing assistant, warehouse associate, flyer distributor, and business development representative, at any of the Defendants' locations for the period June 2, 2019, through June 2, 2022." Diamond is an orthodontic practice that operates more than 40 offices throughout the New York metropolitan area. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated July 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vXXjZp at no extra charge.[CC] DOLLAR GENERAL: Court Dismisses Fraud Claims Without Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Aleta A. Trauger of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee grants Dollar General Corporation's motion to dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint in the case captioned as Washtenaw County Employees' Retirement System, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. Dollar General Corporation, Todd J. Vasos, Jeffery C. Owen, John W. Garratt, and Kelly M. Dilts, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01250 (M.D. Tenn.). The complaint is dismissed without prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim for relief, with leave to amend. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to plead facts giving rise to a strong inference of scienter, a critical element for their securities fraud claims. The plaintiffs, Universal-Investment-Gesellschaft mbH and Quoniam Asset Management GmbH, represent those who acquired Dollar General Corporation's common stock between May 28, 2020, and August 28, 2024 (the "Class Period"). The defendants include Dollar General Corporation and individual defendants Todd J. Vasos and Jeffery C. Owen, who served as Chief Executive Officers, and John W. Garratt and Kelly M. Dilts, who served as Chief Financial Officers during the Class Period. Dollar General, a major U.S. discount retailer, operated over 20,000 stores, employed approximately 185,000 workers, and generated about $10 billion in quarterly net sales by the end of the Class Period. The complaint alleges securities fraud based on 113 false or misleading statements or omissions, primarily in SEC filings, earnings calls, meetings, and a press release. According to the plaintiffs, Dollar General inadequately staffed stores, mismanaged inventory, and had pricing discrepancies, which led to operational issues concealed by the defendants. These issues, revealed through partial corrective disclosures from December 1, 2022, to August 29, 2024, allegedly caused the company's stock price to plummet, harming shareholders. Additionally, the complaint claims that Vasos and Garratt engaged in insider trading without disclosing material nonpublic information. The complaint asserts three claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: (i) Count I: Violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 against all defendants for fraudulent misstatements or omissions and scheme liability; (ii) Count II: Violation of Section 20(a) against the individual defendants for control person liability; and (iii) Count III: Violation of Section 20A against Vasos and Garratt for insider trading. The plaintiffs seek class certification, compensatory damages, and costs and fees. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the plaintiffs failed to plead material misrepresentations, scienter, and loss causation, essential elements for a securities fraud claim. They characterized the case as a "stock drop case in search of a fraud," asserting that the allegations reflect mismanagement rather than intentional fraud. Upon careful examination, the court focused its analysis on the scienter element, finding that the plaintiffs failed to plead facts giving rise to a strong inference of intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud, as required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA). The court applied the three-part test from Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., accepting the complaint's factual allegations as true, reviewing them holistically, and considering opposing inferences. The court also evaluated the allegations using the Helwig factors, which are probative of scienter in securities fraud cases. The complaint alleges that Dollar General's inventory management was deficient, leading to excess untracked inventory at stores, distribution centers, and ancillary warehouses. According to the plaintiffs, the company over-ordered merchandise, lacked adequate tracking systems, and had insufficient storage space, costing $19 million monthly in fees for overdue shipping containers. The court noted, "At Dollar General's overstuffed distribution centers, for example, the Company's over-buying without regard to demand caused excess inventory to accumulate in trailers waiting to be unloaded." Additionally, "some of this merchandise was thrown away without being appropriately accounted for," and off-site warehouses lacked inventory tracking systems, exacerbating the issue. The plaintiffs claimed that Dollar General's stores were understaffed with inadequately trained employees, leading to high turnover and unsafe working conditions. The court stated, "With excess inventory flooding stores, too few workers could not sort items onto overstuffed shelves, and unwanted, expired, and damaged inventory would not fit in overflowing storage rooms, so it spilled onto the sales floors. This led to blocked corridors and fire exits, resulting in millions of dollars in OSHA fines and state settlements. The complaint alleges pricing discrepancies between shelf prices and checkout charges due to excess inventory and understaffing. The court observed, "Because merchandise prices need to be regularly updated, excess inventory and understaffing led to discrepancies between prices listed on the shelf and those charged at the register," contributing to fines and settlements amounting to millions of dollars. The plaintiffs identified four categories of misstatements. Inventory: Statements in SEC filings, such as "on an ongoing basis, we closely monitor and manage our inventory balances," were allegedly false because the company did not effectively manage inventory. Staffing: Statements about employee numbers and investments in staff were misleading due to understaffing issues. Pricing: Statements about pricing practices were false due to widespread discrepancies between advertised prices and the prices customers were charged at checkout, which led to government investigations, fines, and settlements. Accounting: Financial metrics in SEC filings were misleading because they relied on inaccurate inventory accounting, violating GAAP and LIFO principles. The court found that the complaint failed to plead scienter with the specificity required by the PSLRA. According to the court, "Scienter is 'a mental state embracing intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud.'" The plaintiffs relied on several Helwig factors to support scienter, but the court found them insufficient. The court conducted a holistic review, concluding, "The Complaint does not allege facts that, reviewed holistically, give rise to a strong inference of scienter as plausible as the defendants' proffered nonculpable inference: that, as the Company emerged from the pandemic, and demand shifted, and as the Company addressed some operational challenges it disclosed over time, the stock price dropped—without any of the defendants intentionally or recklessly making false or misleading statements or trading on inside information. The court ruled that Counts II and III, under Sections 20(a) and 20A, respectively, were dismissed because they depend on a primary violation of securities law, which the plaintiffs failed to establish. The court stated, "Because the Complaint has not stated a claim for a primary violation of securities law, its Section 20(a) claims fail as well," and similarly for the Section 20A claims. The court opined that the Complaint's deficiencies are not mere procedural technicalities. But the court has not determined that the Complaint's deficiencies could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts. Therefore, the court dismissed all claims but permitted the plaintiffs to amend the complaint to address the deficiencies. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice, allowing the plaintiffs to seek amendment. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=u04y6k DONALD TRUMP: Barbara Wins Provisional Class Certification Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as "Barbara," et al., v. Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, in his official capacity, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00244-JL-AJ (D.N.H.), the Hon. Judge Joseph N. Laplante entered an order granting the Petitioners' motion for provisional class certification and appointment of class counsel. The Court certifies the following class for the purpose of preliminary injunctive relief: "All current and future persons who are born on or after Feb. 20, 2025, where (1) that person's mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person's father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth, or (2) that person's mother's presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person's father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth. The Court finds that Petitioners have satisfied the requirements for provisional class certification under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2). Donald John Trump is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who is the 47th president of the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated July 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lnmM8U at no extra charge.[CC] DONALD TRUMP: Joshua Harrell's Bid to Intervene in Orr Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Orr, et al., v. Trump, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-10313 (D. Mass., Filed Feb. 7, 2025), the Hon. Judge Julia E. Kobick entered an order denying Joshua Harrell's motion to intervene. On June 3, 2025, Joshua Harrell, a nonbinary American citizen, filed a motion to intervene as of right in this litigation, primarily for purposes of arguing in support of the Plaintiffs' then-pending motion for class certification, which was subsequently granted as modified by the Court. The plaintiffs are cognizant of the alleged threat of criminal prosecution identified by Harrell. As the Court previously noted, the Plaintiffs have expeditiously litigated this case since its inception. In these circumstances, where Harrell is a class member whose interests are adequately protected by the class representatives, permitting them to intervene would complicate and may unduly delay adjudication of the rights of the plaintiffs and, in any event, would not "be helpful in fully developing the case." Daggett, 172 F.3d at 113. Harrell's request for permissive intervention is likewise denied. The suit alleges violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Donald Trump is an American politician, media personality, and businessman.[CC] E4 SERVICES: Ipaye Suit Seeks Conditional Cert of Collective ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAJID IPAYE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. e4 Services, LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-01761-JLS (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- granting the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification, and -- authorizing the Plaintiff to issue the proposed notice, and opt-in form, which will allow potential collective action members to join this case. The Plaintiff moves the Court, under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), for an order allowing notice of this action to be sent to other consultants informing them of their right to opt in to this case. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to issue notice to the following collective: "All individuals who worked for e4 providing training and support to e4's clients in using electronic recordkeeping systems in the United States from April 2022 to the present, who were classified as independent contractors and who did not receive overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 per week." The case is particularly appropriate for notice under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) because, unlike most overtime cases, where there is a dispute as to whether the proper amount of overtime has been paid, here, it is undisputed that the Defendant paid no overtime to any of the proposed collective action members, believing that they were contractors thereby creating quintessentially common issues for each potential opt-in. The Plaintiff Majid Ipaye has filed the instant case alleging that he and other similarly situated consultants were knowingly and improperly classified by Defendant e4 Services, LLC (e4) as independent contractors, and as a result of this misclassification, did not receive overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Defendant e4 is a Delaware corporation that coordinates staffing for information technology educational services for the healthcare industry across the United States. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hwgDAx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harold Lichten, Esq. Olena Savytska, Esq. Sarah Schalman-Bergen, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston St., Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com osavytska@llrlaw.com ssb@llrlaw.com EASY ICE: Faces Rhoden Wage-and-Hour Suit in W.D. Mich. ------------------------------------------------------- KEMAR RHODEN, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiff v. EASY ICE, LLC, and JOHN DOE CORP 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00709 (W.D. Mich., June 26, 2025) is brought by the Plaintiff alleging that, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the State wage laws, he and others similarly situated are entitled to recover from Defendants: (1) unpaid wages, including overtime, due to time shaving; (2) statutory penalties; (3) liquidated damages; and (4) attorneys' fees and costs. According to the complaint, the Defendants instituted a nationwide policy of improperly deducting travel time and meal breaks from the work hours of Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and putative Class members. The Defendants' centralized management and payroll team automatically deduct from Plaintiff, potential FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and putative Class members compensation for travel time, which is part of employees' principal job duties, and for meal-breaks, which Defendants are aware their employees are unable to take. The Plaintiff further alleges that they and others similarly situated are entitled to recover from Defendants, the following pursuant to breach of contract and unjust enrichment: (1) wrongfully withheld or diverted payments, (2) punitive damages due to egregious conduct, and (3) attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and putative Class members, who are all current and former delivery drivers, installation workers, maintenance workers, and other similarly positioned employees, employed by Defendants throughout the United States were victims of Defendants' underpayment of wages, including overtime. Easy Ice, LLC offer subscriptions for commercial ice machines, which provide customers with services including delivery of the machines and any necessary parts, cleaning, repairs, and incidental back-up costs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 - and - Phil E. Hamilton, Esq. HAMILTON LAW, PLC 3431 Oakland Drive Kalamazoo, MI 49008-2883 Telephone: (269) 488-8394 ERIE INDEMNITY COMPANY: Long Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Erie Indemnity Company, et al. The case is styled as Norman Long, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Erie Indemnity Company, Erie Insurance Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-00208 (W.D. Pa., July 8, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Erie Indemnity Company -- https://www.erieinsurance.com/ -- operates as a managing attorney-in-fact for the subscribers at the Erie Insurance Exchange in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: Gary@lcllp.com ERIE INDEMNITY: Faces Hanns Suit Over Compromised Clients' Info --------------------------------------------------------------- MARY HANNS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ERIE INDEMNITY COMPANY and ERIE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00193 (W.D. Pa., July 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence/wantonness, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, and breach of confidence. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within their network systems following a data breach on approximately June 7, 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, the suit says. Erie Indemnity Company is a provider of insurance policies, doing business in Pennsylvania. Erie Insurance is a property and casualty insurance company, doing business in Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael DeGrande, Esq. ZAFRAN LAW GROUP 1500 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 587-0038 Email: mdegrande@zafranlaw.com - and - Stuart A. Carpey, Esq. CARPEY LAW, P.C. 600 W. Germantown Pike, Suite 400 Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 Telephone: (610)834-6030 Email: scarpey@carpeylaw.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com FANTASIA TRADING: Hall Sues Over Sale of Defective Power Banks -------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER HALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FANTASIA TRADING LLC, a California limited liability company and POWER MOBILE LIFE LLC D/B/A ANKER INNOVATIONS, a Washington limited liability company, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-05505 (S.D.N.Y., July 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the New York Deceptive Acts and Practices Law and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' manufacture, distribution, and sale of its Anker Power Bank products, with lithium-ion battery issue. According to the complaint, the battery issue can cause the battery to overheat, leading to melting of plastic components, smoke, and fire hazards. The Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers relied on the Defendants' representation that the products are safe to use. As a result, the Plaintiff and the Class suffered economic losses, says the suit. Power Mobile Life LLC, doing business as Anker Innovations, is an electronics manufacturer, headquartered in in Bellevue, Washington. Fantasia Trading LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Anker Innovations, headquartered in Ontario, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark S. Reich, Esq. Michael N. Pollack, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: mreich@zlk.com mpollack@zlk.com - and - Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. Daniel Markowitz, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com FARMERS HOME: Bids for Class Certification in Wright Due Dec. 8 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDDIE WRIGHT, JR. and CHRISTINE THOMAS, v. FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00228-KGB (E.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge entered an initial scheduling order as follows: 1. Rule 26(F) Conference Deadline: Sept. 8, 2025 2. Rule 26(F) Report Due Date: Sept. 22, 2025 3. Proposed Trial Date: Aug. 3, 2026 4. Rule 16(B) Conference: (Scheduled If Needed) 5. Discovery should be completed no later than May 20, 2026. 6. All motions, except motions for class certification and motions in limine, must be filed on or before June 4, 2026. 7. Any motions for class certification are due on or before Dec. 8, 2025. 8. Motions in limine must be filed on or before July 20, 2026 Farmers provides financial and technical assistance to rural Americans, particularly farmers and ranchers. A copy of the Court's order dated July 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cHcwCd at no extra charge.[CC] FIESTA NISSAN: Alvarez Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Texas ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fiesta Nissan, Inc. The case is styled as David Alvarez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fiesta Nissan, Inc., Case No. 7:25-cv-00343 (S.D. Tex., July 8, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Fiesta Nissan, Inc. -- https://www.fiestanissan.com/ -- is a Nissan dealer in Edinburg, Texas.[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 FINEST VITAMINS: Campos Files Suit in C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Finest Vitamins, LLC. The case is styled as Christian Campos, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Finest Vitamins, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-06168 (C.D. Cal., July 8, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Finest Vitamins LLC is a leading import company in USA.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Benjamin Heikali, Esq. TREEHOUSE LAW LLP 3130 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 555 Santa Monica, CA 90403 Phone: (310) 751-5928 Email: bheikali@treehouselaw.com FOLSOM INSURANCE: Bid to Compel Discovery Responses OK'd -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bond v. Folsom Insurance Agency LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-02551 (N.D. Tex., Filed Oct. 10, 2024), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting the Plaintiff Joseph Bond's Motion to Compel Defendant Folsom Insurance Agency LLC to Provide Discovery Responses and for Sanctions. The Court finds that discovery of unredacted records of the individuals that Folsom contacted with prerecorded messages is relevant to Bond's claims and is not premature at this stage of the case and during what is, as Bond correctly notes, Bond's only discovery period during which all discovery must be conducted. The Court is not persuaded, as Folsom argues in response, that Bond failed to confer or attempt to confer and comply with the Court's Standing Order on Discovery and Non-Dispositive Motions before filing this motion or that the identity and telephone numbers that Bond seeks exceed the scope of what is relevant to the Court's class certification inquiry. By no later than Monday, July 28, 2025, the parties must file a joint report notifying the Court of the results of the conference. If all disputed issues as to the amount of attorneys' fees to be awarded to Bond have been resolved, Bond's counsel must also send an agreed proposed order to the Court at Horan_Orders@txnd.uscourts.gov by Monday, July 28, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The Defendant offers trucking and commercial insurance.[CC] FOOT LOCKER: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With DICK'S Sporting Goods ------------------------------------------------------------------ Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- Foot Locker, Inc. (NYSE: FL), relating to the proposed merger with DICK'S Sporting Goods, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, Foot Locker shareholders will elect to receive either $24.00 in cash or 0.1168 shares of DICK'S common stock for each share of Foot Locker common stock. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for August 22, 2025. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/foot-locker-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Streamline Health Solutions, Inc. (NASDAQ: STRM) relating to its sale to MDaudit for $5.34 per share. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for August 7, 2025. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/streamline-health-solutions-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- TXNM Energy (NYSE: TXNM), relating to the proposed merger with Blackstone Infrastructure. Under the terms of the agreement, Blackstone Infrastructure will acquire TXNM Energy for $61.25 per share in cash. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/txnm-energy-txnm/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Cantaloupe, Inc. (NASDAQ: CTLP) related to its sale to 365 Retail Markets, LLC for $11.20 per share in cash. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/cantaloupe-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com [GN] GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Rahaman Suit Over Defective Engines --------------------------------------------------------- MEZANUR RAHAMAN, GERALD REED, and FARRAH FORREST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-11925-MFL-CI (E.D. Pa., June 26, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, fraud, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and Class members unknowingly and unwittingly paid for Class vehicles equipped with a defective L87 Engine that is highly susceptible to sudden engine failure. The Class Vehicles suffer from a uniform defect in the connecting rod or crankshaft engine component which can cause severe and unexpected engine damage, failure, and loss of propulsion. Specifically, the Defect causes a bearing failure that may result in either engine seizure or breaching of the engine block by the connecting rod, says the suit. The Defendant's recall program does not provide a complete and lasting remedy to Class members. The Defendant has not redesigned or tested these new connecting rods and crankshafts to ensure that they can withstand the operating conditions of the Class Vehicles. Therefore, even if a Class Vehicle is repaired under the recall program, it continues to be defective and presents an unreasonably dangerous condition, the suit added. General Motors LLC is an American multinational automotive manufacturing company headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. Nicholas J. Elia, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com nelia@lfsblaw.com - and - Jeffrey Brown, Esq. Brett Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 268-3579 E-mail: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com GENERAL MOTORS: Reaches Class Settlement for Defective LC9 Engines ------------------------------------------------------------------ FOX23.com News reports that a settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit against General Motors LLC regarding an engine piece in LC9 Engines. According to the information, the plaintiff of the lawsuit alleged that the LC9 Engines in the class vehicles contain an inherently defective piston assembly and that the defect causes excessive engine wear in every class vehicle. The plaintiff went on to say excessively worn piston rings leads to excessive oil consumption, which causes spark plug fouling, rough idling, rough acceleration, check engine light activation, engine shutdown commands from the instrument cluster, oil loss/burn and may eventually lead to permanent engine damage or shutdown. The plaintiff also stated that GM was aware of the alleged defect. GM denied wrongdoing or liability for the claims and denies that any class vehicle is defective. The settlement class of the lawsuit includes current owners or lessees as of Sept. 26, 2024 of a class vehicle that was purchased or leased in the State of Oklahoma. The class vehicles include: 2011-2014 Chevrolet Avalanches, 2011-2014 Chevrolet Silverado's, 2011-2014 Chevrolet Suburban's, 2011-2014 Chevrolet Tahoe's, 2011-2014 GMC Sierras, 2011-2014 GMC Yukon's, and the 2011-2014 GMC Yukon XLs with LC9 engines manufactured on or after February 10, 2011. If the vehicle received piston replacement, upgraded piston rings, they were excluded from the class vehicles. The deadline for being included in the class action settlement is July 28. A final approval hearing is set for Sept. 15. [GN] GO MACRO: Testone Sues Over Deceptively Marketed Products --------------------------------------------------------- Leah Testone, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public v. GO MACRO, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-01743-RSH-KSC (S.D. Cal., July 8, 2025), is brought against the Defendant, to enjoin the Defendant from deceptively marketing the Products, and to recover compensation for injured Class Members. Go Macro labels the Products with claims intended to appeal to health conscious consumers. For example, the Products' labeling says, "Finally – a bar that's both delicious and good for you!" It claims the Products promote a "healthy body." Through the use of both words and vignettes, the labels claim, "Live Long," "Eat Positive," and "Be Well," along with a heart vignette, implying the bars are heart-healthy. This misleading labeling message is reinforced by non-label advertising, including on Go Marco's website, testimonials, and Go Macro health blog. Despite representing that the Products are healthy, the Protein Bars actually contain 7-13 grams of added sugar, representing 11-19% of the calories in the Products. The Snack Bars contain 9-10 grams of added sugar, representing 14-20% of calories. And the Kids Bar--which Defendant knows are consumed by children as young as one-year old--contain 4-6 grams of added sugar, representing 14-24% of those bars' calories. Contrary to the health-focused marketing of the Products, a vast body of reliable scientific evidence establishes that excessive consumption of added sugar--any amount above approximately 5% of daily caloric intake--is toxic to the human body and greatly increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, liver disease, and a wide variety of other chronic diseases. Based on this scientific evidence, the FDA recently promulgated a regulation that prevents most foods from using "healthy" as a nutrient content claim if they contain more than 2 grams of added sugar in a serving. Because loading the Products with added sugar and marketing them as "good for you" is contrary to the science, Go Macro's claims are false and highly misleading, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has regularly purchased the Products throughout at least the past four years, with her last purchases in 2024. Go Macro manufactures and sells a variety of snack bars under the "GoMacro" brand, broadly divided into Protein Bars, Snack Bars, and Kids MacroBars.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack Fitzgerald, Esq. Melanie R. Monroe, Esq. Trevor Flynn, Esq. Peter Grazul, Esq. Allison Ferraro, Esq. FITZGERALD MONROE FLYNN PC 2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92110 Phone: (619) 215-1741 Email: jfitzgerald@fmfpc.com mmonroe@fmfpc.com tflynn@fmfpc.com pgrazul@fmfpc.com aferraro@fmfpc.com GOOGLE LLC: Rabin Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE RABIN, CPA and IAN GRAVES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-04547-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on April 24, 2025 at 10:00 a.m., will move the Court for an order certifying a Class, defined infra at section II, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. The Plaintiffs also move the Court to appoint them as Class representatives and to appoint Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP and Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). The Plaintiffs seek certification of the following "Class": "All persons or entities in the United States who: (a) signed up for the free version of Google Apps between Aug. 1, 2006 and Dec. 6, 2012; (b) were still Legacy Free customers as of Jan. 19, 2022; (c) had at least one active user on their account during the 180 days prior to Jan. 19, 2022; and (d) did not "opt-out"* prior to being charged for Workspace." "Opt-out" includes customers who affirmatively opted out as non-commercial customers or were migrated to Workspace for Education Fundamentals or Workspace for Nonprofits. The Plaintiffs and the proposed Class are early adopters of Google's office suite service originally called Google Apps and now called Google Workspace. Google is an American multinational corporation and technology company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xFxoO0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roger N. Heller, Esq. Annie M. Wanless, Esq. Daniel E. Seltz, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 E-mail: rheller@lchb.com awanless@lchb.com dseltz@lchb.com - and - E. Adam Webb, Esq. G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Esq. WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC 1900 The Exchange S.E., Suite 480 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (770) 444-0773 Facsimile: (770) 217-9950 E-mail: Adam@WebbLLC.com Franklin@WebbLLC.com GOOGLE LLC: To Appeal $314.6M Data Class Action Verdict in Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------------- San Jose Inside reports that a recent jury verdict in San Jose ordered Google to pay $314.6 million to Android users for misusing their cell phone data. Multiple news sources reported that a California Superior Court jury found Google liable for transferring data to its servers without user consent while devices were idle. This data collection was used to benefit Google, including for targeted advertising and mapping. Google announced it plans to appeal the verdict, stating it misunderstands services critical to Android's security and reliability. The verdict in the civil case stems from a class-action lawsuit alleging that Google programmed Android phones to transfer data to Google servers over cellular networks, even when users weren't connected to Wi-Fi. This data collection, according to the lawsuit, was done to further Google's corporate interests. The case is one of several recent legal challenges to Google's data privacy practices. The jury agreed with the plaintiffs that Alphabet's Google was liable for sending and receiving information from the devices without permission while they were idle, causing what the lawsuit had called "mandatory and unavoidable burdens shouldered by Android device users for Google's benefit." The plaintiffs filed the class action in state court in 2019 on behalf of an estimated 14 million Californians. They argued that Google collected information from idle phones running its Android operating system for company uses like targeted advertising, consuming Android users' cellular data at their expense. Google told the court that no Android users were harmed by the data transfers and that users consented to them in the company's terms of service and privacy policies. Another group filed a separate lawsuit in federal court in San Jose, bringing the same claims against Google on behalf of Android users in the other 49 states. That case is scheduled for trial in April 2026. [GN] GREAT LAKES SERVICES: Fritts Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Great Lakes Services, LLC. The case is styled as Julie Fritts, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Great Lakes Services, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0009361 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., July 9, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Great Lakes Services, LLC -- https://greatlakesservicesllc.com/ -- offer complete Cleaning and Restoration Services: Carpet and upholstery cleaning.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jill Vecchi, Esq. MARA LAW FIRM, PC 2650 Camino Del Rio N., Ste. 302 San Diego, CA 92108-1632 Phone: 619-234-2833 Fax: 619-234-4048 Email: jvecchi@maralawfirm.com HARCROS CHEMICALS: Jefferies Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Emissions ------------------------------------------------------------------ ELLSWORTH WILLIAM JEFFERIES III, ROCKY GARNER, MISTY COYAZO, JOSE L. RAMIREZ Jr, KENIQUE SMITH, ESTELLE WHITE, DIANE L. WOODS, individually and as the administrator of the Estate of CECIL B. McBEE, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Named Plaintiffs v. HARCROS CHEMICALS INC.; HARCROS CHEMICALS INC. EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN TRUST; PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION; KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.; ELEMENTIS CHEMICALS, INC.; ELEMENTIS PLC; and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-5), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-02352-KHV-ADM (D. Kan., June 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for strict liability - abnormally dangerous activity; gross negligence; negligence; negligent maintenance and repair; wrongful death; and punitive damages arising from exposure to toxic emissions originating from Defendants' facility located in Kansas City. The complaint alleges that these emissions include various likely and known human carcinogens, such as Ethylene Oxide, Cumene, Formaldehyde, Tetrachloroethylene, Epichlorohydrin, Ethyl Benzene, Nonylphenol, Propylene Oxide, and Vanadium. Due to exposure to the poisoned air, the Plaintiffs have suffered severe injuries, including blood cancers, lung cancer, liver cancer, and breast cancer -- and one has died as a result. Despite knowing the risks, the Defendants continued to use and emit grossly unsafe quantities of ethylene oxide and other toxic chemicals, directly causing harm to the Named Plaintiffs and Class members. This reckless conduct has significantly harmed the health and well-being of the community, with Defendants' actions being a proximate cause of the injuries sustained by those affected, says the suit. The Plaintiffs are representatives of the Kansas City, Kansas community, which has been and continues to be exposed to toxic emissions originating from the facility. Harcros Chemicals, Inc. is a privately held, employee-owned company that manufactures and distributes industrial and specialty chemicals.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert L. Kinsman, Esq. Adam W. Krause, Esq. Taimi Pabon, Esq. KRAUSE & KINSMAN GROUP, LLC 93 Francisco Escudero #1002 Dorado, PR 00646 Telephone: (816) 760-2700 Facsimile: (816) 760-2800 E-mail: robert@krauseandkinsman.com adam@krauseandkinsman.com tpabon@krauseandkinsman.com www.krauseandkinsman.com - and - Joanna Orscheln, Esq. Monet Duke, Esq. KRAUSE & KINSMAN, LLC 4717 Grand Ave., Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 760-2700 Facsimile: (816) 760-2800 E-mail: joanna@krauseandkinsman.com mduke@krauseandkinsman.com - and - Marc D. Grossman, Esq. Luis V. Almeida-Olivieri, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC 1311 Ponce de Leon Ave. Suite 600 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: mgrossman@milberg.com lalmeida@milberg.com - and - Melissa K. Sims, Esq. John M. Restaino, Jr., Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC 800 South Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: msims@milberg.com jrestaino@milberg.com - and - Nevin Wisnoski, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC 900 West Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: nwisnoski@milberg.com HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Agrees to Settle Program Fees' Suit for $18.25MM ------------------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that Heartland Payment Systems agreed to pay $18.25 million to resolve claims it charged illegal fees to MySchoolBucks users. The Heartland Payment Systems settlement benefits consumers who used a credit or debit card to upload money to MySchoolBucks to purchase school lunches between June 18, 2013, and July 31, 2019, and whose last transaction was on or after Jan. 1, 2015. According to a class action lawsuit, Heartland charged illegal "program fees" every time a MySchoolBucks user uploaded money to their child's lunch account. The plaintiffs argue they would not have been duped into overpaying if they had known the true cost of MySchoolBucks fees. Heartland Payment Systems is a payment processing company that provides services for a variety of businesses, including schools. Heartland partners with schools to provide MySchoolBucks, a platform that allows parents to upload money to their children's lunch accounts. Heartland has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to an $18.25 million class action settlement to resolve the allegations. Under the terms of the Heartland Payment Systems settlement, class members can receive a cash payment based on the number of program fees they paid during the class period. Class members who paid a higher number of program fees will receive a larger share of the settlement fund. Exact payment amounts will vary. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Aug. 28, 2025. The final approval hearing for the MySchoolBucks fees settlement is scheduled for Sept. 25, 2025. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Aug. 20, 2025. Who's Eligible Consumers who used credit or debit cards to upload money to MySchoolBucks to purchase school lunches between June 18, 2013, and July 31, 2019, and whose last transaction was on or after Jan. 1, 2015. Potential Award Varies Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 08/20/2025 Case Name Story, et al. v. Heartland Payment Systems LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-724, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida Final Hearing 09/25/2025 Settlement Website MSBFeeSettlement.com Claims Administrator Heartland Settlement Administrator c/o Eisner Advisory Group LLC P.O. Box 3413 Baton Rouge, LA 70821 info@MSBFeeSettlement.com (833) 530-0046 Class Counsel Jason L. Lichtman Sarah D. Zandi LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP Janet Varnell Brian Warwick VARNELL & WARWICK P.A. Defense Counsel David Balser Laura Harris Peter Starr KING & SPALDING LLP [GN] ISLAND TRANSPORTATION: Denial of Bid to Toss Zatorski Suit Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Jacek Zatorski v. Island Transportation Corporation, Index No. 153771/23, Case No. 2024-07368, the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department, unanimously affirmed the lower court's order, entered Dec. 3, 2024, denying ITC's pre-answer motion to dismiss the underlying class action lawsuit under CPLR 3211(a)(1). The case was decided by Justices Moulton, Friedman, Scarpulla, O'Neill Levy, and Michael. The court held that ITC's documentary evidence failed to "utterly refute" the plaintiff's factual allegations or conclusively establish a defense as a matter of law, as required under Goshen v. Mutual Life Insurance Co. of N.Y., 98 NY2d 314, 326 (2002). The affirmation was issued without costs. In the class action suit plaintiff, Jacek Zatorski, on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees of ITC, alleges that ITC did not provide overtime compensation to its drivers who worked more than a 40-hour work week. ITC, as a company engaged in the interstate transport of goods, is subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Department of Transportation and thus, it contends, the motor carrier exemption to the Fair Labor Standards Act applies, exempting ITC from any overtime compensation requirements for plaintiff and the putative class. The exemption, if applicable, would relieve ITC from FLSA overtime requirements for the plaintiff and the putative class, as it pertains to employees whose work involves interstate transportation under the Department of Transportation's authority. The court's denial of ITC's pre-answer motion to dismiss was based on the strict requirements of CPLR 3211(a)(1), as it found that ITC's documentary evidence did not utterly refute plaintiff's factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law (quoting Goshen v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 98 NY2d 314, 326 [2002]). The submitted evidence, including "collective bargaining agreements and signed wage notices," failed to meet this standard by not conclusively demonstrating that the motor carrier exemption applied. Specifically, the court determined that "ITC's documentary evidence failed to conclusively show at this stage of the proceeding that interstate travel constituted a 'natural, integral and... inseparable part' of plaintiff's duties, such that at any time during his employment it could be found that plaintiff was likely to be called upon to perform interstate travel" (quoting Morris v. McComb, 332 US 422, 433 [1947]). The court relied on precedent stating that a determination as to whether the motor carrier exemption applies to an employee depends on the nature of both the employer's and employees' activities. It identified unresolved factual disputes, noting that the documentary evidence did not resolve all the factual issues raised by plaintiff's allegations, including information as to the policy and practice followed by ITC in assigning interstate routes, how ITC's interstate assignments were made, why plaintiff was assigned 14 of 16 interstate total career routes during a three-month period but no interstate routes for years at a time during his decade-long employment with ITC. These inconsistencies raised questions about whether interstate travel was a consistent and integral part of the plaintiff's duties, undermining ITC's exemption claim. The court further stated that while ITC offered evidence such as collective bargaining agreements and signed wage notices to indicate plaintiff was regularly apprised to expect interstate route assignments as part of his work activities, defendant's actual practice of assigning the interstate routes was not conclusively established by the documentary evidence. Additionally, the court addressed ITC's attempt to supplement its evidence with an affidavit, ruling that to the extent the affidavit of ITC's president attempted to supply such missing facts, the affidavit does not constitute documentary evidence for purposes of a CPLR 3211(a)(1) motion. This ruling underscores the strict evidentiary standard under CPLR 3211(a)(1), which limits consideration to objective, unambiguous documents like contracts, not affidavits that introduce subjective or disputed facts. The court concluded that ITC failed to meet the stringent requirements for dismissal under CPLR 3211(a)(1). Its documentary evidence did not conclusively establish the motor carrier exemption's applicability, leaving open critical factual questions about the plaintiff's duties and ITC's assignment practices. The court's decision underscores the high bar for dismissing a complaint at this stage and the need for a thorough factual record to resolve exemption disputes under the FLSA. A copy of the Court's decision can be found at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZT9k6J JERNIGAN CAPITAL: $12-Mil. Settlement in Securities Suit Approved ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jennifer L. Rochon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York approved a class action settlement in the case captioned as In re Jernigan Capital, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 1:20-cv-09575-JLR-KHP (S.D.N.Y.). The court entered final judgment approving the $12,000,000 settlement agreement between Lead Plaintiff John R. Erickson and Defendants Jernigan Capital, Inc., n/k/a NexPoint Storage Partners, Inc., John A. Good, Mark O. Decker, James Dondero, Howard A. Silver, Harry J. Thie, and Rebecca Owen. The settlement resolves claims on behalf of all persons who held Jernigan common stock on September 11, 2020, the record date for the Transaction, and sold shares for $17.30 in the Transaction. The court determined that several factors supported approval of the settlement: (a) The settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate in light of the benefits to the Class and the complexity and expense of further litigation; (b) Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel adequately represented the Class; (c) There was no collusion in connection with the settlement; (d) The settlement was the product of informed, arm's-length negotiations among competent, able counsel; and (e) The relief provided for the Class was adequate, considering the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal, the effectiveness of the proposed method of distributing relief to the Class, the terms of any proposed award of attorneys' fees, the proposed award to Lead Plaintiff for representation of the Class, and any agreement required under Rule 23(e)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Upon the effective date, Lead Plaintiff and each Released Plaintiff Person "shall be deemed to have, and by operation of this Judgment shall have, fully, finally, and forever waived, released, relinquished, discharged, and dismissed with prejudice each and every one of the Released Plaintiff's Claims against each and every one of the Released Defendants' Persons." The releases specifically exclude "any claims related to the enforcement of the Settlement, any previously filed shareholder derivative or ERISA claims, or any claims of any Person who submitted an effective request for exclusion from the Class, of which there are none." The court found that "the form and manner of the notice provided to the Class is hereby determined to have been the best notice practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice to Class Members who could be identified through reasonable effort." The notice complied with "each of the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, due process, and all other applicable laws and rules." Importantly, "there have been no objections to the Settlement." The court confirmed that "Defendants have satisfied their financial obligations under the Stipulation by paying or causing to be paid $12,000,000.00 to the Settlement Fund." The judgment establishes that separate orders will be entered regarding approval of the Plan of Allocation and Lead Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and expenses. The court ordered that "this Action and all of the claims asserted against Defendants in the Action by Lead Plaintiff and the other Class Members and all Released Plaintiff's Claims are hereby dismissed with prejudice." The parties are to bear their own costs, except as otherwise provided in the settlement agreement. The court retained "continuing jurisdiction over Defendants, Lead Plaintiff, and Class Members for all matters relating to the administration, interpretation, effectuation, or enforcement of the Stipulation and this Judgment, including administering and distributing Settlement proceeds to the Class Members." The court found that "during the course of the Action, the Parties and their respective counsel at all times complied with the requirements of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." The judgment provides that if the settlement does not become effective or the Settlement Fund is returned to Defendants, "then this Judgment shall be rendered null and void to the extent provided by and in accordance with the Stipulation and shall be vacated." The final judgment represents the resolution of this securities class action litigation, providing monetary relief to class members while releasing all related claims against the defendants. The court's approval followed proper notice procedures, consideration of settlement fairness factors, and compliance with applicable federal rules and statutes governing class action settlements. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KEp6TG JIMMY BRINGS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Driver Underpayments --------------------------------------------------------------- Grace Robbie, writing for Lawyers Weekly, reports that Gordon Legal has launched a class action investigation into allegations that on-demand alcohol delivery service Jimmy Brings systematically underpaid its delivery drivers, potentially impacting thousands of workers across Australia. The Melbourne-based law firm's investigation centres on reports that drivers were routinely "paid a single fee", even when tasked with "multiple orders" in a single run -- a practice allegedly at odds with the payment terms promised in their contracts. The class action investigation coincides with Jimmy Brings shutting down its operations nationwide after the company issued termination letters to drivers across Australia in June. Gordon Legal indicated that many of these letters gave drivers just "seven days" notice before they were deactivated from the app, leaving them in limbo with minimal warning and limited alternative income options. Guy Tiffany, an associate at Gordon Legal leading the investigation, said the firm was concerned about the way Jimmy Brings had treated its delivery drivers and what the future holds for them. "Many Jimmy Brings drivers are in precarious positions with no guarantee of ongoing regular work, and we are seriously concerned that Jimmy Brings has not been paying them what it promised under the contracts," Tiffany said. "We expect that this underpayment may have impacted thousands of delivery drivers across Australia. We want to speak to anyone who has worked with Jimmy Brings as a delivery driver so we can understand the true scale of the issue." The alcohol delivery service, launched in 2012, experienced rapid growth alongside the rise of app-based gig work and was acquired by ASX-listed Endeavour Group Limited in 2017. Since 2024, Jimmy Brings has ceased operating as a standalone service and has been integrated into the grocery delivery platform MilkRun. [GN] JM SMUCKER: Jeruchim Seeks to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANDRA JERUCHIM and MELISSA VARGAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE J.M. SMUCKER COMPANY and POST CONSUMER BRANDS, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-06913-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order allowing them to file under seal documents containing information or references to information that the Defendant designated as Confidential. The Plaintiffs state that the "compelling reasons" standard applies at class certification. The Plaintiffs request that the Court seal the following documents, in part or in entirety, as specified below: DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE FILED PORTION SOUGHT TO UNDER SEAL BE SEALED The Plaintiffs' memorandum of Page 1, line 10 through Page points and authorities in 2, line 3; Page 2, lines 8- support of Plaintiffs' motion 14; Page 3, lines 6-28; Page for class certification 5, lines 1-2, 17-18, and 20- 25; Page 6, lines 2-11 and 14-19; Page 6, line 19 through Page 9, line 4; Page 9, lines 8-19; Page 10, lines 12-18; Page 11, lines 1-7; Page 11, line 13 through Page 14, line 18; Page 15, line 25-26; and Page 16, lines 24- 25. Declaration of Melinda Wilkins Page 14, line 15 through Page 16, line 7. The portions of the documents the Plaintiffs seek to seal all depict, reference, rely, and/or discuss upon information produced by the Defendants and designated by Defendants as "confidential" pursuant to the Parties' stipulated protective order entered by the Court. JM is an American manufacturer of food and beverage product. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=71u3tm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Julia K. Venditti, Esq. Emily A. Horne, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com jvenditti@bursor.com ehorne@bursor.com JM SMUCKER: Jeruchim Suit Seeks Class Certification --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANDRA JERUCHIM and MELISSA VARGAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE J.M. SMUCKER COMPANY and POST CONSUMER BRANDS LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-06913-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Nov. 19, 2025, will move the Court for an order granting their motion to certify a class, appoint the Plaintiffs as class representatives, and appoint Bursor & Fisher, P.A., as class counsel: "All persons in California who from Nov. 4, 2018, to and through Dec. 31, 2022, purchased any of the Defendants' 9Lives-branded, Kibbles 'n Bits-branded, and/or Meow Mix- branded products at issue1 (the "Class")." The Plaintiffs assert claims challenging the marketing practices of the Defendants with respect to certain pet food products. Indeed, as part of their central marketing strategy, the Defendants failed to disclose that the pet food packaging contained toxic per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), while prominently representing that the 9Lives, Kibbles 'n Bits, and Meow Mix pet food products are healthy and safe. JM is an American manufacturer of food and beverage product. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SbleCL at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Julia K. Venditti, Esq. Emily A. Horne, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com jvenditti@bursor.com ehorne@bursor.com JOSEPH STILWELL: Khoshaba Seeks to Seal Class Cert Exhibits ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL KHOSHABA, v. JOSEPH D. STILWELL, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00237-MSD-DEM (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to seal portions of the Plaintiff's memorandum of law in support of motion for class certification, Exhibits A and O to the declaration of Jeffrey A. Ritholtz in support of the motion for class certification, and portions of Exhibit T to the supporting declaration. Stilwell is the principal owner and managing member of Stilwell Value, LLC. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8mz7o1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard H. Ottinger, Esq. Katherine M. Lennon Ellis, Esq. WOODS ROGERS VANDEVENTER BLACK PLC 101 W. Main Street, Suite 500 Norfolk, VA 23510 Telephone: (757) 446-8600 E-mail: Richard.Ottinger@woodsrogers.com Kate.Lennon@woodsrogers.com - and - Marc Kramer, Esq. Jeffrey Ritholtz, Esq. ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP PENN 1, Suite 3401 One Pennsylvania Plaza Telephone: (212) 597-2800 E-mail: MKramer@rksllp.com JRitholtz@rksllp.com JOSEPH STILWELL: Khoshaba Suit Seeks Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL KHOSHABA, v. JOSEPH D. STILWELL, et al. Case No. 2:24-cv-00237-MSD-DEM (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- Certify case as class action, -- Appointing him as Class representative, and -- Appointing his counsel as Class counsel. Stilwell is the principal owner and managing member of Stilwell Value, LLC. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7H81xF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard H. Ottinger, Esq. Katherine M. Lennon Ellis, Esq. WOODS ROGERS VANDEVENTER BLACK PLC 101 W. Main Street, Suite 500 Norfolk, VA 23510 Telephone: (757) 446-8600 E-mail: Richard.Ottinger@woodsrogers.com Kate.Lennon@woodsrogers.com - and - Marc Kramer, Esq. Jeffrey Ritholtz, Esq. ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP PENN 1, Suite 3401 One Pennsylvania Plaza Telephone: (212) 597-2800 E-mail: MKramer@rksllp.com JRitholtz@rksllp.com KIMBERLY-CLARK: 2nd Cir Vacates Settlement Approval in Wipes Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as D. Joseph Kurtz, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Gladys Honigman, Plaintiffs-Appellees, Theodore H. Frank, Objector-Appellant, v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Defendant-Appellee, Nos. 24-425 (Lead), No. 24-454 (Con), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the district court's order and judgment approving the settlement and remanded for further proceedings. The Court established that district courts must conduct a proportionality analysis comparing attorneys' fees to class recovery when evaluating settlement fairness under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e), regardless of whether the settlement uses separate funding structures. Plaintiffs Gladys Honigman and D. Joseph Kurtz brought two separate class action lawsuits against Defendant Kimberly-Clark Corporation, "each alleging that Defendant had falsely advertised their moist bathroom wipes as 'flushable.'" According to Plaintiffs, "this led purchasers to pay an unjustified price premium for the product and to flush the wipes, causing plumbing damage." Under the Settlement Agreement reached in 2022, "Defendant agreed to pay up to $20 million in compensation to the class, defined as 'all individuals over the age of 18 who purchased the wipes not for the purpose of resale' between 2008 and 2022." Class members could claim "as much as $50.60 with proof of purchase and as much as $7.00 without a receipt." Additionally, "Defendant also agreed to pay up to $4.1 million in attorney's fees and expenses, separate from the $20 million set aside for possible class recovery." However, by the claim filing deadline, class members had claimed only about $1 million. This meant that Defendant would keep the $19 million unclaimed funds remaining. The district court initially approved the class settlement and scheduled a separate hearing on attorney's fees. Following the Court of Appeals decision in Moses v. New York Times Co., the district court revisited its settlement approval during its hearing on attorney's fees and approved the settlement again. In its approval order, the district court found that the settlement was fair under Rule 23(e)(2), Moses, and the Grinnell factors. The court "focused on the fact that attorney's fees would be paid separately from the funds set aside for class compensation" and concluded that "because the attorneys' fee award will not affect the Class's recovery... this aspect of the Settlement adequately protects the Class's interest." The district court then awarded counsel approximately $3.1 million, a reduction from the $3.9 million that had been requested. Theodore Frank, a class member, "objected to the Agreement" and "argued that this settlement was unfair to the class and thus could not be approved under Rule 23(e)." On appeal, Frank argued that the Settlement Agreement is unfair under Rule 23(e) because it grants a disproportionate share of the total recovery to class counsel: over $3 million to counsel compared to the $1 million actually recovered by the class. The Court of Appeals reviewed "a district court's settlement approval for abuse of discretion" but reviewed "de novo... any issues of law underlying the Rule 23 ruling, including the question of whether the district court applied the correct legal standard to the approval of the settlement. The Court of Appeals explained that under the 2018 amendments to Rule 23(e), "courts must examine whether... the relief provided for the class is adequate, taking into account... the terms of any proposed award of attorney's fees, including timing of payment." The Court clarified that "this tandem analysis of class relief and attorney's fees requires courts to compare the proportion of total recovery allocated to the class to the proportion of total recovery allocated to class counsel. The Court of Appeals held that "regardless of whether a settlement is structured as two separate funds, Rule 23(e) requires courts to consider the allocation of recovery between class counsel and the class before approving a settlement." The Court explained that "Rule 23(e) directs courts to compare the proportion of the total recovery going to attorney's fees with the proportion going to the class, and to consider whether that comparison reveals a sufficient imbalance as to cast doubt on the settlement's fairness. The Court of Appeals emphasized that "formal segregation tells us little of the practical reality of the settlement negotiations. Attorney's fees and class recovery are inevitably intertwined: parties often negotiate the two simultaneously, and defendants, who pay both fees and class recovery, must be expected to think of the two payments in tandem as they negotiate. The Court of Appeals found that the district court erred when it applied Rule 23(e) without considering the allocation of recovery between the class and class counsel. The district court had focused on a single feature of the settlement: "the segregation of the fee funds from the class recovery funds" and reasoned that "because the two are separately funded... the size of the fee award cannot impact class relief." However, the Court ruled that Rule 23(e)(2)(C)(iii) does not distinguish between settlements that use segregated funds and those that do not and that a defendant's separate funds for attorney's fees and class recovery may be a relevant consideration in assessing a settlement's fairness, it is not a replacement for the proportionality analysis required by Rule 23(e)(2)(C)(iii). Because "the district court did not consider the allocation of recovery between the class and class counsel in assessing settlement fairness, as required by Rule 23(e)," the Court of Appeals vacated and remanded for the district court to conduct this analysis in the first instance. The Appeals Court clarified that it offered "no opinion as to whether the settlement in this instant case is fair under Rule 23(e) or not. That decision remains within the district court's discretion, and we explicitly leave open the possibility that after applying Rule 23(e) and comparing the allocation of attorney's fees to class recovery, the district court may again conclude that this settlement is fair and approve it." The Court of Appeals noted that the impact of attorney's fees on class relief is just one of multiple factors detailed in Rule 23(e) and that their holding that a court must consider this factor does not render it singularly dispositive. "Alongside providing a class with compensation, class action lawsuits fulfill significant deterrence functions in service of the public. When properly earned, substantial payments to attorneys can help serve that function. As a result, even settlements that grant a substantial proportion of monetary recovery to class counsel may ultimately be fair upon consideration of all the requisite factors," the appeals court said. A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=38c9uK KRISPY KREME: Pedela Sues Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------ VANCE PEDELA, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KRISPY KREME DOUGHNUT CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00457 (W.D.N.C., June 26, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly safeguard the private information that Defendant's clients entrusted to it as a condition of receiving services. On or about May 22, 2025, Krispy became aware of a data breach that occurred on November 19, 2024. Krispy notified the people affected by the data on June 16, 2025. The Notice of the Data Breach which was sent to the people affected by this data breach disclosed that the information included in the breach were the names, dates of birth, financial account information, financial account access information, and Social Security numbers. The complaint alleges that the Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable security procedures and protocols necessary to protect consumers' private information from a foreseeable and preventable data breach attack. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendant's negligent conduct because the Private Information that Defendant collected and maintained has been accessed and acquired with the authorization of Krispy, says the suit. Through this Complaint, the Plaintiff seek to remedy these harms on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was accessed during the Data Breach. On behalf of themselves and the Class, Plaintiff bring causes of action for: (i) Negligence, (ii) Negligence Per Se; (iii) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (iv) Unjust Enrichment; and (v) Breach of Implied Contract of Good faith and Fair Dealing. Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corporation is a Delaware for-profit corporation with a principal place of business located in Charlotte, North Carolina. The Company is a global sweet treat brand known for its Original Glazed doughnut.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Wilkerson, Esq. WILKERSON JUSTUS PLLC P.O. Box 54 Asheville, NC 28802 Telephone: (828) 316-6902 E-mail: dwilkerson@wilkersonjustus.com - and - 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 E-mail: 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 60601-5902 Telephone: (312) 894-0130 Ext. 3 Facsimile: (312) 489-8216 E-mail: tj@jeskylaw.com LEGOLAND NEW YORK: Settlement in Demmerle Suit Has Final Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Kenneth M. Karas of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants final approval of the class action settlement in the case captioned as CHRISTOPHER DEMMERLE, RONNIERY DE LA CRUZ, and PENG LI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LEGOLAND NEW YORK, LLC and LEGOLAND DISCOVERY CENTERS US LLC, Defendants, Case No. 7:23-cv-11141-KMK (S.D.N.Y.). The court dismissed the action with prejudice and ordered implementation of the settlement agreement. The court conditionally certified a class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) consisting of "all individuals in the United States who purchased electronic tickets to LEGOLAND New York and/or LEGOLAND Discovery Center US LLC from Defendants' Websites, from August 29, 2022 through January 30, 2024 for LEGOLAND New York and from August 29, 2022 through January 2, 2024 for LEGOLAND Discovery Center US LLC." The court found that "the Class Representatives and Class Counsel adequately represented the Settlement Class for the purposes of litigating this matter and entering into and implementing the Settlement Agreement." The court ordered that "the Parties are hereby directed to implement the Settlement Agreement according to its terms and provisions. The Settlement Agreement is hereby incorporated into this Final Judgment in full and shall have the full force of an Order of this Court." The settlement involves claims "regarding the alleged collection and retention by Defendant of fees in connection with electronic ticket sales from August 29, 2022 through January 30, 2024 for LEGOLAND New York and from August 29, 2022 through January 2, 2024 for LEGOLAND Discovery Center US LLC." The court found that the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class. The settlement consideration provided under the Settlement Agreement constitutes fair value given in exchange for the release of the Released Claims against the Released Parties. The court found that the Notice provided to the Settlement Class pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and order granting Preliminary Approval -- including (i) direct notice to the Settlement Class via email, based on the comprehensive Settlement Class List provided by Defendants, and (ii) the creation of the Settlement Website -- fully complied with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and due process. Only one individual has submitted a timely, valid request for exclusion and is therefore excluded from the Settlement Class. The court adjudged that the payment of attorney fees, costs, and expenses in the amount of $116,666.67 is reasonable in light of the multi-factor test used to evaluate fee awards in the Second Circuit. The court also approved "the payment of incentive awards in the amount of $1,500 each to the Class Representatives to compensate them for their efforts and commitment on behalf of the Settlement Class." Upon the effective date of the final judgment, plaintiff and "each and every Settlement Class Member who did not opt out of the Settlement Class shall be deemed to have released Defendant, as well as any and all of its current, former, and future parents, predecessors, successors, affiliates, subsidiaries, divisions, or related corporate entities" from claims "based upon, arising out of, or otherwise relating to any facts, transactions, events, matters, occurrences, acts, disclosures, statements, representations, omissions or failures to act regarding the alleged collection and retention by Defendant of fees in connection with electronic ticket sales." The court ordered that "all payments made to Settlement Class Members pursuant to the Settlement Agreement that are not negotiated within one hundred and eighty (180) days of issuance shall be redistributed on a pro rata basis to all Settlement Class Members who claimed their payments. To the extent that a second distribution would be infeasible, any unclaimed funds shall revert to the Legal Aid Society, which the Court approves as an appropriate cy pres recipient." The court found that "Defendants properly and timely notified the appropriate government officials of the Settlement Agreement, pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Section 1715. The Court has reviewed the substance of Defendants' notice and finds that it complied with all applicable requirements of CAFA." The court dismissed the Action on the merits and with prejudice. The court retained jurisdiction, stating "until the Effective Date the Court shall retain jurisdiction over all matters relating to administration, consummation, enforcement, and interpretation of the Settlement Agreement." The court directed "entry of this Final Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 based upon the Court's finding that there is no just reason for delay of enforcement or appeal of this Final Judgment." A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ODJlWO LENDBEE LLC: Hillow Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lendbee, LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Hillow, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lendbee, LLC, Case No. 8:25-cv-01471 (C.D. Cal., July 8, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. LendBee -- https://lendbee.com/ -- is a reliable credit card loan company that offers a seamless and efficient borrowing experience.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 1925 Century Park East, No 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com LOEWE MIAMI: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Herrera Says -------------------------------------------------------------- OSCAR HERRERA, Plaintiff v. LOEWE MIAMI LLC, a foreign limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-22923 (S.D. Fla., June 30, 2025) is a class action for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff utilizes available screen reader software that allows individuals like him, who are blind and visually disabled to communicate with company websites. However, Defendant's Website, https://www.loewe.com/, contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by blind and visually disabled individuals using keyboards and available screen reader software. As a tester using screen reader software, the Plaintiff is unable to effectively access, navigate, and communicate with Defendant through the Website due to his blindness and the Website's access barriers. Thus, Plaintiff and others who are blind and with visual disabilities will suffer continuous and ongoing harm from Defendant's intentional acts, omissions, policies, and practices as set forth herein unless properly enjoined by this Court. Loewe Miami LLC owns, operates, and/or controls a chain of retail stores selling designer bags, clothing, and accessories, including the store located in Miami, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roderick V. Hannah, Esq. RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A. 4800 N. Hiatus Road Sunrise, FL 33351 Telephone: (954) 362-3800 Facsimile: (954) 362-3779 E-mail: rhannah@rhannahlaw.com - and - Pelayo M. Duran, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO DURAN, P.A. 6355 N.W. 36th Street, Suite 307 Virginia Gardens, FL 33166 Telephone: (305) 266-9780 Facsimile: (305) 269-8311 E-mail: duranandassociates@gmail.com LONDON ALLEY: Freeman Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kanie Sequoia Freeman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LONDON ALLEY ENTERTAINMENT, LLC a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV14912 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 July 8, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-06180. The complaint alleges the following seven causes of action: failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to authorize and permit rest periods; failure to timely pay final wages at termination; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failure to indemnify employees for expenditures; and unfair business practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Max N. Wellman, Esq. Ryan M. Andrews, Esq. Jeffrey A. Brand, Esq. VENABLE LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310.229.9900 Facsimile: 310.229.9901 Email: mwellman@venable.com rmandrews@venable.com jabrand@venable.com LOS ANGELES, CA: Class Cert Hearing Modified to Feb. 6, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD MORALES, an individual; on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES; and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 2:24-cv-06010-FLA-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando Aenlle-Rocha entered an order approving as modified stipulation to continue class certification and related deadlines: Event Current Date New Date Last Date to Hear Motion for Sept. 5, 2025 Feb. 6, 2026 Class Certification Fact Discovery Cut-Off: Mar. 27, 2026 Aug. 28, 2026 Expert Disclosure (Initial): April 3, 2026 Sept. 4, 2026 Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal): April 17, 2026 Sept. 18, 2026 Expert Discovery Cut-Off: May 1, 2026 Oct. 2, 2026 Los Angeles is a sprawling Southern California city and the center of the nation's film and television industry. A copy of the Court's order dated July 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qA0zKK at no extra charge.[CC] LVNV FUNDING: W.D. Pennsylvania Dismisses Howard FDCPA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania dismisses without prejudice the class action lawsuit captioned as TRAVIS HOWARD and VANESSA HOWARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LVNV FUNDING, LLC, RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, LP, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-CV-00093-CCW (W.D. Pa.). The Court concluded that the named plaintiffs, Travis Howard and Vanessa Howard, have not alleged an injury-in-fact sufficient to vest them with Article III standing to bring claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), thereby, dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The case was certified as a class action in March 2023 pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The certified Rule 23 class consists of "All individuals who filed for bankruptcy in Pennsylvania, had Defendants file a proof of claim between June 6, 2018, to December 31, 2018, and had Defendants represent in the claim that the debt underlying the claim was composed entirely of principal, even though Defendants held an account statement, data string, or other document that showed the debt included interest and/or fees, in addition to principal." The case involves claims for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq. The claims arise from a proof of claim filed by defendants LVNV Funding, LLC and Resurgent Capital Services, LP in the Howards' Chapter 13 bankruptcy case. "The POC listed $309.36 as the amount of a debt owed by the Howards to Credit One Bank." "According to the POC, the debt consisted entirely of principal and did not include any interest or fees." However, according to the Howards, "the POC was false, misleading, and/or deceptive because the reported amount of the debt actually included fees and interest, and therefore the POC overstated the debt's principal. The Court applied the established three-part test for Article III standing, requiring that plaintiff (1) has suffered an "injury in fact," (2) that is "fairly traceable" to the defendant's challenged conduct, and (3) is "likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision." The Court noted that "injury-in-fact is the 'first and foremost of standing's three elements.'" To satisfy this element, "a plaintiff must show that he or she suffered 'an invasion of a legally protected interest' that is 'concrete and particularized' and 'actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.'" The Howards first argued they had standing under Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, claiming they "suffered injury in precisely the form the FDCPA was intended to guard against." The Court declined to extend Havens to the instant case, noting that "Havens was a case brought under the FHA, not the FDCPA, and involved the type of false statement the FHA specifically made unlawful." The Court observed that other Circuit Courts have "distinguished Havens and declined to extend it to the FDCPA context" because "the FHA does not seek to vindicate some amorphous interest in receiving truthful information. Instead, it protects the weighty interest in not being subjected to racial discrimination." The Howards also argued they suffered an informational injury because defendants provided "false and inaccurate information about their debt" and "necessarily frustrated their ability to make informed decisions." The Court applied the three-part test for informational injury established in George v. Rushmore Service Center, LLC, requiring "(1) the omission of information to which she claims entitlement, (2) adverse effects that flow from the omission, and (3) nexus to the concrete interest Congress intended to protect by requiring disclosure of the information." The Court found the Howards failed to establish the second element, noting that "even if the POC did omit the amount of the Howards' debt that consisted of interest and fees, the Howards have not identified any downstream consequence or adverse effect flowing from that omission." The Court stated that "having their ability to make informed decisions generically 'frustrated' is not enough to give the Howards standing." The Court concluded that "the Howards lack standing and therefore the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case." The Court noted that "the only other allegation in the Second Amended Complaint that suggests a downstream consequence to the Howards is that the omission in the POC 'needlessly increased the burden and expense of Plaintiffs and the class members' bankruptcies.' But this allegation is conclusory and fails to establish the Howards' standing." Accordingly, the Court ordered that this case is dismissed without prejudice" based on the lack of Article III standing. The Court explained that "a dismissal of an action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not a decision on the merits; therefore, such a dismissal should be without prejudice. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=V7Vsxr MARC H. BELL: Eaton Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marc H. Bell. The case is styled as Theodore Eaton, Daryl Bryson, and all others similarly situated v. Marc H. Bell, Case No. 2025-0784-NAC (Del. Chancery Ct., July 8, 2025). The case type is stated as "Civil Action." Marc Bell is an American financier and entrepreneur.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Blake Bennett, Esq. COOCH & TAYLOR PA-WILMINGTON 1000 W St Suite 1500 Wilmington, DE 19899 Phone: (302) 984-3889 Fax: (302) 984-3939 Email: bbennett@coochtaylor.com MCNAMARA CHIROPRACTIC: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against McNamara Chiropractic LLC. The case is styled as Erin Wilson, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. McNamara Chiropractic LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00201-RWS (N.D. Ga., July 9, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. McNamara Chiropractic LLC -- https://www.mcnamarachirocenter.com/ -- offers personalized chiropractic solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is 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 MELNOR INC: Settlement in Douglass Suit Gets Initial OK ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLAIR DOUGLASS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. MELNOR INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00670-WSH (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge W. Scott Hardy entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion to certify class for settlement purposes and for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The settlement class is defined as: "a national class of individuals who are Blind and/or who have a Visual Disability and who use Appropriate Auxiliary Aids and Services to navigate digital content and who have accessed, attempted to access, or been deterred from attempting to access, or who will access, attempt to access, or be deterred from attempting to access, the Website [https://www.melnor.com/] from the United States." The court appoints and designates Mr. Douglass as representative of the settlement class. The court appoints and designates attorneys Tucker, Abramowicz, Steiger, Moore, Conahan, and Liu as class counsel for the settlement class. A final approval hearing shall be held before this court on Oct. 16, 2025. Melnor is a manufacturing company of lawn and garden watering products such as sprinklers, nozzles, wands, hole valves and smart watering. A copy of the Court's order dated July 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EOpXDE at no extra charge.[CC] MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Class Cert Bid in Kruzel Due Feb. 6, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kruzel v. Molina Healthcare, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:23-cv-01183 (D. Or., Filed Aug. 14, 2023), the Hon. Judge Ann L. Aiken entered an order granting the parties' Joint Proposed Case Management Schedule and adopting the proposed deadlines as follows: -- The parties shall confer as to July 18, 2025 alternate dispute resolution by: -- Joint Alternate Dispute Resolution Aug. 18, 2025 Report is due by: -- The Plaintiff shall disclose expert Nov. 14, 2025 testimony pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2) in support of class certification by: -- The Defendants shall disclose expert Dec. 29, 2025 testimony pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2) in opposition of class certification by: -- Class certification motion is due by: Feb. 6, 2026 The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Molina is a managed care company.[CC] NORTHBAY HEALTH: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $3.6MM ------------------------------------------------------------- Robin Miller of The Reporter reports that NorthBay Health has reached a settlement agreement of $3.6 million in a class action lawsuit filed after a data breach that compromised the personal financial and medical information of more than half a million people. The settlement was announced online and via mailed forms to affected individuals, including settlement details and next steps for making claims. NorthBay Health confirmed in a data breach report earlier this year that the financial, medical and health insurance details of 569,012 people were compromised in a ransomware attack in 2024. Financial, medical, and health insurance details, as well as Social Security numbers and passport and credit or debit card numbers were stolen following an Embargo ransomware group attack against NorthBay's systems between Jan. 11 and April 1, 2024. Embargo is a relatively new group in the ransomware scene, according to online cybersecurity experts. In April 2024, NorthBay posted a notice on its website about the disruption, referring to it as a "cyber incident." In a statement to media at the time, the nonprofit healthcare provider said, "Upon detecting this incident, we launched an investigation and engaged leading external cybersecurity experts to support our response. We are working diligently to restore systems as quickly and safely as possible." As part of the settlement, NorthBay "denies that it did anything wrong," the settlement website explains. The Action is captioned McCalmon v. Northbay Healthcare Corporation, Case No. CU24-03200, pending in Solano County Superior Court and the Court "has not decided who is right," the settlement website reads. "The Parties have agreed to settle the action to avoid the costs and risks, disruptions, and uncertainties of continuing the litigation." The settlement website explains that the only way to receive part of the settlement is to submit a "valid and timely" claim form. The forms can be found online at www.NorthbayHealthcareSettlement.com and must be submitted by Oct. 14. Those who received notice can choose to opt out of the settlement which would allow them to sue, continue to sue or be part of any other lawsuit related to the legal claims at their own expense. But the deadline for that is Sept. 30. Those who do not opt out of the settlement, may object to it by writing to the Court about why they don't like the settlement and can also ask the court for permission to speak about your objection at the Final Approval Hearing. If you object, you may also file a claim for Settlement Class Member Benefits. Deadline Sept. 30 Unless they opt out of the settlement, those affected are automatically part of the settlement. If they do nothing, they will not receive settlement benefits and give up their right to sue, continue to sue, or be part of another lawsuit. The Court in charge of this case still has to decide whether to approve the settlement. Final Approval Hearing is set for 10/29/2025 at 8:30 a.m. The $3.6 million settlement fund will first be used to pay court approved attorneys' fees and costs, a service award for the lead plaintiff, and settlement administration costs. All of the remaining funds will be used to pay the settlement benefits. Eligible individuals can claim credit monitoring services and have two cash payment options. The first would be up to $4,000 for those who can document losses incurred as a result of the data breach. It would include proving bank or credit card and debit card fees, overdraft fees, cost to replace drivers' licenses or Social Security numbers, long distance phone charges, fees for credit reports or monitoring and loss due to identity theft. It would require receipts to verify the losses. The second option is a flat $100 payment for those who did not incur documented losses as a result of the data breach. When the hack of their system occurred, NorthBay was forced to turn patients away and cancel appointments for a short time. In a statement earlier this year, the local healthcare company said following the hack, which it called a "cyber incident," it "initiated an internal investigation, coordinated with law enforcement on identifying any unauthorized activity and engaged a leading forensic security firm to assist in the investigation and confirm the security" of its computer systems. In addition, NorthBay said it sent notification letters to individuals identified as potentially being involved in the attack and for whom it had addresses, and included resources for complimentary identity protection and credit monitoring services in those notices. "NorthBay Health takes our responsibility to safeguard personal information seriously and thanks the community for its continued patience and support as we have worked to address and investigate the issue," the statement concluded. [GN] OFF LEASH: Bid to Compel Discovery Responses Tossed w/o Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BETH SARVER ASHWORTH, v. OFF LEASH K9 TRAINING CENTRAL FLORIDA LLC, Case No. 6:24-cv-01858-CEM-LHP (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Leslie Hoffman Price entered an order denying without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion to Compel Discovery Responses. The Plaintiff did not move for default judgment within the time afforded by Local Rule 1.10(c), and an Order to Show Cause issued. Doc. No. 13. To date, Plaintiff has not responded to that Order to Show Cause, which remains pending before the Presiding District Judge. Instead, Plaintiff requested, and obtained, leave to conduct class certification discovery in advance of moving for default judgment. In short, the Plaintiff seeks an order compelling the defaulted Defendant to respond to Requests for Production and Interrogatories related to the scope of the putative class and damages. However, Plaintiff nowhere argues or provides any legal authority suggesting that he may obtain such discovery from a defaulted party. Rather, the only authority provided relates to the general proposition of discovery in a class certification setting The Court notes that the time period for Plaintiff to conduct discovery has now expired. Off leash offers high-level obedience dog training for all dogs. A copy of the Court's order dated July 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=okDViv at no extra charge.[CC] PARADIES SHOPS: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $6.88MM ------------------------------------------------------------- William C. Gendron of ClaimDepot reports that U.S. residents who received a notice from The Paradies Shops LLC about a 2020 data breach may qualify to claim up to $25,000 from a class action settlement. The Paradies Shops LLC agreed to pay $6.88 million to resolve a class action lawsuit alleging negligence and other claims related to a ransomware attack that exposed sensitive employee information, including names and Social Security numbers. Who can file a Paradies Shops claim? Class members must meet the following criteria: -- They are a U.S. resident who received a notice from Paradies about the 2020 data breach. -- Their name and address appear on the official class list Paradies maintains. -- They received a mailed notice regarding the class action settlement. How much is the data breach payout? -- Ordinary out-of-pocket losses and attested time: Up to $1,000 per person. These are documented, unreimbursed expenses incurred in response to the ransomware attack, such as fees for credit reports, freezing or unfreezing credit, notary or postage costs and credit monitoring purchased before the settlement. As part of the $1,000 cap, class members can claim up to five hours of time spent responding to the breach compensated at $30 per hour (maximum $150). -- Extraordinary losses and attested time: Up to $25,000 per person. These are documented, unreimbursed losses traceable to the ransomware attack and not covered by ordinary losses, such as those from identity theft, fraud or falsified tax returns. Class members may claim up to 10 hours of time spent remedying these losses at $30 per hour (maximum $300). Class members can claim extraordinary attested time separately from extraordinary losses. -- Credit monitoring services: Three years of identity theft protection and credit monitoring at no cost and regardless of whether the class member claims other losses. If the total amount of approved claims exceeds the net settlement fund after deducting administration costs, attorneys' fees and service awards, the settlement administrator will reduce payments proportionally. If funds remain after all claims and costs are paid, class members who did not exclude themselves may receive a residual cash payment calculated on a pro rata basis. How to claim a class action rebate Class members can submit an online claim form or download, print and complete the PDF claim form to mail to the settlement administrator. Claims must be submitted online or postmarked by Aug. 4, 2025. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Ramirez Class Action Settlement, c/o Claims Administrator, 1650 Arch St., Suite 2210, Philadelphia, PA 19103 What information and documentation is necessary to submit a claim? -- To file an online claim, class members must provide the notice ID and confirmation code from the personalized notice they received via mail or email. -- For ordinary or extraordinary losses, class members must submit receipts, statements or other non-self-prepared documents showing the loss or expense. -- For attested time, class members must submit a written description of the actions taken and time spent. -- For credit monitoring, class members need only check the box on the claim form. Payout options -- PayPal -- Venmo -- Zelle -- Virtual prepaid card -- Physical check $6.88 million ransomware attack settlement fund breakdown The $6,880,000 settlement fund covers: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $2,268,988 -- Attorneys' expenses: Up to $15,000 -- Service award to class representative: $10,000 -- Credit monitoring costs: To be determined -- Payments to class members: Remainder of the fund Important dates -- Deadline for exclusion: July 7, 2025 -- Final fairness hearing: July 24, 2025 -- Deadline to file a claim: Aug. 4, 2025 When is the Paradies Shops ransomware settlement payout date? Payments will be issued approximately 60 days after the court grants final approval and any appeals are resolved. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit alleged a ransomware attack on The Paradies Shops LLC's internal systems Oct. 8-13, 2020, potentially exposed employee records, including names and Social Security numbers. The plaintiffs alleged negligence and other claims, seeking compensation for costs and losses related to the incident. Paradies denied wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid the risks and costs of further litigation. [GN] PARTNERS PERSONNEL: Esperon Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Luis Esperon, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorney General Act v. PARTNERS PERSONNEL - MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; PARTNERS PERSONNEL - MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; REMO, INC., a California corporation; EMPLOYBRIDGE, LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV30735 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 9, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-06251. On November 21, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint which set forth the following 8 causes of action: 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: Erin N. Bass, Esq. Jemuel S. Gascon, Esq. DENTONS US LLP 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 623-9300 Facsimile: (213) 623-9924 Email: erin.bass@dentons.com jemuel.gascon@dentons.com PAUL HESSE: Court Strikes Class Cert Hearing Date in White ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MISTY WHITE, JANARA MUSGRAVE, and LANDON PROUDFIT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. HON. PAUL HESSE, in his official capacity as Chief Judge of the 26th Judicial District, and HON. DAVID HALLEY, in his official capacity as Special District Judge in the Canadian County District Court, Case No. 5:19-cv-01145-JD (W.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Jodi Dishman entered an order granting the Parties' Joint Motion to Strike Class Certification Hearing Date and Related Deadline. Further, the Court stays disposition of the Plaintiffs' amended motion for class certification given the update in the motion, and resets the amended motion for class certification for hearing on Tuesday, Sept. 23, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 502, and continuing over the following days as and if necessary: Sept. 24, 25, 26, and 29, 2025. The parties shall file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, exhibit lists, and any exhibits they intend to rely upon that are not already part of their exhibits, at least 14 days before the hearing, or by Tuesday, Sept. 9, 2025. A copy of the Court's order dated July 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MFLXpn at no extra charge.[CC] PRAMUKH NJ LLC: Facility Inaccessible to the Disabled, Cheli Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHARLENE CHELI, an individual Plaintiff v. PRAMUKH NJ LLC, a New Jersey Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-12198 (D.N.J., June 26, 2025) is a class action seeking injunctive relief, damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. Plaintiff Cheli is an individual with disabilities who has been diagnosed with facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy and therefore has a physical impairment that substantially limits many of her major life activities. The Defendant's property is a shopping center/plaza with several tenant spaces located in Clementon, New Jersey. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has personally encountered and physically experienced exposure to architectural barriers and otherwise harmful conditions that have endangered her safety, caused her inconvenience, and forced her to suffer dignitary harm at the Property. The Defendant has discriminated against the Plaintiff, and other similarly situated mobility impaired persons, by denying access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Property, as prohibited by the ADA, the suit says. Pramukh NJ LLC owns and/or operates a shopping center/plaza, a place of public accommodation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon G. Shadinger Jr., Esq. SHADINGER LAW, LLC 2220 N. East Avenue Vineland, NJ 08360 Telephone: (609) 319-5399 E-mail: js@shadingerlaw.com PROSMILE HOLDINGS: $440,000 Deal in Privacy Suit Gets Prelim. OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Alder of The HIPAA Journal reports that a class action lawsuit against ProSmile Holdings LLC over a 2022 data breach has been resolved, with all parties agreeing to a $440,000 settlement. The litigation was initiated in response to a cyberattack that involved unauthorized access to the protected health information of 39,674 individuals. An unauthorized third party gained access to its email environment, and the incident was detected on July 7, 2022; however, it took 7 months to announce the breach and 17 months for the affected individuals to be notified. The compromised information included names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver's license or other state identification card numbers, financial account numbers, payment card numbers, medical treatment information, diagnosis or clinical information, provider information, prescription information, and health insurance information. A lawsuit -- Middleton v. ProSmile Holdings, LLC -- was filed on January 30, 2024, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey by plaintiff Kristina Middleton, whose protected health information was exposed in the incident. The plaintiff alleged negligence for failing to implement appropriate cybersecurity measures, breach of implied contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. ProSmile Holdings denies all allegations of wrongdoing and disclaims all liability with respect to all claims, but agreed to a settlement to bring the lawsuit to an end to avoid the costs of protracted litigation and the uncertainty of trial. Under the terms of the settlement, a $440,000 settlement fund will be established to cover attorneys' fees ($146,666.67), attorneys' costs ($25,000), settlement administration costs, and class representative awards ($5,000). The remainder of the settlement will cover benefits to class members. Class members may submit a claim for reimbursement of documented out-of-pocket expenses fairly traceable to the data breach, including unreimbursed losses to identity theft and fraud, credit monitoring costs, professional fees, and other reasonable expenses. The claims are capped at $5,000 per class member. Individuals may claim a pro rata cash payment, which will be paid out of the remainder of the settlement funds, and individuals who had their Social Security numbers compromised may choose to receive a cash payment of up to $500, which will be paid pro rata depending on the number of valid claims. Individuals who claim a cash payment under the Social Security number benefit package can also submit a claim for reimbursement of losses, but cannot claim two cash payments. The settlement has received preliminary approval from the court, and the final fairness hearing is scheduled for October 14, 2025. The deadline for objection to and exclusion from the settlement is August 26, 2025, and the deadline for submitting a claim is September 25, 2025. [GN] PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: $4.75MM Data Breach Suit Deal Gets Prelim OK ------------------------------------------------------------------ Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a $4.75 million class action settlement will resolve litigation against Prudential Financial over a February 2024 data breach during which a cybercriminal organization accessed the personal information of thousands of Prudential customers. The Prudential data breach settlement received preliminary approval from the court on June 5, 2025 and covers anyone in the United States whose information was compromised during the incident. The court-approved website for the Prudential Financial class action settlement can be found at PrudentialFinancialDataBreach.com. Prudential settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form may receive either an equal-share cash payment, compensation for documented out-of-pocket losses or compensation for the exposure of Social Security or tax identification numbers. Class members in California may choose one of these settlement benefits or compensation for the exposure of personal information under the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), the class action settlement website states. Documented out-of-pocket losses, as defined by the official settlement website, include up to $5,000 in unreimbursed expenses from between February 4, 2024 and October 3, 2025 that are related to the data breach, such as: -- ID replacement costs; -- Charges incurred from identity theft or fraud, or other misuse of personal information; and -- Fees related to obtaining credit reports, credit monitoring and freezing/unfreezing credit. Class members must provide proof of their losses or expenses, such as receipts, with their claim form for reimbursement of documented out-of-pocket losses, the settlement website adds. Compensation for a leaked Social Security number or tax ID number may range between $200 and $599 per person, the settlement website says, noting that a class member's actual payment amount will depend on the types of claims filed by all eligible consumers. Compensation under the CCPA, available only to California class members, may range between $100 and $599 per person and can be granted to class members in the state who had any of the following personal information or documentation exposed in the data breach: -- Credit or debit card information; -- A health condition, treatment, prescription or diagnosis; and/or -- A driver's license, Non-U.S. Nation Identification Number, passport or other government-issued ID. Pro-rata cash payments can be claimed even if a class member does not qualify for any of the other forms of compensation, the settlement website notes. Any class member who elects the pro-rata cash payment option will receive an equal share of the $4.75 million settlement fund after all other forms of compensation have been distributed and legal fees and lead plaintiff awards have been paid. To submit a claim form online, class members can head to this page and log in with the unique notice ID and PIN found in their original class action settlement notice. Alternatively, a PDF of the claim form is available to print, fill out and mail back to the address listed on the third page of the document. All Prudential Financial settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by October 3, 2025. A hearing is scheduled for October 22, 2025 to determine whether the settlement will receive final approval from the court. Compensation from the open class action settlement will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Prudential data breach class action lawsuit alleged that the company experienced a cyberattack on February 16, 2024 at the hands of the cybercriminal group ALPHV Blackcat, compromising the sensitive personal information of thousands of customers. [GN] R.C. BIGELOW: Court Denies Banks' Bid for Prejudgment Interest -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denies the Plaintiffs' motion for prejudgment interest in the case captioned as KIMBERLY BANKS and CAROL CANTWELL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. R.C. BIGELOW, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-06208-DDP-RAOx (C.D. Cal.). The Court denied the motion for prejudgment interest while noting that a separate judgment will issue. On July 13, 2020, Plaintiffs Kimberly Banks and Carol Cantwell filed this class action challenging the labeling of Defendant R.C. Bigelow's tea products. Plaintiffs alleged violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California Business and Professions Code Section 17533.7, California False Advertising Law, and California Unfair Competition Law, breach of express and implied warranties, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs sought class certification only as to the CLRA, breach of express warranty, and fraud claims, which the Court granted. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on the deception/falsity and reliance/materiality elements common to all three claims. Conversely, the Court denied Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on those elements as well as on knowledge/intent for fraud and damages. Thus, the only issues remaining for trial were intent and damages. The parties tried the case before the jury. On April 8, 2025, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs, finding Bigelow liable under all three theories and awarding Plaintiffs $2,360,744 in compensatory damages. However, the jury found that Plaintiffs had not proved the intent element of fraud by clear and convincing evidence to warrant punitive damages. Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for entry of judgment with interest requesting "that the Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and the Class and against Bigelow in the amount of the jury verdict of $2,360,744, plus prejudgment interest of $983,062 for a total Judgment of $3,343,806 (exclusive of post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and class representative service awards)." Bigelow opposed only the request for prejudgment interest. Plaintiffs argued that the nearly five years from the filing of the lawsuit in July 2020 to entry of judgment weighs in favor of prejudgment interest. However, the Court found that this case took five years to litigate was not due to any fault of Defendant. The Court's and the parties' schedules required certain hearings to be continued, and the Court spent several months considering and ruling on key motions in this case. The parties also stipulated to a five to six month extension of the scheduling order deadlines in order to engage in additional mediation. Trial was continued roughly six months to allow Plaintiffs to conduct additional limited discovery. Plaintiffs argued that prejudgment interest would not penalize Defendant for litigating a bona fide dispute because "Bigelow did not have a bona fide dispute as evidenced by the Court's summary judgment order in favor of Plaintiffs and the Class." Though the summary judgment order resolved several key liability issues in this case, it did not resolve all of the issues. Intent for fraud and damages remained in dispute and were heavily litigated following the Court's summary judgment order. Plaintiffs damages model was highly contested from the onset of litigation through trial. The existence of a bona fide dispute revolving around "highly contested and uncertain" damages in this case is evidenced by the jury's award of $2,360,744, as opposed to the $3,266,679 proposed by Plaintiffs damages expert. The Court did not find the rejected settlement offers grounds to warrant prejudgment interest in this case. There is no dispute that the parties engaged in multiple mediation sessions, that Plaintiffs were open to the Court's offer to try to settle the matter before trial which Defendant declined, and Plaintiffs made settlement offers. However, in a case such as this, where there is the possibility of punitive damages, the settlement offers could be potentially far greater than what the jury ultimately awarded. Bigelow need not agree to any and all settlement offers in order to avoid prejudgment interest. After weighing the factors and balancing the concerns of fairness and just compensation, the Court found that prejudgment interest is not warranted in this case. For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs' Motion for Prejudgment Interest is denied. A separate judgment shall issue. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JM1S02 RB GLOBAL: Fixes Construction Equipment Rental Prices, Hayden Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ MATTHEW HAYDEN D/B/A HAYDEN'S SERVICES, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RB GLOBAL, INC.; ROUSE SERVICES LLC; UNITED RENTALS, INC.; SUNBELT RENTALS, INC.; HERC RENTALS INC.; H&E EQUIPMENT SERVICES, INC., and SUNSTATE EQUIPMENT CO., LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-01059-KAD (D. Conn., July 3, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged conspiracy to artificially increase construction equipment rental prices nationwide. According to the complaint, Defendant Rouse orchestrated a price-fixing scheme in the construction equipment rental market participated by Rental Company Defendants. Rouse and the Rental Company Defendants have violated and continue to violate U.S. antitrust laws. Instead of setting their rental rates independently, the Rental Company Defendants, who control much of the nation's construction equipment rental market, outsource rate-setting to a common entity-Rouse. By acting collectively through Rouse, the Rental Company Defendants eliminate competition between themselves. The Plaintiff brings this action to recover damages, trebled, as well as injunctive and other appropriate relief, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated. Matthew Hayden, doing business as Hayden's Services, LLC, is a landscaping and hardscaping company, headquartered in Maryland. RB Global, Inc. is a public company, headquartered in Illinois. Rouse Services LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of RB Global, Inc., headquartered in Beverly Hills, California. United Rentals, Inc. is a construction equipment rental company, headquartered in Connecticut. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. is a construction equipment rental company, headquartered in North Carolina. HERC Rentals Inc. is a construction equipment rental company, headquartered in Florida. H&E Equipment Services, Inc. is a construction equipment rental company, headquartered in Louisiana. Sunstate Equipment Co., LLC is a construction equipment rental company, headquartered in Arizona. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth R. Lesser, Esq. KLAFTER LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: (914) 934-9200 Facsimile: (914) 934-9220 Email: seth@klafterlesser.com - and - David M. Cialkowski, Esq. Ian F. McFarland, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 S. 8th St. Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 Email: david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com ian.mcfarland@zimmreed.com RENAISSANCE LEARNING: Reisberg Sues for Invasion of Privacy ----------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE REISBERG, on behalf of her minor children M.C. 1 and M.C. 2, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RENAISSANCE LEARNING, INC. Defendant, Case No. 8:25-cv-01379 (C.D. Cal., June 26, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for invasion of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Fourth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Federal Wiretap Act, California Invasion of Privacy Act, Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, Wisconsin Electronic Surveillance Control Law, and Wisconsin's Deceptive Trade Practices Act. According to the complaint, Renaissance has built a multibillion-dollar empire by monetizing vast troves of personal information from individual users of its products -- including millions of school-aged children -- without effective consent. Renaissance markets itself as an education technology company, but its core business is generating, extracting, and analyzing as much information as possible about its users and monetizing that information. Renaissance's massive data-harvesting apparatus exposes children to serious and irreversible risks to their privacy, property, and autonomy, and harms them in ways that are both concealed and profound, asserts the complaint. M.C. 1, a minor, attended school in an Orange County, California school district. As part of her schooling, she was required to access and use Renaissance products and services, which she accessed and used from her school-issued device. Plaintiff Nicole Reisberg is the mother and legal guardian of Plaintiffs M.C. 1 and M.C. 2. Renaissance Learning, Inc. provides educational software. The Company offers learning information systems and electronic assessment products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melisa A. Rosadini-Knott, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE LLP 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90010-1923 Telephone: (323) 982-4109 E-mail: mrosadini@peifferwolf.com REVERA INC: Pandemic-Era Proposed $25M Class-Action Suit Paused --------------------------------------------------------------- Meghan Grant of CBC News reports that a proposed $25-million class-action lawsuit against a Calgary continuing care home related to its COVID-era operations has been paused as the courts deal with similar trials in Alberta and Ontario that are further along in the process. The Mckenzie Towne Continuing Care home is being sued by representative plaintiff Marijke Roberje and others who were residents of McKenzie Towne Centre infected with COVID-19. In just the first three months of the pandemic, the outbreak at the care home claimed 21 lives, according to the lawsuit which was filed in mid-May 2020. Roberje's mother moved into Mackenzie Towne Centre in February 2020. Family members were not allowed to visit their loved ones after March 14, 2020, the date of the first outbreak at a continuing care facility in the province. Roberje's mother was diagnosed with COVID-19 on March 28 and died on April 4. Negligence alleged The lawsuit against Revera Inc., which operates the McKenzie Towne Centre, alleges the company was negligent and did not follow proper protocols to prevent an outbreak of COVID-19. The defendants deny any negligence and say they were "duly diligent and complied with all federal and provincial health orders and with operational standards." The defendants also say they are protected by the province's COVID-19 Related Measures Act, which says that if a health services facility acts in good faith in respect to public health guidance and laws related to the pandemic, then it is protected from being sued. As part of the lawsuit, Roberge is also challenging the validity of that Act. In April, plaintiff lawyers Nicole Keeler and Clint Docken asked Court of King's Bench Justice Michele Hollins to stay the lawsuit pending the outcome of two other cases which were both certified as class action lawsuits last year. The lawyers argued "it is unjust to force her to incur the costs of running a parallel proceeding where the determination of the common issues already certified in these other actions will likely be dispositive," according to Hollins' decision. 'A very similar story' The other actions include the Pugliese lawsuit in Ontario, a consolidation of eight class action suits which all seek damages for the deaths and illnesses of people in long-term care homes during the pandemic. And, in Alberta, the Brentwood action involves the Brentwood Care Centre with representative plaintiff Kathy Kaiser who "has a very similar story to Ms. Roberge," according to Hollins. "The common issues already certified in the Pugliese and Brentwood actions are substantially similar to those in this action and thus, the decisions in those common issues trials can be expected to shorten these proceedings and ultimately, save time and money," wrote the judge. That Brentwood action involves the same lawyers who are on the Mackenzie Towne case. [GN] ROBERT KENNEDY: Must File Response to Jackson Complaint by Sept. 5 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACKSON et al v. ROBERT KENNEDY, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01750 (D.D.C., Filed June 3, 2025), the Hon. Judge Beryl A. Howell entered an order: -- Granting the parties' joint motion for extension of time; -- Directing the Defendants to respond to the Plaintiff's complaint by Sept. 5, 2025; and -- Staying the deadline for the Plaintiffs to move for class certifications until resolution of the Defendant's anticipated motion to dismiss and the parties' submission of the conference report required by federal rule of civil procedure 26(f) and LCvR 16.3. The suit alleges violation of the Right to Privacy Act.[CC] SAINT ANTHONY: Esteves Sues Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- COLLEEN ESTEVES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAINT ANTHONY HOSPITAL, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07438 (N.D. Ill., July 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence/wantonness, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, and breach of fiduciary duty. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach discovered on, or about, on February 6, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Saint Anthony Hospital is a healthcare services provider, with a principal place of business in Cook County, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 Email: Paul.Doolittle@poulinwilley.com SAN BERNARDINO, CA: Bids for Reconsideration & Bifurcation Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denies San Bernardino County and San Bernardino County Children and Family Services' motion for reconsideration and motion to bifurcate in the case captioned as GARY G., et al., Plaintiffs v. GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:23-cv-00947-MEMF-BFM (C.D. Cal.). The Court denied both motions, finding that the County Defendant failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds for reconsideration and that bifurcation would not serve judicial economy. The case involves foster children bringing claims against San Bernardino County, San Bernardino County Child and Family Services, California Department of Social Services, and the CDSS Director for various alleged deficiencies in the foster care system. Plaintiffs Gary G., Xander B., Francesca B., Delilah B., Teddy H., Lori Newels, Kevin E. and Sam E., Henry P., David O. and Arnold O., and Greg R. are foster children seeking relief for systemic failures. On Sept. 3, 2024, the Court issued an order granting in part the various motions to dismiss, dismissing certain defendant from the case but otherwise leaving intact the First Amended Complaint's eight causes of action. The causes of action include violations pursuant to (a) the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act; (b) California Welfare and Institutions Code Sections 16501.1, 16503(a); (c) 42 U.S.C. Section 1983; (d) California Constitution Article I, Section 7(a); (e) Section 1983 based on family association; (f) the Americans with Disabilities Act; (g) the Rehabilitation Act Section 504; and (h) California Government Code Section 11135. On Feb. 12, 2025, the Court denied the County Defendant's motion to certify its motion to dismiss order for interlocutory appeal. On April 1, 2025, the County Defendant filed a Motion for Reconsideration, and on April 18, 2025, filed a Motion to Bifurcate. The County Defendant sought reconsideration of the Court's Certification Order on the grounds that the Ninth Circuit recently certified for appeal the legal question that the County Defendant sought certification of, and which this Court denied. The Ninth Circuit has granted the petition to appeal in the other case, Ocean S. ("Ocean S. Order"). The Court found that while the Ocean S. Order provided a legitimate basis to seek reconsideration because it provides a material difference in law that was not known earlier, it did not provide a basis to grant the County Defendant's Motion because it was not a "change in the controlling law." The Court emphasized that a motion for reconsideration is an "extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources." The Court noted that there was no dispute that the Ocean S. Order had no precedential value. The Ocean S. Order provided no analysis or reasoning and merely summarily granted appeal, stating "The petition for permission to appeal is granted. See 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b)." The Court found that the Ocean S. Order did not substantially "call into question the reasoning underpinning" the Certification Order, such that reconsideration would be warranted. Since the Ocean S. Order itself was not controlling, the Court found it was not persuasive authority that could be controlling on the Court's outcome. The County Defendant sought bifurcation of discovery such that the initial phase of discovery would be limited to discovery related to Plaintiffs' individual claims against Defendant. The County Defendant contended that holding off on broad discovery on the class until Plaintiffs' individual claims had survived summary judgment would conserve resources and be more efficient for all parties. The Court found that the County Defendant was conflating the issue and legal standard surrounding standing with a perceived deficiency on the first element of a Monell claim -- deprivation of a constitutional right. The Court noted that although there may be some factual overlap between the two issues, standing is a legally separate question from whether or not Plaintiffs have adequately shown an underlying constitutional violation under Monell. The Court determined that the County Defendant had not sufficiently shown that the issues were clearly separable such that the broader discovery they sought to stay would not be applicable to these issues. Standing requires Plaintiffs to show (a) injury in fact, (b) a causal connection to the injury and Defendant's conduct, and (c) redressability. The Court noted that broader discovery into the County's policies and the potential risk to Plaintiffs would be potentially relevant to Plaintiffs' standing to bring injunctive relief. Regarding the Monell claims, Plaintiffs accurately noted these claims would require broader discovery into Defendant's policies and customs and whether those policies and customs amounted to deliberate indifference. The Court found that it would be improper to allow Defendant to move for summary judgment on Plaintiffs' Monell claims as a whole without allowing Plaintiffs the full scope of discovery sought related to Defendant's customs and policies. The Court found that the parties were in disagreement regarding the scope of the discovery that would be relevant to the issues even if there were to be bifurcation. Therefore, the Court did not find that it would be an efficient course of action given that there may be significant discovery disputes regarding what discovery is allowed in the initial phase. The Court acknowledged that there may be some prejudice to the County Defendant in having to engage in the production of significant discovery for claims that may ultimately be dismissed, but noted this is no different from the prejudice most defendant face. Because the County Defendant had not shown that the issues were clearly separable, the Court found that they had not sufficiently shown any substantial benefits from bifurcation in this case. The Court denied both motions. For the Motion for Reconsideration, the Court found that the Ocean S. Order did not constitute an intervening change in controlling law sufficient to warrant reconsideration. For the Motion to Bifurcate, the Court found that the issues were not clearly separable and that bifurcation would not serve the interests of judicial economy or efficiency. Accordingly, the Court denied the Motion for Reconsideration and denied the Motion for Bifurcation A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XDOmvy SECURITY BENEFIT: Must Oppose Clinton Class Cert Bid by Sept. 29 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELLA CLINTON, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, et al., v. SECURITY BENEFIT LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 5:20-cv-04038-HLT-RES (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Rachel E. Schwaii entered a sixth amended scheduling order: Event Deadline Joint status report filed with confirmed July 28, 2024 deposition dates for the Plaintiffs' experts: Deadline for the Plaintiffs to produce Aug. 28, 2025 Plaintiffs' class ce1iification experts for deposition: Deadline for Defendant's opposition to motion Sept. 29, 2025 for class certification and any motions relating to Plaintiffs' class certification experts: Deadline for the Defendant to produce the Oct. 30, 2025 Defendant's class certification experts for deposition: . Deadline for: (i) the Plaintiffs' reply in Dec. 15, 2025 support of motion for class certification; (ii) the Plaintiffs' opposition to any motions relating to the Plaintiffs' class certification experts; and (iii) any motions relating to the Defendant's class certification experts: . Deadline for: (i) Defendant's opposition to Jan. 12, 2026 any motions relating to Defendant's class certification experts; and (ii) Defendant's reply in support of any motions relating to Plaintiffs' class certification experts: Deadline for the Plaintiffs' reply in support of Feb. 9, 2026 any motions relating to Defendant's class certification experts: Security offers life insurance services in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated July 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zpbz2c at no extra charge.[CC] SENSIO INC: Court Dismisses Claims in Brandon Pressure Cooker Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Ronnie Abrams of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants Sensio Inc.'s motion to dismiss both claims in the putative class action captioned as DELANA BRANDON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SENSIO, INC., Defendant, Case No. 24-CV-2859 (RA) (S.D.N.Y.) with prejudice. The complaint is dismissed with prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim for relief due to statute of limitations bars. Sensio designs, manufactures, markets, and distributes pressure cookers. Brandon is a citizen and resident of Virginia. On July 22, 2018, Brandon purchased a Sensio pressure cooker from a local retailer. On April 7, 2019, while using the pressure cooker, Brandon was able to open the device's lid during the cooking process, causing its heated contents to spill onto her. She was badly burned as a result, suffering burns to almost 20 percent of her body. She nonetheless assumed the product was "perfectly normal" and that the incident was an "unexplained freak occurrence." At some point after the incident, the Plaintiff searched the internet for information about the model of pressure cooker she purchased, including to determine whether it was subject to a recall and whether "pressure cookers can cause injuries," but found nothing. Over four years later, on August 10, 2023, Sensio announced a recall of several pressure cooker models, including the model purchased by Brandon. The recall stated that "the pressure cooker's lid can unlock and be removed during use, causing the hot contents to unexpectedly splash out, posing a burn hazard to consumers." Brandon alleges that she did not become aware of the pressure cooker's defect until learning of the recall. She attempted to obtain a refund from Sensio through the recall but was unsuccessful. Brandon commenced this action against Sensio on April 16, 2024, asserting claims for deceptive practices in violation of Section 59.1-200 of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act and common law unjust enrichment. She amended her complaint on September 3, 2024. On October 7, 2024, Sensio filed the motion to dismiss. The court applied the standard that to survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. The Court must "accept as true all factual allegations" but is "not required to credit conclusory allegations or legal conclusions couched as factual allegations." The Virginia Consumer Protection Act prohibits "using any deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, or misrepresentation in connection with a consumer transaction." Brandon alleged that Sensio's failure to disclose the defect in its pressure cookers violated the VCPA. Sensio contended that Brandon's VCPA claim is barred by the law's two-year statute of limitations. Brandon responded that the statute of limitations did not begin to run until August 10, 2023, when Sensio announced the recall. The court found that the statute of limitations for a VCPA violation is two years from the date the cause of action accrues. Contrary to the general rule that actions accrue at the time of injury, a VCPA cause of action accrues when such fraud, mistake, misrepresentation, deception, or undue influence is discovered or by the exercise of due diligence reasonably should have been discovered. The question of whether a party used due diligence to discover the fraud must be ascertained by an examination of the facts and circumstances unique to each case. Under Virginia law, "the statute of limitations for a VCPA claim begins to run when the plaintiff discovers the existence of a claim, not when the exact cause of injury is determined." The court analyzed several precedent cases to establish this principle. In Hyde Park, the court held that the statute of limitations began to run when the plaintiff first "had reason to suspect" that the defendant may have performed faulty work, and not when the plaintiff ultimately concluded as much with the benefit of additional information from the manufacturer . Similarly, in Isle v. Martin, the court held that the plaintiff's claim accrued when she first identified the well water as the source of her illnesses. Following the logic applied in these cases, the court determined that Brandon's claim accrued when she had reason to suspect the pressure cooker was defective, not when Sensio confirmed the existence of a defect. The April 7, 2019 incident in which she sustained extensive burns undoubtedly provided reason for her to suspect a defect in the product. Indeed, in her complaint, she alleges that, prior to the incident, she was "completely unaware" that the pressure cooker's "lid could be opened while the contents were still scalding hot." Although the Court expressed sympathy to Brandon in light of her injury, it concluded that she "should have" discovered the existence of her VCPA claim on the date of the incident. The fact that she "did not have more specific information" about Sensio's alleged deception until the 2023 recall is "immaterial." The court noted that Brandon had two years from the date of the April 7, 2019 incident to "learn that she may have had a claim under the VCPA and to bring that claim in a timely manner." Finally, Brandon's assertion that, at some point after being "badly burned," she searched the internet for information about pressure cookers causing injuries and, finding none, assumed that the incident was a "freak occurrence," does not amount to a plausible allegation of due diligence. The court found that plaintiff's VCPA claim thus accrued on April 7, 2019, and the limitations period expired two years later. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is granted with respect to the VCPA claim. Brandon also asserted a claim for unjust enrichment. To state a cause of action for unjust enrichment under Virginia law, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) "plaintiff conferred a benefit on defendant; (2) defendant knew of the benefit and should reasonably have expected to repay plaintiff; and (3) defendant accepted or retained the benefit without paying for its value." Unjust enrichment claims under Virginia law are subject to a 3 year statute of limitations. "The discovery rule does not apply to unjust enrichment claims; the period begins to run at the time the unjust enrichment occurred, not when a party knew or should have known of the unjust enrichment." The statute of limitations for Brandon's unjust enrichment claim therefore began to run on July 22, 2018, when she purchased her Sensio pressure cooker. It expired three years later, well before this litigation commenced. Seeking to avoid this bar, Brandon argued that equity requires that the statute of limitations be tolled through the date of the recall, when she allegedly first learned of the defect. Under Virginia law, however, "it is well-established that statutes of limitations are strictly enforced and must be applied unless the General Assembly has clearly created an exception to their application." Any invocation of equity to relieve the strict application of a statute of limitations must be guarded and infrequent, lest circumstances of individualized hardship supplant the rules of clearly drafted statutes. The court found that the complaint fails to allege that Brandon "diligently pursued her rights" during the limitations period, which is "a core requirement of the doctrine." Nor does it contain allegations of "extraordinary circumstances," that might justify equitable tolling, such as affirmative obstruction or fraud. Brandon thus has "not cleared the high hurdle of equitable tolling, and this Court will not supplant the statute of limitations on her unjust enrichment claim." Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is granted with respect to the unjust enrichment claim. Whether to permit a plaintiff to amend her complaint is a matter committed to a court's "sound discretion." Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that leave to amend a complaint "shall be freely given when justice so requires." Leave to amend should be denied when the proposed amendment would be futile. The Court concluded as a matter of law that Brandon's VCPA claim accrued no later than April 7, 2019, and that her unjust enrichment claim accrued on July 22, 2018. Since both claims are time barred, amendment would be futile. Accordingly, leave to amend is denied. The court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mUx7Pv SHEIN DISTRIBUTION: Faces Class Suit Over Marketing Text Messages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Laurel Deppen, writing for Fashion Dive, reports that Shein is facing a class action lawsuit that claims the fast fashion giant sent marketing text messages to those on the national Do-Not-Call Registry, according to court documents. The complaint alleges Shein sent three text messages to the plaintiff in June, after the claimant registered with the Do-Not-Call Registry in April. The plaintiff didn't explicitly sign up for the texts. Attorneys for the plaintiff are seeking a jury trial and claim that the plaintiff suffered an invasion of privacy, intrusion of life and a private nuisance, and that Shein should have known the plaintiff's phone number was on the Do-Not-Call Registry. Dive Insight: Shein's fast fashion competitor Temu has faced two similar class action lawsuits over texting people on the Do-Not-Call Registry that were later voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs. Though Shein has previously faced class action lawsuits, the new complaint is unique in its claim of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The new complaint was filed July 11 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, the district in which the plaintiff resides. In addition to seeking a jury trial, attorneys are seeking monetary relief for the plaintiff and members of the class, including attorneys' fees, costs and expenses. A Shein spokesperson didn't immediately respond to Fashion Dive's request for comment. Last year, a group of designers and artists filed a class action complaint against Shein that claimed Shein had copyright infringement baked into its business model. Many of the lawsuits Shein faces are copyright infringement claims, both from independent artists like the class action lawsuit and established brands, including a recent complaint from Brandy Melville. Recently Shein's advertising practices have come under additional scrutiny after France's antitrust authority fined the fast fashion giant for misleading consumers. [GN] SHOALS AMBULANCE: Underpays Medical Technicians, Osborne Says ------------------------------------------------------------- JOSHUA OSBORNE, individually and for others similarly situated v. SHOALS AMBULANCE, LLC d/b/a PRIORITY AMBULANCE, Case No. 3:25-cv-00299 (E.D. Tenn., June 26, 2025) is a collective action to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Shoals employed Osborne as an emergency medical technician from approximately June 2024 until April 2025. He and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more than 40 hours a workweek. But Shoals does not pay Osborne and the other Hourly Employees at least one and a half times their regular rates of pay—based on all remuneration -- for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, asserts the complaint. Instead, Shoals pays Osborne and the other Hourly Employees non-discretionary bonuses and shift differentials that it fails to include in their regular rates of pay for overtime purposes, says the suit. Shoals Ambulance, LLC, d/b/a Priority Ambulance, provides ambulance services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Garrison, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, PLLC 200 31st Avenue North Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnsotn.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - 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 SONNET BIOTHERAPEUTICS: M&A Investigates Merger With Rorschach -------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Sonnet BioTherapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: SONN) related to its merger with Rorschach I LLC. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, Sonnet shareholders will own approximately 1% of the combined company. Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/sonnet-biotherapeutics-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] STITCH FIX: Judge Declines to Dismiss Securities Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ JD Supra reports that on July 9, 2025, Judge P. Casey Pitts of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California largely declined to dismiss a putative securities class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a clothing company and certain of its executives. Retail Wholesale Dept. Store Union Loc. 338 Ret. Fund v. Stitch Fix, Inc., --F. Supp. 3d--, 2025 WL 1900722 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2025). Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made misrepresentations concerning the launch of a new business line. The Court held that plaintiffs adequately alleged misrepresentations and scienter with respect to all defendants but dismissed plaintiffs' control person claims against the individual defendants. Plaintiffs' allegations concerned the company's new business line, which allowed customers to select and purchase specific clothing items, which differed from the company's primary business of shipping curated boxes of items. Plaintiffs alleged that, while company executives reported that the new business line would be additive, incremental, and complementary to its primary business, executives and the company knew, based on internal testing, that pursuing the initiative would cannibalize the existing business. The Court had dismissed plaintiffs' prior complaint for failure to adequately allege falsity or scienter, in particular after concluding that the challenged statements concerned existing customers, while the internal testing was alleged only to have involved prospective customers. However, the Court explained that the further amended complaint cured this deficiency by clarifying that the internal testing included not only customers who had never engaged with the company but also customers who had signed up for the company's existing service but never made a purchase -- rendering the "cannibalization" between product lines revealed by the internal testing "potentially material." In this context, the Court held that plaintiffs adequately alleged misrepresentations as to numerous challenged statements, e.g., "we can see in the data that [the new business is] working," the "incrementality of these two offerings [is really] . . . quite complementary," the company is focusing on the "incrementality, complementarity, and additive nature" of the new product alongside its core business, and the company's "data show[s] the success" of the new product. The Court emphasized that, once the company made these statements, it was "bound to disclose the multiple negative internal test results that strongly contradicted such laudatory conclusions." The Court rejected defendants' argument that the allegations were not made with sufficient particularity. To the contrary, the Court held that the allegations regarding the company's negative internal test results were highly detailed, including those based on statements by a former employee who worked on launching the new business line, and revealed that customers channeled into the new business line purchased less from the company than customers channeled into the company's core product and were 30–40% less likely to make any purchases from the company at all. The Court also rejected defendants' argument that the allegations were insufficient to show that adverse internal results were available before one of the challenged statements, as the Court concluded it was "reasonable to infer" that the results were available based on detailed allegations about how the "tests were conducted and reported, as well as the broader context of the [new business line's] launch." And while defendants claimed that these challenged statements were protected forward-looking statements or inactionable puffery, the Court largely disagreed. While noting that certain statements were inactionable, the Court emphasized that the primary misrepresentations that the Court had held were adequately alleged "all reference[d] what ha[d] already happened and what [was] currently known" and that each statement reflected "terms with specific, technical meanings for investors" concerning how the company's offerings were performing and were "not empty corporate babble." The Court further held that plaintiffs adequately alleged scienter. First, the Court noted plaintiffs alleged specific facts indicating that one executive was presented with information about the negative results from internal testing. Second, the Court observed that both individual defendants allegedly had access to the company database containing detailed information about customer behavior, including the results from the internal testing, and weekly reports about customer acquisition and retention. Finally, the Court explained that the new business line was alleged to be so important to the company's business that it was implausible that the executives did not know about the negative testing. Collectively, the Court found these allegations supported a strong inference at the pleading stage that the executives knew the failure to disclose the information relating to the cannibalization of its product lines was likely to mislead investors. Finally, the Court dismissed control person claims against the individual defendants. The Court explained that, because plaintiffs adequately pleaded direct claims under the Exchange Act against those individual defendants, they could not also pursue a control person claim against those same persons based on the same challenged statements. Moreover, the Court concluded that there was no allegation that either individual defendant had control of the other individual defendant with respect to statements made by the other defendant. [GN] SUNSHINE GASOLINE: Property Has Architectural Barriers, Pardo Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, Plaintiff v. SUNSHINE GASOLINE DISTRIBUTORS, INC. and MAMUTE, INC. d/b/a MAMUTE, INC. MOBIL a/k/a EXXON 06, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-22873 (S.D. Fla., June 26, 2025) is a class action for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act and 28 U.S.C. Sections 2201 and 2202. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject places of public accommodation. The barriers to access at Defendants' commercial property and commercial gas station, food mart and cafeteria business have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit these places of public accommodation 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, says the suit. Plaintiff Pardo uses a wheelchair to ambulate, has very limited use of his hands and cannot operate any mechanisms which require tight grasping or twisting of the wrist. He has lower paraplegia, which inhibits him from walking or otherwise ambulating without the use of a wheelchair. Sunshine Gasoline Distributors, Inc., owns, operates and/or oversees the commercial property, to include its general parking lot and parking spots specific to the gas station, food mart and cafeteria business operating within the property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 E-mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com T. GOSSETT LLC: Faces Kemp Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ LAURENCE KEMP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. T. GOSSETT, LLC d/b/a WHEELY CLEAN CAR WASH, and THAD GOSSETT, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00170 (S.D. Tex., June 30, 2025) is a collective action to recover overtime wages and liquidated damages brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, although Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members routinely worked (and continue to work) in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members were not paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The FLSA Collective Members are those current and former employees who were employed by Defendants, anywhere in the United States, at any time from June 30, 2022, through the final disposition of this matter, and have been allegedly subjected to the same illegal pay system under which Plaintiff worked and was paid. T. GOSSETT, LLC, d/b/a WHEELY CLEAN CAR WASH, provides car wash services across the State of Texas. Thad Gossett is the owner and managing member of Wheely.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com THRIVE AGENCY: Morton Has Until Oct. 9 to Conduct Discovery ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAN MORTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THRIVE AGENCY LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01458-RP (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Susan Hightower entered an order granting the Plaintiff Jan Morton's motion to commence discovery. -- Morton has until Oct. 9, 2025, to conduct discovery concerning the prerequisites for class certification under Rule 23. -- The Clerk remove this case from this Magistrate Judge's docket and return it to the docket of the Honorable Robert Pitman. The Court finds that Morton has shown good cause for early discovery. Morton seeks expedited discovery to comply with the Court's order to move for default judgment. The Plaintiff sued the Defendant on Nov. 23, 2024, for allegedly violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by making telemarketing calls to his and other numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry. Morton sues on behalf of the putative National Do Not Call Registry Class, which he defines as: "All persons in the United States whose (1) telephone numbers were on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 31 days, (2) but who received more than one telemarketing call from or on behalf of Thrive or a Thrive entity, (3) within a 12-month period, (4) at any time in the period that begins four years before the date of filing this Complaint to trial." Morton filed his complaint and served Thrive on Dec. 13, 2024. After Thrive failed to answer or otherwise make an appearance, Morton moved for Clerk's entry of default under Rule 55(a). The Clerk entered default on April 8, 2025. Thrive is a digital marketing agency. A copy of the Court's order dated July 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Kui7H3 at no extra charge.[CC] TREE TOP: Faces Johnson Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices ---------------------------------------------------------- BRAINE JOHNSON, on behalf of himself and the putative Collective and Class Members, Plaintiff v. TREE TOP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03099 (E.D. Wash., June 30, 2025) is a class and collective action on behalf of the Plaintiff and other individuals who work or have worked for Tree Top, Inc. as non-exempt, hourly employees, to challenge Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Washington law. The complaint arises from Defendant's policies and practices of: (1) failing to pay Plaintiff and Class Members minimum wage for all hours worked; (2) failing to pay Plaintiff, Collective and Class Members overtime wages; (3) failing to authorize and permit Plaintiff and Class Members the timely, compliant meal and rest periods to which they are entitled by law; (4) willfully refusing to pay wages to Plaintiff and Class Members; and (5) failing to timely pay all wages upon separation from employment to Plaintiff and putative Class Members. The Plaintiff and members of the Class are current and former employees who worked for Tree Top, Inc. as non-exempt hourly employees throughout Washington. The Plaintiff was employed by Tree Top as a Team Lead from September 1, 2021 through July 7, 2023. Tree Top, Inc. is a cooperative headquartered in Selah, Washington, and operating in Wahington, California, and Oregon.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Paul Cipriani, Esq. EMERY REDDY PLLC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 442-9106 Facsimile: (206) 441-9711 E-mail: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com paul@emeryreddy.com - and - Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq. Ori Edelstein, Esq. Danielle A. Fuschetti, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com dfuschetti@schneiderwallace.com UNITED HEALTHCARE: $3.49MM Class Settlement in Johnson Approved --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELAINE JOHNSON, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-00522-GAP-PRL (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Gregory Presnell entered an order approving class action settlement. The Court further entered an order that the Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Lawsuit and over all settling parties. Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), and for the reasons this Court included in the Order Preliminarily Approving the Settlement (Doc. 52), the Lawsuit is finally certified, for settlement purposes, as a class action on behalf of the following settlement class members with respect to the claims asserted in the Lawsuit: "All persons and entities throughout the United States (1) to whom United HealthCare Services, Inc. placed a call regarding the Optum (TM) HouseCalls program relating to a UnitedHealthcare plan, (2) directed to a cellular telephone number customarily used by a person who is not and was not a UnitedHealthcare member or plan holder, (3) in connection with which United HealthCare Services, Inc. used an artificial or prerecorded voice, (4) from Oct. 12, 2019 through Feb. 10, 2025." Pursuant to Rule 23, this Court finally certifies Plaintiff as the class representative, and Aaron D. Radbil of Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC (“GDR”) as class counsel. The Agreement, which is approved contains the following material terms: A. Settlement Fund – Defendant established a $3,495,000 non-reversionary fund. B. Deductions – The following are to be deducted from the Settlement Fund before any other distributions are made: a. The costs for the administration of the settlement and class notice; b. GDR's attorneys' fees, in the amount of $1,165,000; and c. Reimbursement of GDR's litigation costs and expenses in the amount of $37,620.09. UnitedHealthcare provides a wide range of health care and well-being services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qmH4xw at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Class Certified in Doe Immigration Suit vs. DHS -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Indira Talwani of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts grants motion for class certification in the case captioned as SVITLANA DOE, et al., Plaintiffs v. KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-10495-IT (D. Mass.). The lawsuit is a class action brought by multiple plaintiffs proceeding under pseudonyms against the Secretary of Homeland Security and other defendants. The court modified its prior Order Granting Class Certification and issued an Amended Order Granting Class Certification on May 28, 2025. The court certified a class of all individuals who have received a grant of parole that is subject to the Termination of Parole Processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans, 90 Fed. Reg. 13611 (Mar. 25, 2025), rescinding individual grants of parole on a categorical and en masse basis. The class also includes all individuals who have received humanitarian parole through already established humanitarian parole processes that provide for re-parole, such as the U4U, OAW, FRP, MPIP, and CAM parole processes, with any pending applications for re-parole. Additionally, the class encompasses all individuals who have received humanitarian parole through already established humanitarian parole processes and have a pending application for any additional immigration benefit, and all individuals who have a pending application to support any family member for initial parole through the Military Parole in Place program. Exceptions and Representatives The court excluded those individuals who, or whose family member, voluntarily left, and remain outside, the United States prior to the issuance of the relevant Agency action, and those individuals who choose to opt out of the class in order to seek relief in separate litigation. The court appointed Armando Doe, Ana Doe, Carlos Doe, Andrea Doe, Lucia Doe, Miguel Doe, Daniel Doe, Svitlana Doe, Maksym Doe, Maria Doe, Alexandra Doe, Teresa Doe, Adolfo Gonzales, Jr., Marim Doe, and Omar Doe as Class Representatives. The court found that the prerequisites set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) were satisfied: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the interests of the representative parties will not conflict with the interests of any of the class members. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b), the court determined that defendants have "acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class." Accordingly, certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is appropriate. Class Counsel Appointment The court appointed John A. Freedman, Daniel B. Asimow, and Laura Scott Shores of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Karen C. Tumlin of Justice Action Center, and Anwen Hughes of Human Rights First as class counsel. The court found that counsel are "qualified, experienced and able to vigorously conduct the proposed litigation." Further relief sought in Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class and Supplemental Motion for Class Certification remains pending A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Hasw4q UNITED STATES: Court Won't Enforce Remand Order in Ackerman v. USDA ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Thomas L. Ludington of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denies the Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce the Remand Order in the case captioned as ACKERMAN BROTHERS FARMS, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-11779 (E.D. Mich.). The court determined that it did not retain jurisdiction over the case when it remanded it to the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation for further proceedings. In 2013, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation approved an insurance program for dry-bean farmers in Michigan. "The 2015 dry-bean harvest rendered the policies sold under the program 'virtually worthless.'" In 2017, Plaintiff -- a group of Michigan farmers sued the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, Risk Management Agency, United States Department of Agriculture, and various insurers under the Administrative Procedure Act, challenging the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation's approval of the insurance program. In 2019, this Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant, primarily in reliance on Defendant's misrepresentation about the Michigan insurance program's similarity to an insurance program that the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation previously approved. Plaintiff appealed, and the Sixth Circuit identified the misrepresentation. The Sixth Circuit concluded that Federal Crop Insurance Corporation's approval of the insurance program for Michigan dry-bean farmers did not comply with legally required procedures. The Court remanded the case to the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation to reexamine the Michigan program based on a newly generated record that adhered to legally required procedures. Plaintiff appealed the Remand Order to the Sixth Circuit. The Sixth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, noting that Plaintiff's avenue to challenge an unfavorable decision on remand to the agency was to bring a new lawsuit in federal court. Since 1938, the Federal Government has offered crop insurance to farmers through the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation -- a government corporation within the Department of Agriculture. The Federal Crop Insurance Act of 1980 expanded the Federal Government's crop-insurance program by allowing private entities to offer crop insurance. Under this federal crop-insurance framework, insurance policies ordinarily "take one of two forms": (1) yield protection, or (2) revenue protection. Revenue protection policies "provide protection against loss of revenue due to a production loss, price decline or increase, or a combination of both." The Minnesota and Michigan Submissions In 2011, Watts and Associates, Inc, an economic consulting firm proposed a pilot program for revenue-protection insurance for dry-bean farmers in Minnesota and North Dakota (the "Minnesota Submission"). In March 2012, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation approved Watts's Minnesota Submission. However, for unexplained reasons, Watts did not implement the Minnesota Submission as approved by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation. In July 2013, Watts applied to expand its pilot program to Michigan (the "Michigan Submission"). The Michigan Submission contained an important difference from the Minnesota Submission: the Michigan Submission's proposed endorsement included the fallback provision that the Minnesota and North Dakota policies included as implemented, rather than as approved. In August 2013, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation characterized Watts's Michigan Submission as a "non-significant change" to the Minnesota Submission and therefore approved it. The 2015 Harvest Impact In 2015, Plaintiff -- a group of Michigan dry-bean farmers -- purchased Watts's revenue protection under an endorsement named the "Dry Bean Revenue Endorsement." "That year, a bountiful harvest and insufficient pricing data produced the perfect storm: the increased dry-bean supply drove market prices below projected prices, and the Bean Market News did not generate enough data to set harvest prices." As a result, the harvest price for some dry beans defaulted to the projected price, rendering the farmers' revenue-protection policies of little to no value and leaving Plaintiff empty-handed. Court's Analysis on Jurisdiction When a court remands a case based on agency error without retaining jurisdiction, the case is terminated. In this way, whether a court retains jurisdiction when remanding a case to an agency affects what one must do to challenge the remanded proceedings. When a court does not retain jurisdiction over a remanded agency case, a party must file a "separate piece of litigation" to challenge the agency's action on remand. The Court found that it did not retain jurisdiction over the case when it remanded the case to the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation for fresh proceedings on the merits. "For that reason, this Court's Remand Order and Judgment contain no express language retaining jurisdiction over the case." Plaintiff's Arguments Rejected Plaintiff argued that this Court implicitly retained jurisdiction when it remanded the case without vacating the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation's initial decision. The Court found this argument misplaced. Plaintiff cited two cases where a court remanded a case without vacating the underlying agency decision as support. "But these cases do not support the proposition that a court implicitly retains jurisdiction over a case on remand to an agency for new proceedings without vacating the underlying agency decision." The Court noted that Plaintiff's post-remand conduct undermined their contention. After the Remand Order was final, Plaintiff sought and were awarded attorneys' fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. "But under the Equal Access to Justice Act, a party may only immediately obtain attorney fees when a court remands the case to an agency under circumstances where the court did not retain jurisdiction." Federal Crop Insurance Corporation's Decision on Remand On remand, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation approved the Michigan Submission after consulting with various experts and analyzing insurance program participation, in accordance with this Court's directive to consider whether the interests of the farmers are adequately protected. Dissatisfied with that result, Plaintiff moved to enforce this Court's Remand Order, contending that the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation erred on remand. Plaintiff alleged that three of the five experts who reviewed the Michigan Submission concluded that it did not adequately protect farmers' interests, thus rendering the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation's decision "erroneous." However, Plaintiff have not provided the complete record for this Court to conduct a meaningful review. Rather, Plaintiffs provide only (1) the three expert reports that concluded the Michigan Submission did not adequately protect farmers' interests, (2) the final FCIC approval order, and (3) a PowerPoint used in the remand proceedings, which Plaintiffs obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request The Court acknowledged that "the limited materials that Plaintiff provided -- specifically, the three expert reports concluding that the Michigan Submission did not adequately protect farmers' interests -- suggest that the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation's remand decision is suspect." However, the Court determined that such evaluation "must be made in separate Administrative Procedure Act action," with a complete record of the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation's decision on remand. Accordingly, the Court denies the Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce the Remand Order. The Court determined that Plaintiff must file a new case under the Administrative Procedure Act to challenge the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation's decision to reapprove the Michigan Submission. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oBb5WO VCE THEATERS: Production of Electronic Discovery Due July 25 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Atkins v. VCE Theaters, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01332 (D. Or., Filed Sept. 13, 2023), the Hon. Judge Stacie F. Beckerman entered an order: -- granting the Defendants' motion to extend ESI discovery deadline, and -- extending Defendants' deadline to complete production of electronic discovery from July 11, 2025, to July 25, 2025. The parties shall confer regarding extending Plaintiffs' deadline to file a motion for class certification and email the Court with their proposal(s). The nature of suit states Civil Rights – Employment.[CC] WESTERN REFINING: Barden Seeks Extension of Class Cert Bid Filing ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE BARDEN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. WESTERN REFINING RETAIL, LLC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 5:23-cv-01360-MEMF-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on July 10, 2025, will apply to the Court for an ex-parte order: 1. Approving and entering the Parties' joint stipulation to continue class certification and related deadlines, filed on June 26, 2025 and refiled on July 1, 2025, or, in the alternative, 2. Continuing the class certification discovery cutoff and the motion for class certification filing deadline by at least 30 days. The Plaintiff has been diligently pursuing discovery since the failed mediation in August 2025. The Plaintiff first requested dates for Defendant's Person Most Knowledgeable ("PMK") deposition on February 7, 2025. After months of delay, Defendant finally provided dates on May 9, 2025, and the parties agreed to a deposition date of June 9, 2025. On May 28, 2025, Defendant took Plaintiff's deposition and suspended it before completion. Subsequently, Defendant unilaterally cancelled the PMK deposition scheduled for June 9 and the deponent did not appear. These disputes led the Parties to file a Joint Informal Discovery Conference Statement on June 17, 2025. On June 18, 2025, Magistrate Judge Kim denied the request for a conference. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KWQp7w at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. Eric D. Tims, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 432-0000 E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com vgranberry@lelawfirm.com etims@lelawfirm.com WORKFORCE7 INC: Bid to Seal Class Opposition Docs OK'd ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ballast, et al., v. Workforce7 Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-03812 (S.D.N.Y., Filed May 15, 2020), the Hon. Judge Edgardo Ramos entered an order granting motion to seal two documents in connection with Con Edison's upcoming opposition to Plaintiff's pending motion for class certification. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Workforce7 provides professional flagging services.[CC] WVMF FUNDING: Bid to Dismiss Claim in Renois Suit Granted in Part ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants in part and denies in part WVMF Funding, LLC's motion to dismiss Count Two of the Second Amended Complaint in the case captioned as MARIANNE RENOIS, AS ADMINISTRATOR, FIDUCIARY AND BENEFICIARY OF AND FOR THE ESTATE OF ELLIS DEANGELO, MYRTEEN LEE and TAUNA THOMPSON on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WVMF FUNDING, LLC, and COMPU-LINK CORPORATION D/B/A CELINK, Defendants, Case No. 20-CV-9281-LTS-VF (S.D.N.Y.). The Court dismissed with prejudice certain claims under New York Real Property Law Section 280-b(3)(c) while allowing other claims to proceed. In 2010, Jean and Ellis DeAngelo obtained a Home Equity Conversion Mortgage from Mortgage Enterprises, Ltd., and Financial Freedom. The loan was subsequently sold and acquired by WVMF Funding, LLC, which retained Compu-Link Corporation as the sub-servicer of the loan. Under the loan agreement terms, the borrower was required to "pay all property charges," including "hazard insurance premiums in a timely manner, and provide evidence of payment to Lender." Marianne Renois, as administrator and fiduciary of the DeAngelo estate, maintained hazard insurance on the property as required and provided oral and written notice to Celink regarding the policy on March 8, 2018, September 14, 2018, November 5, 2018, February 2, 2020, and June 8, 2020. Despite these alleged communications, on August 28, 2018, Celink sent Renois a "second and final notice" representing that the hazard insurance policy on the property had expired. On October 1, 2018, Celink notified Renois that it had obtained an insurance policy and that "the cost of any insurance we purchase will be added to your loan balance." The amended Count Two asserted claims for violations of New York Real Property Law Section 280-b under two theories. First, plaintiffs asserted that defendants violated Section 280-b(4)(b) and title 3 of the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations Section 79.11(a)(6) by failing to provide proper notice of the force-placed insurance premiums on the periodic loan statements Renois received monthly between March and June 2020. Second, plaintiffs claimed that defendants violated Section 280-b(3)(c) by failing to refund the force-placed insurance premiums and related charges and interest within 15 days of being provided notice that the borrower-maintained insurance, in violation of 11 New York Codes, Rules and Regulations Section 227.5. The Court examined defendants' argument that Section 280-b(4)(b) only applies to insurance payments that were derived from the "proceeds of the mortgage." The Court found this argument unavailing, stating: "The Second Amended Complaint attaches and incorporates by reference the terms of the Home Equity Conversion Loan Agreement, which specifies that, 'if Borrower fails to pay the property charges in a timely manner and has not elected to have Lender make the payments, Lender shall pay the property charges as a Loan Advance.'" The Court determined that "under the terms of the agreements, Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that Defendants paid for the imposed premiums and related charges through the line of credit, adding the disbursements to the balance of Plaintiff Renois' parents' loan." Regarding the effective date arguments, the Court found that Section 79.14 provides "for one hundred and twenty (120) days including and following the March 5, 2020 effective date of this Part, mortgages either originating or servicing RPL 280-b loans shall not be in violation of this Part if they comply with the Part 79 that was in effect prior to March 5, 2020." Therefore, the Court determined that "the regulation in Part 79.11(a)(6) was not in effect before July 3, 2020, and Plaintiffs' claims premised on the lack of required notice in the March, April, May, and June 2020 statements fail to state a claim under that regulation." On the refund issue, the Court analyzed whether defendants qualified as "insurers, insurance producers, or affiliates" under 11 New York Codes, Rules and Regulations Section 227.5. The Court stated that "Plaintiffs plead no allegations supporting a plausible inference that either Defendant was a state-licensed insurer or insurance producer." The Court found that "Celink does not qualify as an insurance producer within the meaning of the regulation, and Plaintiffs' claims arising under section 227.5." The Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss Count Two in part and denied it in part. Specifically, the Court dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs' amended Count Two "in so far as it asserts violations of New York Real Property Law Section 280-b(3)(c) arising from the alleged violations of 3 New York Codes, Rules and Regulations Section 79.11(a)(6) and 11 New York Codes, Rules and Regulations Section 227.5." However, the Court denied defendants' motion with respect to plaintiffs' claims under Section 280-b(4)(b), finding that "Defendants' motion to dismiss is accordingly denied with respect to Renois' claim arising from alleged violations of section 280-b(4)(b)." The Court declined to grant plaintiffs leave to amend, stating that Plaintiffs have now been permitted multiple opportunities to amend her claims under section 280-b. Therefore, the Court declines to grant Plaintiffs another opportunity to correct the remaining deficiencies in their claims as identified herein. The case remains referred to Magistrate Judge Figueredo for general pretrial management. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wpVUxS YOUNG ADULT: Court Conditionally Certifies Settlement Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANTE BOSE and RASHELLE MANSFIELD, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, v. YOUNG ADULT INSTITUTE, INC. d/b/a YAI, Case No. 1:23-cv-00496-VSB-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Vernon Broderick entered an order as follows: (1) conditionally certifying settlement class and collective action, (2) granting preliminary approval to proposed class action settlement and plan of allocation, (3) directing dissemination of notice and related material to the class, and (4) setting date for fairness hearing and related dates The Parties have entered into the Settlement Agreement solely for the purposes of compromising and settling their disputes in this matter. As part of the Settlement Agreement, Defendant has agreed not to oppose, for settlement purposes only, conditional certification under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) and 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) of the following settlement class (the "Class"): "Named Plaintiffs and all current and former non-exempt employees who worked for the Defendant in New York from Jan. 20, 2017, to April 25, 2025." Accordingly, the Court conditionally certifies the Class as an FLSA collective action. The Court authorizes the Notice (attached as Exhibit A to the Settlement Agreement) to be mailed to potential members of the FLSA collective action, notifying them of the pendency of the FLSA claim, and of their ability to join the lawsuit. The Plaintiffs Shante Bose and Rashelle Mansfield are appointed as representatives of the Class, both under Rule 23 and under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). C.K. Lee, Esq. of Lee Litigation Group, PLLC is appointed as class counsel for the Class. Accordingly, the Court grants preliminary approval to the Settlement Agreement and the Plan of Allocation. The court schedules a hearing on Nov. 6, 2025 at 2:00 pm in Courtroom 518 of Thurgood Marshall US. Courthouse. The Plaintiffs bring claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). The Plaintiffs claim that Defendant the failed to pay them and Class Members their proper minimum wages, overtime wages, and also failed to meet the NYLL’s requirements on wage statements and notices. On June 13, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a Notice Of Motion For Order (1) Conditionally Certifying Settlement Class, (2) Granting Preliminary Approval To Proposed Class Action Settlement And Plan Of Allocation, (3) Directing Dissemination of Notice And Related Material To The Class, and (4) Setting Date For Fairness Hearing And Related Dates Young is an organization serving people with Intellectual and developmental disabilities. A copy of the Court's order dated July 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OOkSkx at no extra charge.[CC] ********* 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 ***