250730.mbx

250730.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, July 30, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 151 Headlines 3D'S TRANSPORTATION: Morris Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Chemicals, Littick Alleges 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Chemicals, Montgomery Says 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Chemicals, Nunley Alleges 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Challis Says 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Graham Alleges 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Kausch Alleges 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Kessler Alleges 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Korth Alleges 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Moore Alleges 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Morelan Says 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Murnan Alleges 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Paige Alleges 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Perry Alleges 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Roberts Says 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Robinson Says 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Roush Alleges 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Shepherd Says 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Shofner Says 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Simodi Alleges 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Stokely Says 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Williams Says 632 VANDERBILT: Houmita Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL AHOLD DELHAIZE: Faces Scott Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info AHOLD DELHAIZE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Olbrich Suit Says ALBERTSONS COS: Ends Mislabeling Class Suit With Private Settlement ALTO NEUROSCIENCE: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit AMAZON.COM INC: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Prime Video Ads ANNE ARUNDEL: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Dance Says ANTHROPIC PBC: Illegally Downloaded Books From Pirate Websites ANTHROPIC PBC: To Appeal Class Certification Ruling to 9th Cir. ASB BANK: Rejects Offer to Settle Breaches Suit for $300MM ASHLYNN MARKETING: Faces Class Suit Over Deceptive 7-OH Products BELLRING BRANDS: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit BIOHAVEN LTD: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Set September 12 BLACKMORES LIMITED: May Face Class Suit Over Mislabeled Supplements BOWTECH LLC: Fixes Archery Product Prices, Dunkin Suit Alleges BRITISH COLUMBIA: Reaches $60MM Deal in Solitary Confinement Suit CAMPBELL'S COMPANY: Faces Class Suit Over Preservative-Free Ads CAPRICOR THERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Sept 15 CAPRICOR THERAPEUTICS: Faces Leong Suit Over Stock Price Drop CAPRICOR THERAPEUTICS: Fails to Disclose Material Info, Suit Says CASH APP: Settles Spam Text Message Class Action Suit for $12.5MM COMMEMORATIVE BRANDS: Court Trims Discovery Bid in BIPA Case COMODO GROUP: Settles Telemarketing Call Class Action for $1.63MM CORMEDIX INC: Ruling Withdrawn After Defendants' Atty Cite Errors COVENANT SURGICAL: Nelson Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info D&D ELECTRICAL: Benfield Seeks Foreclosures of Mechanic's Liens DAILY WIRE: Settles Video Privacy Class Action Lawsuit for $2-Mil. DNA DIAGNOSTICS: Faces $9.9MM Cessna Class Suit in N.D. Illinois EISENHOWER MEDICAL: $875,000 Final Settlement Hearing Set Oct 20 EQUIFAX INFO: Improperly Reported Kaur as "Deceased," Suit Says EYEMART EXPRESS: N.D. Tex. Court Dismisses Wiretapping Class Suit FAIRBANKS UROLOGY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Denning Says FANATICS INC: Faces Jones Class Suit Over Anticompetitive Scheme FINASTRA TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Kalabich Says FINASTRA TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Koney Says FLORIDA: DMV Customers Sue Over Appointment Shortages, Scalping FLOWERS BAKERIES: Faces Nelson Over Deceptive Brand Bread Labels FLYING EAGLE: Agrees to Settle Securities Class Action for $10MM FORTREA HOLDINGS: Aug. 1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline in Deslande Case GENERAL MOTORS: Sells Vehicles With Engine Defect, Sherman Claims HARBOR COLLISION: Faces Saur Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. HELLO PRODUCTS: Faces Class Suit Over Heavy Metals in Toothpastes IES COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Keith Says IHEARTMEDIA: Installs Trackers on Web Visitor's Browser, Suit Says JOHNSON CONTROLS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Bunn Says JOHNSON CONTROLS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Hefley Says JOHNSON CONTROLS: Scott Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info JOHNSON CONTROLS: Zaplotinsky-Cameron Sues Over Data Breach K.W. EMERSON: Leiva Suit Removed from State Ct. to E.D. Cal. KBR INC: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims KEURIG GREEN: $950,000 Final Settlement Hearing Set September 30 KOD ATLANTA: Wallace Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Illegal Kickbacks LEE ENTERPRISES: Agrees to Settle Privacy Class Suit for $9.5MM LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Faces Suit Over Compensation Rule Violations LOVESHACKFANCY LLC: Faces Harris Class Suit Over Junk Fees MARKLUND CHILDREN'S: Johnson Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA MAZDA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Cars' Missing Features MDL 2873: Abbott Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF/TOG Products MDL 2873: Faces Cameron Suit Over AFFF/TOG Products' Toxic Elements MDL 2873: Nunnally Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products MDL 2873: Vickers Sues Over Exposure to PFAS From AFFF/TOG Products META PLATFORMS: Files Petition for Writ of Mandamus to 9th Circuit META PLATFORMS: Settles $8-Billion Facebook Privacy Class Suit METHODIST HOSPITALS: Agrees to Settle Privacy Suit for $650,000 MIDEA AMERICA: Faces $5MM Cannon-Rivera Fraud Suit in S.D.N.Y. MUELLER SPORTS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Ortiz Alleges NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Settles Inflated Commissions Suit for $44MM NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Judge Dismissed Merchandising Class Suit NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Sued Over Exportation of Chargers' Home Game NAVIENT CORP: Cockrell Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit NEOGEN CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Material Info NIKE INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Misleading Email-Marketing NORTHWOOD CARE: Motion to Certify COVID-19 Suit Denied OIL BAR: Court Dismisses Wahab Class Action with Prejudice ONYX PROPERTY: Faces Melingonis Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages OPEN RICE: Faces Yu Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages OSMOSE UTILITIES: Johnson Suit Removed from State Ct. to N.D. Cal. PEAK DESIGN: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Ortiz Alleges PETER LUGER: Wills Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind PHILIPS NORTH: Breaches Fiduciary Duties, Halamek Suit Alleges PLY GEM: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Defective Vinyl Windows PORTA HOME: Faces Hernandez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website PRIME RETIREMENT: Wells Balks at Unauthorized Personal Info Access PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Appeals Court Order in Pryce Suit to 2nd Cir. PSG CALIFORNIA: Underpays Quality Assurance Inspectors, Parra Says QUALITY BUILT: Shumate Sues Over Layoff Without Advance Notice RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES: Fails to Protect Private Info, Suit Says RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Marple Says RED HOOK: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Jones Suit Says REDFIN CORP: Court Okays Stipulated Discovery Deadline Motion REGENERON PHARMA: Tampa Fund Is Lead Plaintiff in Securities Case RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT: Mercedes Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website RISE ENGINEERING: Agrees to Settle Class Suit Over Unpaid Overtime RIVIANA FOODS: Faces Class Suit Over Arsenic in Mahatma Brown Rice ROAD RUNNER: Renewal Suit Settlement Final Hearing Set Nov. 14 RR2 LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Hernandez Says RXSIGHT INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit in C.D. Cal. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Ruozzi Consumer Suit Removed to E.D.N.Y. SHENZHEN SMOORE: Sued Over Anticompetitive Price-Fixing Scheme SNEAKER BAR: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Valencia Says SODEXO INC: Faces Orellana Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif. Super. SONOS INC: App Redesign "Defective," Siena Suit Alleges SONY INTERACTIVE: US Judge Rejects Settlement in Coupon Suit SOUNDHOUND AI: Appoints Lead Plaintiff for Securities Class Suit SOUTHDOWN COFFEE: Fernandez Seeks Equal Web Access for the Blind SOUTHWOOD FINANCIAL: Solivan Files FDCA Suit in D. New Jersey SPECIALTY NETWORKS: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $2.6MM SPERRY'S RESTAURANTS: Paris Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA ST. JOSEPH'S: Bishop Alleges Blind-Inaccessible Website SURF LINE: Wilson Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users TARO PHARMACEUTICALS: Appeals Experts' Opinions Order to 3rd Cir. TESLA INSURANCE: Faces Consumer Class Action Suit in California THANG BOTANICALS: Faces K.K. Suit Over 7-OH Tablets' Deceptive Ads TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Quintero Sues Over Data Breach TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Thomas Says TZ INSURANCE: Connor Suit Seeks Sales Agents' OT Pay Under FLSA ULTA SALON: Faces Garvey Over Misleading Conscious Beauty Program UNIQLO USA: Tao's BIPA Lawsuit Remanded to State Court UNITED STATES: Appeals Class Cert. and Injunction Orders in Suit UNITED STATES: Appeals Preliminary Injunction Order in G.F.F. Suit UNITED STATES: Fired Staff May Pursue Claims Over Termination VEGA CAPITAL: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Mish Suit to 7th Circuit VNGR BEVERAGE: Agrees to Settle Soda False Ads' Suit for $8.9MM VOYAGER ACQUISITION: M&A Investigates Merger With Veraxa Biotech WALT DISNEY: Court Appoints DiCello Levitt as Co-Lead Counsel WATERS CORP: M&A Investigates Merger With BD & Co's Biosciences WESTERN ASSET: Western PA Sues Over Misleading Company Statements WK KELLOGG: Faces Harvey Suit Over Froot Loops' Deceptive Ads ********* 3D'S TRANSPORTATION: Morris Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- RAYMOND MORRIS, LESLIE GAHMAN, and KODY HALFHIDE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. 3D'S TRANSPORTATION, INC. and DARREN E. FULCHER, Case No. e 2:25-cv-02382 (D. Kan., July 16, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, the Defendants had contracted with FedEx Corporation (FedEx) to deliver packages and other items in Kansas. To provide these services, the Defendants employed vehicle drivers, including Plaintiffs Raymond Morris, Leslie Gahman, and Kody Halfhide. Plaintiffs and the other vehicle drivers drove vehicles weighing 10,000 pounds or less. Although the Plaintiffs and the other vehicle drivers routinely worked over 40 hours in a workweek, the Defendants did not pay them one-and-a-half times their regular rate of pay for all their overtime hours worked, asserts the suit The Plaintiffs and the putative class members, however, were not exempt from the FLSA's overtime pay requirements. The Plaintiffs bring suit individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated armored vehicle drivers, employed by Defendants in Kansas, to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, attorney fees and expenses, and any other relief the Court deems just and proper. The Plaintiffs and the putative class members' work was defined in whole or in part as that of a delivery vehicle driver. The Plaintiffs and the other delivery vehicle drivers' work for 3DS in whole or in part affected the safety of operation of motor vehicles weighing 10,000 pounds or less in transportation on public highways in interstate or foreign commerce. The Defendant is a Missouri Corporation registered as a For Profit Foreign Corporation in Kansas. The full nature and character of business to be conducted in Kansas is as a transportation service, package and delivery on behalf of FedEx Ground.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Barry R. Grissom, Esq. Conner Mitchell, Esq. Jake Miller, Esq. GRISSOM MILLER LAW FIRM, LLC 1600 Genessee Street, Ste. 460 Kansas City, MO 64102 Telephone: (816) 336-1213 Facsimile: (816) 384-1623 E-mail: barry@grissommiller.com cam@grissommiller.com jake@grissommiller.com 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Chemicals, Littick Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ Richard Littick v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-06316-RMG (D.S.C., June 27, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiffs' training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiffs contend that he regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. As a result of his exposure to the Defendants' AFFF and TOG products, the Plaintiffs were diagnosed with kidney cancer and thyroid disease, which has caused him to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Plaintiffs include MELODY ALLEN; JAMEL BARNWELL; CEDRIC BONIER; MICHAEL R. BOWEN; MARTHA BOWEN; WILLIE J.BROOKS; ANGELA BROOKS; HENRY J. CERIL SR.; HELEN CERIL; JAMES FLANAGAN; CARMELA FLANAGAN; STEVEN HAMBLET; MICHELLE HERMAN; CURTIS HUDSON, RONALD HYATT; COLLEEN HYATT; CHAVALIER JENKINS; JOHN LEWIS JR.; JANET LEWIS; STANLEY MONTNEY; RICHARD NICHOLS; JEANNINE NICHOLS; JOHN POWNELL; ANGEL POWNELL; CHARLES G. ROLLINS JR.; SHEILA ROLLINS; RACHEL SCHAFFTER; WILLIAM SIMPSON; ERIC SWIGGUM; TERRY VAUGHN; FREDERICK WOODLEY; SANDRA WOODLEY; RAYMOND YOUNG; RHONDA YOUNG; and NICHOLAS ZUNIGA. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph Y. Shenkar, Esq. MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS, LLP 101 West Elm St., Suite 520 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (803) 315-3357 Facsimile: (610) 941-9880 E-mail: jshenkar@bernllp.com 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Chemicals, Montgomery Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ LARRY MONTGOMERY v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-06296-RMG (D.S.C., June 27, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiffs' training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiffs contend that he regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. As a result of his exposure to the Defendants' AFFF and TOG products, the Plaintiffs were diagnosed with kidney cancer and thyroid disease, which has caused him to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Plaintiffs include MELODY ALLEN; JAMEL BARNWELL; CEDRIC BONIER; MICHAEL R. BOWEN; MARTHA BOWEN; WILLIE J.BROOKS; ANGELA BROOKS; HENRY J. CERIL SR.; HELEN CERIL; JAMES FLANAGAN; CARMELA FLANAGAN; STEVEN HAMBLET; MICHELLE HERMAN; CURTIS HUDSON, RONALD HYATT; COLLEEN HYATT; CHAVALIER JENKINS; JOHN LEWIS JR.; JANET LEWIS; STANLEY MONTNEY; RICHARD NICHOLS; JEANNINE NICHOLS; JOHN POWNELL; ANGEL POWNELL; CHARLES G. ROLLINS JR.; SHEILA ROLLINS; RACHEL SCHAFFTER; WILLIAM SIMPSON; ERIC SWIGGUM; TERRY VAUGHN; FREDERICK WOODLEY; SANDRA WOODLEY; RAYMOND YOUNG; RHONDA YOUNG; and NICHOLAS ZUNIGA. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James C. Ferrell, Esq. FERRELL LAW GROUP, PC 6226 Washington Avenue, Suite 200 Houston, TX 77007 Telephone: (713) 337-3855 Facsimile: (713) 337-3856 E-mail: Jferrell@jamesferrell-law.com 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Chemicals, Nunley Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- PHILLIP NUNLEY v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-06300-RMG (D.S.C., June 27, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiffs' training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiffs contend that he regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. As a result of his exposure to the Defendants' AFFF and TOG products, the Plaintiffs were diagnosed with kidney cancer and thyroid disease, which has caused him to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Plaintiffs include MELODY ALLEN; JAMEL BARNWELL; CEDRIC BONIER; MICHAEL R. BOWEN; MARTHA BOWEN; WILLIE J.BROOKS; ANGELA BROOKS; HENRY J. CERIL SR.; HELEN CERIL; JAMES FLANAGAN; CARMELA FLANAGAN; STEVEN HAMBLET; MICHELLE HERMAN; CURTIS HUDSON, RONALD HYATT; COLLEEN HYATT; CHAVALIER JENKINS; JOHN LEWIS JR.; JANET LEWIS; STANLEY MONTNEY; RICHARD NICHOLS; JEANNINE NICHOLS; JOHN POWNELL; ANGEL POWNELL; CHARLES G. ROLLINS JR.; SHEILA ROLLINS; RACHEL SCHAFFTER; WILLIAM SIMPSON; ERIC SWIGGUM; TERRY VAUGHN; FREDERICK WOODLEY; SANDRA WOODLEY; RAYMOND YOUNG; RHONDA YOUNG; and NICHOLAS ZUNIGA. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James C. Ferrell, Esq. FERRELL LAW GROUP, PC 6226 Washington Avenue, Suite 200 Houston, TX 77007 Telephone: (713) 337-3855 Facsimile: (713) 337-3856 E-mail: Jferrell@jamesferrell-law.com 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Challis Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Billy D. Challis v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-06314-RMG (D.S.C., June 27, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiffs' training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiffs contend that he regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. As a result of his exposure to the Defendants' AFFF and TOG products, the Plaintiffs were diagnosed with kidney cancer and thyroid disease, which has caused him to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Plaintiffs include MELODY ALLEN; JAMEL BARNWELL; CEDRIC BONIER; MICHAEL R. BOWEN; MARTHA BOWEN; WILLIE J.BROOKS; ANGELA BROOKS; HENRY J. CERIL SR.; HELEN CERIL; JAMES FLANAGAN; CARMELA FLANAGAN; STEVEN HAMBLET; MICHELLE HERMAN; CURTIS HUDSON, RONALD HYATT; COLLEEN HYATT; CHAVALIER JENKINS; JOHN LEWIS JR.; JANET LEWIS; STANLEY MONTNEY; RICHARD NICHOLS; JEANNINE NICHOLS; JOHN POWNELL; ANGEL POWNELL; CHARLES G. ROLLINS JR.; SHEILA ROLLINS; RACHEL SCHAFFTER; WILLIAM SIMPSON; ERIC SWIGGUM; TERRY VAUGHN; FREDERICK WOODLEY; SANDRA WOODLEY; RAYMOND YOUNG; RHONDA YOUNG; and NICHOLAS ZUNIGA. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph Y. Shenkar, Esq. MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS, LLP 101 West Elm St., Suite 520 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (803) 315-3357 Facsimile: (610) 941-9880 E-mail: jshenkar@bernllp.com 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Graham Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ Robert H. Graham v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manu-facturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-06312-RMG (D.S.C., June 27, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collec-tively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manu-factured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instruc-tional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it con-tained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufac-tured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instruction-al materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and re-mains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of ex-posed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defend-ants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiffs' training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiffs contend that he regularly used, and was thereby di-rectly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. As a result of his exposure to the Defendants' AFFF and TOG prod-ucts, the Plaintiffs were diagnosed with kidney cancer and thyroid disease, which has caused him to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufactur-ers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Plaintiffs include MELODY ALLEN; JAMEL BARNWELL; CEDRIC BONI-ER; MICHAEL R. BOWEN; MARTHA BOWEN; WILLIE J.BROOKS; ANGELA BROOKS; HENRY J. CERIL SR.; HELEN CERIL; JAMES FLANAGAN; CARMELA FLANAGAN; STEVEN HAMBLET; MICHELLE HERMAN; CURTIS HUDSON, RONALD HYATT; COLLEEN HYATT; CHAVALIER JENKINS; JOHN LEWIS JR.; JANET LEWIS; STANLEY MONTNEY; RICHARD NICHOLS; JEANNINE NICHOLS; JOHN POWNELL; ANGEL POWNELL; CHARLES G. ROLLINS JR.; SHEILA ROLLINS; RACHEL SCHAFFTER; WILLIAM SIMPSON; ERIC SWIGGUM; TERRY VAUGHN; FREDERICK WOODLEY; SANDRA WOODLEY; RAYMOND YOUNG; RHONDA YOUNG; and NICHOLAS ZUNIGA. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMI-CALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEY-WELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MIL-LIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDI-AN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph Y. Shenkar, Esq. MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS, LLP 101 West Elm St., Suite 520 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (803) 315-3357 Facsimile: (610) 941-9880 E-mail: jshenkar@bernllp.com 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Kausch Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ Michael A. Kausch v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-06313-RMG (D.S.C., June 27, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiffs' training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiffs contend that he regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. As a result of his exposure to the Defendants' AFFF and TOG products, the Plaintiffs were diagnosed with kidney cancer and thyroid disease, which has caused him to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Plaintiffs include MELODY ALLEN; JAMEL BARNWELL; CEDRIC BONIER; MICHAEL R. BOWEN; MARTHA BOWEN; WILLIE J.BROOKS; ANGELA BROOKS; HENRY J. CERIL SR.; HELEN CERIL; JAMES FLANAGAN; CARMELA FLANAGAN; STEVEN HAMBLET; MICHELLE HERMAN; CURTIS HUDSON, RONALD HYATT; COLLEEN HYATT; CHAVALIER JENKINS; JOHN LEWIS JR.; JANET LEWIS; STANLEY MONTNEY; RICHARD NICHOLS; JEANNINE NICHOLS; JOHN POWNELL; ANGEL POWNELL; CHARLES G. ROLLINS JR.; SHEILA ROLLINS; RACHEL SCHAFFTER; WILLIAM SIMPSON; ERIC SWIGGUM; TERRY VAUGHN; FREDERICK WOODLEY; SANDRA WOODLEY; RAYMOND YOUNG; RHONDA YOUNG; and NICHOLAS ZUNIGA. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph Y. Shenkar, Esq. MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS, LLP 101 West Elm St., Suite 520 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (803) 315-3357 Facsimile: (610) 941-9880 E-mail: jshenkar@bernllp.com 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Kessler Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD J. KESSLER v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-06294-RMG (D.S.C., June 27, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiffs' training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiffs contend that he regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. As a result of his exposure to the Defendants' AFFF and TOG products, the Plaintiffs were diagnosed with kidney cancer and thyroid disease, which has caused him to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Plaintiffs include MELODY ALLEN; JAMEL BARNWELL; CEDRIC BONIER; MICHAEL R. BOWEN; MARTHA BOWEN; WILLIE J.BROOKS; ANGELA BROOKS; HENRY J. CERIL SR.; HELEN CERIL; JAMES FLANAGAN; CARMELA FLANAGAN; STEVEN HAMBLET; MICHELLE HERMAN; CURTIS HUDSON, RONALD HYATT; COLLEEN HYATT; CHAVALIER JENKINS; JOHN LEWIS JR.; JANET LEWIS; STANLEY MONTNEY; RICHARD NICHOLS; JEANNINE NICHOLS; JOHN POWNELL; ANGEL POWNELL; CHARLES G. ROLLINS JR.; SHEILA ROLLINS; RACHEL SCHAFFTER; WILLIAM SIMPSON; ERIC SWIGGUM; TERRY VAUGHN; FREDERICK WOODLEY; SANDRA WOODLEY; RAYMOND YOUNG; RHONDA YOUNG; and NICHOLAS ZUNIGA. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James C. Ferrell, Esq. FERRELL LAW GROUP, PC 6226 Washington Avenue, Suite 200 Houston, TX 77007 Telephone: (713) 337-3855 Facsimile: (713) 337-3856 E-mail: Jferrell@jamesferrell-law.com 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Korth Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT J. KORTH, JR. v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-06295-RMG (D.S.C., June 27, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiffs' training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiffs contend that he regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. As a result of his exposure to the Defendants' AFFF and TOG products, the Plaintiffs were diagnosed with kidney cancer and thyroid disease, which has caused him to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Plaintiffs include MELODY ALLEN; JAMEL BARNWELL; CEDRIC BONIER; MICHAEL R. BOWEN; MARTHA BOWEN; WILLIE J.BROOKS; ANGELA BROOKS; HENRY J. CERIL SR.; HELEN CERIL; JAMES FLANAGAN; CARMELA FLANAGAN; STEVEN HAMBLET; MICHELLE HERMAN; CURTIS HUDSON, RONALD HYATT; COLLEEN HYATT; CHAVALIER JENKINS; JOHN LEWIS JR.; JANET LEWIS; STANLEY MONTNEY; RICHARD NICHOLS; JEANNINE NICHOLS; JOHN POWNELL; ANGEL POWNELL; CHARLES G. ROLLINS JR.; SHEILA ROLLINS; RACHEL SCHAFFTER; WILLIAM SIMPSON; ERIC SWIGGUM; TERRY VAUGHN; FREDERICK WOODLEY; SANDRA WOODLEY; RAYMOND YOUNG; RHONDA YOUNG; and NICHOLAS ZUNIGA. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James C. Ferrell, Esq. FERRELL LAW GROUP, PC 6226 Washington Avenue, Suite 200 Houston, TX 77007 Telephone: (713) 337-3855 Facsimile: (713) 337-3856 E-mail: Jferrell@jamesferrell-law.com 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Moore Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM HOOVER MOORE, JR. v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-06297-RMG (D.S.C., June 27, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiffs' training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiffs contend that he regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. As a result of his exposure to the Defendants' AFFF and TOG products, the Plaintiffs were diagnosed with kidney cancer and thyroid disease, which has caused him to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Plaintiffs include MELODY ALLEN; JAMEL BARNWELL; CEDRIC BONIER; MICHAEL R. BOWEN; MARTHA BOWEN; WILLIE J.BROOKS; ANGELA BROOKS; HENRY J. CERIL SR.; HELEN CERIL; JAMES FLANAGAN; CARMELA FLANAGAN; STEVEN HAMBLET; MICHELLE HERMAN; CURTIS HUDSON, RONALD HYATT; COLLEEN HYATT; CHAVALIER JENKINS; JOHN LEWIS JR.; JANET LEWIS; STANLEY MONTNEY; RICHARD NICHOLS; JEANNINE NICHOLS; JOHN POWNELL; ANGEL POWNELL; CHARLES G. ROLLINS JR.; SHEILA ROLLINS; RACHEL SCHAFFTER; WILLIAM SIMPSON; ERIC SWIGGUM; TERRY VAUGHN; FREDERICK WOODLEY; SANDRA WOODLEY; RAYMOND YOUNG; RHONDA YOUNG; and NICHOLAS ZUNIGA. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James C. Ferrell, Esq. FERRELL LAW GROUP, PC 6226 Washington Avenue, Suite 200 Houston, TX 77007 Telephone: (713) 337-3855 Facsimile: (713) 337-3856 E-mail: Jferrell@jamesferrell-law.com 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Morelan Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- WALTER L. MORELAN v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-06298-RMG (D.S.C., June 27, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiffs' training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiffs contend that he regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. As a result of his exposure to the Defendants' AFFF and TOG products, the Plaintiffs were diagnosed with kidney cancer and thyroid disease, which has caused him to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Plaintiffs include MELODY ALLEN; JAMEL BARNWELL; CEDRIC BONIER; MICHAEL R. BOWEN; MARTHA BOWEN; WILLIE J.BROOKS; ANGELA BROOKS; HENRY J. CERIL SR.; HELEN CERIL; JAMES FLANAGAN; CARMELA FLANAGAN; STEVEN HAMBLET; MICHELLE HERMAN; CURTIS HUDSON, RONALD HYATT; COLLEEN HYATT; CHAVALIER JENKINS; JOHN LEWIS JR.; JANET LEWIS; STANLEY MONTNEY; RICHARD NICHOLS; JEANNINE NICHOLS; JOHN POWNELL; ANGEL POWNELL; CHARLES G. ROLLINS JR.; SHEILA ROLLINS; RACHEL SCHAFFTER; WILLIAM SIMPSON; ERIC SWIGGUM; TERRY VAUGHN; FREDERICK WOODLEY; SANDRA WOODLEY; RAYMOND YOUNG; RHONDA YOUNG; and NICHOLAS ZUNIGA. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James C. Ferrell, Esq. FERRELL LAW GROUP, PC 6226 Washington Avenue, Suite 200 Houston, TX 77007 Telephone: (713) 337-3855 Facsimile: (713) 337-3856 E-mail: Jferrell@jamesferrell-law.com 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Murnan Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOHN P. MURNAN v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case 2:25-cv-06299-RMG (D.S.C., June 27, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiffs' training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiffs contend that he regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. As a result of his exposure to the Defendants' AFFF and TOG products, the Plaintiffs were diagnosed with kidney cancer and thyroid disease, which has caused him to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Plaintiffs include MELODY ALLEN; JAMEL BARNWELL; CEDRIC BONIER; MICHAEL R. BOWEN; MARTHA BOWEN; WILLIE J.BROOKS; ANGELA BROOKS; HENRY J. CERIL SR.; HELEN CERIL; JAMES FLANAGAN; CARMELA FLANAGAN; STEVEN HAMBLET; MICHELLE HERMAN; CURTIS HUDSON, RONALD HYATT; COLLEEN HYATT; CHAVALIER JENKINS; JOHN LEWIS JR.; JANET LEWIS; STANLEY MONTNEY; RICHARD NICHOLS; JEANNINE NICHOLS; JOHN POWNELL; ANGEL POWNELL; CHARLES G. ROLLINS JR.; SHEILA ROLLINS; RACHEL SCHAFFTER; WILLIAM SIMPSON; ERIC SWIGGUM; TERRY VAUGHN; FREDERICK WOODLEY; SANDRA WOODLEY; RAYMOND YOUNG; RHONDA YOUNG; and NICHOLAS ZUNIGA. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James C. Ferrell, Esq. FERRELL LAW GROUP, PC 6226 Washington Avenue, Suite 200 Houston, TX 77007 Telephone: (713) 337-3855 Facsimile: (713) 337-3856 E-mail: Jferrell@jamesferrell-law.com 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Paige Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- ERIC L. PAIGE v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-06301-RMG (D.S.C., June 27, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiffs' training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiffs contend that he regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. As a result of his exposure to the Defendants' AFFF and TOG products, the Plaintiffs were diagnosed with kidney cancer and thyroid disease, which has caused him to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Plaintiffs include MELODY ALLEN; JAMEL BARNWELL; CEDRIC BONIER; MICHAEL R. BOWEN; MARTHA BOWEN; WILLIE J.BROOKS; ANGELA BROOKS; HENRY J. CERIL SR.; HELEN CERIL; JAMES FLANAGAN; CARMELA FLANAGAN; STEVEN HAMBLET; MICHELLE HERMAN; CURTIS HUDSON, RONALD HYATT; COLLEEN HYATT; CHAVALIER JENKINS; JOHN LEWIS JR.; JANET LEWIS; STANLEY MONTNEY; RICHARD NICHOLS; JEANNINE NICHOLS; JOHN POWNELL; ANGEL POWNELL; CHARLES G. ROLLINS JR.; SHEILA ROLLINS; RACHEL SCHAFFTER; WILLIAM SIMPSON; ERIC SWIGGUM; TERRY VAUGHN; FREDERICK WOODLEY; SANDRA WOODLEY; RAYMOND YOUNG; RHONDA YOUNG; and NICHOLAS ZUNIGA. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James C. Ferrell, Esq. FERRELL LAW GROUP, PC 6226 Washington Avenue, Suite 200 Houston, TX 77007 Telephone: (713) 337-3855 Facsimile: (713) 337-3856 E-mail: Jferrell@jamesferrell-law.com 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Perry Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- HOWARD PERRY v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case 2:25-cv-06302-RMG (D.S.C., June 27, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiffs' training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiffs contend that he regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. As a result of his exposure to the Defendants' AFFF and TOG products, the Plaintiffs were diagnosed with kidney cancer and thyroid disease, which has caused him to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Plaintiffs include MELODY ALLEN; JAMEL BARNWELL; CEDRIC BONIER; MICHAEL R. BOWEN; MARTHA BOWEN; WILLIE J.BROOKS; ANGELA BROOKS; HENRY J. CERIL SR.; HELEN CERIL; JAMES FLANAGAN; CARMELA FLANAGAN; STEVEN HAMBLET; MICHELLE HERMAN; CURTIS HUDSON, RONALD HYATT; COLLEEN HYATT; CHAVALIER JENKINS; JOHN LEWIS JR.; JANET LEWIS; STANLEY MONTNEY; RICHARD NICHOLS; JEANNINE NICHOLS; JOHN POWNELL; ANGEL POWNELL; CHARLES G. ROLLINS JR.; SHEILA ROLLINS; RACHEL SCHAFFTER; WILLIAM SIMPSON; ERIC SWIGGUM; TERRY VAUGHN; FREDERICK WOODLEY; SANDRA WOODLEY; RAYMOND YOUNG; RHONDA YOUNG; and NICHOLAS ZUNIGA. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James C. Ferrell, Esq. FERRELL LAW GROUP, PC 6226 Washington Avenue, Suite 200 Houston, TX 77007 Telephone: (713) 337-3855 Facsimile: (713) 337-3856 E-mail: Jferrell@jamesferrell-law.com 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Roberts Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHEN ROBERTS v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-06303-RMG (D.S.C., June 27, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiffs' training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiffs contend that he regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. As a result of his exposure to the Defendants' AFFF and TOG products, the Plaintiffs were diagnosed with kidney cancer and thyroid disease, which has caused him to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Plaintiffs include MELODY ALLEN; JAMEL BARNWELL; CEDRIC BONIER; MICHAEL R. BOWEN; MARTHA BOWEN; WILLIE J.BROOKS; ANGELA BROOKS; HENRY J. CERIL SR.; HELEN CERIL; JAMES FLANAGAN; CARMELA FLANAGAN; STEVEN HAMBLET; MICHELLE HERMAN; CURTIS HUDSON, RONALD HYATT; COLLEEN HYATT; CHAVALIER JENKINS; JOHN LEWIS JR.; JANET LEWIS; STANLEY MONTNEY; RICHARD NICHOLS; JEANNINE NICHOLS; JOHN POWNELL; ANGEL POWNELL; CHARLES G. ROLLINS JR.; SHEILA ROLLINS; RACHEL SCHAFFTER; WILLIAM SIMPSON; ERIC SWIGGUM; TERRY VAUGHN; FREDERICK WOODLEY; SANDRA WOODLEY; RAYMOND YOUNG; RHONDA YOUNG; and NICHOLAS ZUNIGA. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James C. Ferrell, Esq. FERRELL LAW GROUP, PC 6226 Washington Avenue, Suite 200 Houston, TX 77007 Telephone: (713) 337-3855 Facsimile: (713) 337-3856 E-mail: Jferrell@jamesferrell-law.com 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Robinson Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- EDWIN R. ROBINSON v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-06304-RMG (D.S.C., June 27, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiffs' training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiffs contend that he regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. As a result of his exposure to the Defendants' AFFF and TOG products, the Plaintiffs were diagnosed with kidney cancer and thyroid disease, which has caused him to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Plaintiffs include MELODY ALLEN; JAMEL BARNWELL; CEDRIC BONIER; MICHAEL R. BOWEN; MARTHA BOWEN; WILLIE J.BROOKS; ANGELA BROOKS; HENRY J. CERIL SR.; HELEN CERIL; JAMES FLANAGAN; CARMELA FLANAGAN; STEVEN HAMBLET; MICHELLE HERMAN; CURTIS HUDSON, RONALD HYATT; COLLEEN HYATT; CHAVALIER JENKINS; JOHN LEWIS JR.; JANET LEWIS; STANLEY MONTNEY; RICHARD NICHOLS; JEANNINE NICHOLS; JOHN POWNELL; ANGEL POWNELL; CHARLES G. ROLLINS JR.; SHEILA ROLLINS; RACHEL SCHAFFTER; WILLIAM SIMPSON; ERIC SWIGGUM; TERRY VAUGHN; FREDERICK WOODLEY; SANDRA WOODLEY; RAYMOND YOUNG; RHONDA YOUNG; and NICHOLAS ZUNIGA. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James C. Ferrell, Esq. FERRELL LAW GROUP, PC 6226 Washington Avenue, Suite 200 Houston, TX 77007 Telephone: (713) 337-3855 Facsimile: (713) 337-3856 E-mail: Jferrell@jamesferrell-law.com 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Roush Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- LARRY E. ROUSH, JR. v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-06305-RMG (D.S.C., June 27, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiffs' training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiffs contend that he regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. As a result of his exposure to the Defendants' AFFF and TOG products, the Plaintiffs were diagnosed with kidney cancer and thyroid disease, which has caused him to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Plaintiffs include MELODY ALLEN; JAMEL BARNWELL; CEDRIC BONIER; MICHAEL R. BOWEN; MARTHA BOWEN; WILLIE J.BROOKS; ANGELA BROOKS; HENRY J. CERIL SR.; HELEN CERIL; JAMES FLANAGAN; CARMELA FLANAGAN; STEVEN HAMBLET; MICHELLE HERMAN; CURTIS HUDSON, RONALD HYATT; COLLEEN HYATT; CHAVALIER JENKINS; JOHN LEWIS JR.; JANET LEWIS; STANLEY MONTNEY; RICHARD NICHOLS; JEANNINE NICHOLS; JOHN POWNELL; ANGEL POWNELL; CHARLES G. ROLLINS JR.; SHEILA ROLLINS; RACHEL SCHAFFTER; WILLIAM SIMPSON; ERIC SWIGGUM; TERRY VAUGHN; FREDERICK WOODLEY; SANDRA WOODLEY; RAYMOND YOUNG; RHONDA YOUNG; and NICHOLAS ZUNIGA. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James C. Ferrell, Esq. FERRELL LAW GROUP, PC 6226 Washington Avenue, Suite 200 Houston, TX 77007 Telephone: (713) 337-3855 Facsimile: (713) 337-3856 E-mail: Jferrell@jamesferrell-law.com 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Shepherd Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- RYAN SHEPHERD v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-06307-RMG (D.S.C., June 27, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiffs' training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiffs contend that he regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. As a result of his exposure to the Defendants' AFFF and TOG products, the Plaintiffs were diagnosed with kidney cancer and thyroid disease, which has caused him to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Plaintiffs include MELODY ALLEN; JAMEL BARNWELL; CEDRIC BONIER; MICHAEL R. BOWEN; MARTHA BOWEN; WILLIE J.BROOKS; ANGELA BROOKS; HENRY J. CERIL SR.; HELEN CERIL; JAMES FLANAGAN; CARMELA FLANAGAN; STEVEN HAMBLET; MICHELLE HERMAN; CURTIS HUDSON, RONALD HYATT; COLLEEN HYATT; CHAVALIER JENKINS; JOHN LEWIS JR.; JANET LEWIS; STANLEY MONTNEY; RICHARD NICHOLS; JEANNINE NICHOLS; JOHN POWNELL; ANGEL POWNELL; CHARLES G. ROLLINS JR.; SHEILA ROLLINS; RACHEL SCHAFFTER; WILLIAM SIMPSON; ERIC SWIGGUM; TERRY VAUGHN; FREDERICK WOODLEY; SANDRA WOODLEY; RAYMOND YOUNG; RHONDA YOUNG; and NICHOLAS ZUNIGA. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: 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 Telephone: (314) 405-9000 Facsimile: (314) 405-9999 E-mail: quillin@osclaw.com 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Shofner Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID N. SHOFNER v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-06306-RMG (D.S.C., June 27, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiffs' training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiffs contend that he regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. As a result of his exposure to the Defendants' AFFF and TOG products, the Plaintiffs were diagnosed with kidney cancer and thyroid disease, which has caused him to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Plaintiffs include MELODY ALLEN; JAMEL BARNWELL; CEDRIC BONIER; MICHAEL R. BOWEN; MARTHA BOWEN; WILLIE J.BROOKS; ANGELA BROOKS; HENRY J. CERIL SR.; HELEN CERIL; JAMES FLANAGAN; CARMELA FLANAGAN; STEVEN HAMBLET; MICHELLE HERMAN; CURTIS HUDSON, RONALD HYATT; COLLEEN HYATT; CHAVALIER JENKINS; JOHN LEWIS JR.; JANET LEWIS; STANLEY MONTNEY; RICHARD NICHOLS; JEANNINE NICHOLS; JOHN POWNELL; ANGEL POWNELL; CHARLES G. ROLLINS JR.; SHEILA ROLLINS; RACHEL SCHAFFTER; WILLIAM SIMPSON; ERIC SWIGGUM; TERRY VAUGHN; FREDERICK WOODLEY; SANDRA WOODLEY; RAYMOND YOUNG; RHONDA YOUNG; and NICHOLAS ZUNIGA. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James C. Ferrell, Esq. FERRELL LAW GROUP, PC 6226 Washington Avenue, Suite 200 Houston, TX 77007 Telephone: (713) 337-3855 Facsimile: (713) 337-3856 E-mail: Jferrell@jamesferrell-law.com 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Simodi Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ DANYEL SIMODI v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-06308-RMG (D.S.C., June 27, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiffs' training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiffs contend that he regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. As a result of his exposure to the Defendants' AFFF and TOG products, the Plaintiffs were diagnosed with kidney cancer and thyroid disease, which has caused him to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Plaintiffs include MELODY ALLEN; JAMEL BARNWELL; CEDRIC BONIER; MICHAEL R. BOWEN; MARTHA BOWEN; WILLIE J.BROOKS; ANGELA BROOKS; HENRY J. CERIL SR.; HELEN CERIL; JAMES FLANAGAN; CARMELA FLANAGAN; STEVEN HAMBLET; MICHELLE HERMAN; CURTIS HUDSON, RONALD HYATT; COLLEEN HYATT; CHAVALIER JENKINS; JOHN LEWIS JR.; JANET LEWIS; STANLEY MONTNEY; RICHARD NICHOLS; JEANNINE NICHOLS; JOHN POWNELL; ANGEL POWNELL; CHARLES G. ROLLINS JR.; SHEILA ROLLINS; RACHEL SCHAFFTER; WILLIAM SIMPSON; ERIC SWIGGUM; TERRY VAUGHN; FREDERICK WOODLEY; SANDRA WOODLEY; RAYMOND YOUNG; RHONDA YOUNG; and NICHOLAS ZUNIGA. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James C. Ferrell, Esq. FERRELL LAW GROUP, PC 6226 Washington Avenue, Suite 200 Houston, TX 77007 Telephone: (713) 337-3855 Facsimile: (713) 337-3856 E-mail: Jferrell@jamesferrell-law.com 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Stokely Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN ALAN STOKELY SR. v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-06341-RMG (D.S.C., June 27, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiffs' training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiffs contend that he regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. As a result of his exposure to the Defendants' AFFF and TOG products, the Plaintiffs were diagnosed with kidney cancer and thyroid disease, which has caused him to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Plaintiffs include MELODY ALLEN; JAMEL BARNWELL; CEDRIC BONIER; MICHAEL R. BOWEN; MARTHA BOWEN; WILLIE J.BROOKS; ANGELA BROOKS; HENRY J. CERIL SR.; HELEN CERIL; JAMES FLANAGAN; CARMELA FLANAGAN; STEVEN HAMBLET; MICHELLE HERMAN; CURTIS HUDSON, RONALD HYATT; COLLEEN HYATT; CHAVALIER JENKINS; JOHN LEWIS JR.; JANET LEWIS; STANLEY MONTNEY; RICHARD NICHOLS; JEANNINE NICHOLS; JOHN POWNELL; ANGEL POWNELL; CHARLES G. ROLLINS JR.; SHEILA ROLLINS; RACHEL SCHAFFTER; WILLIAM SIMPSON; ERIC SWIGGUM; TERRY VAUGHN; FREDERICK WOODLEY; SANDRA WOODLEY; RAYMOND YOUNG; RHONDA YOUNG; and NICHOLAS ZUNIGA. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James Ryan Ziminskas, Esq. THEMIS LAW, PLLC 7718 Wood Hollow Drive, Suite 105 Austin, TX 78731 Telephone: (737) 208-1636 E-mail: rziminskas@themislawpllc.com 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Williams Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- DUSTIN G. WILLIAMS v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-06309-RMG (D.S.C., June 27, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiffs' training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiffs contend that he regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. As a result of his exposure to the Defendants' AFFF and TOG products, the Plaintiffs were diagnosed with kidney cancer and thyroid disease, which has caused him to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Plaintiffs include MELODY ALLEN; JAMEL BARNWELL; CEDRIC BONIER; MICHAEL R. BOWEN; MARTHA BOWEN; WILLIE J.BROOKS; ANGELA BROOKS; HENRY J. CERIL SR.; HELEN CERIL; JAMES FLANAGAN; CARMELA FLANAGAN; STEVEN HAMBLET; MICHELLE HERMAN; CURTIS HUDSON, RONALD HYATT; COLLEEN HYATT; CHAVALIER JENKINS; JOHN LEWIS JR.; JANET LEWIS; STANLEY MONTNEY; RICHARD NICHOLS; JEANNINE NICHOLS; JOHN POWNELL; ANGEL POWNELL; CHARLES G. ROLLINS JR.; SHEILA ROLLINS; RACHEL SCHAFFTER; WILLIAM SIMPSON; ERIC SWIGGUM; TERRY VAUGHN; FREDERICK WOODLEY; SANDRA WOODLEY; RAYMOND YOUNG; RHONDA YOUNG; and NICHOLAS ZUNIGA. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James C. Ferrell, Esq. FERRELL LAW GROUP, PC 6226 Washington Avenue, Suite 200 Houston, TX 77007 Telephone: (713) 337-3855 Facsimile: (713) 337-3856 E-mail: Jferrell@jamesferrell-law.com 632 VANDERBILT: Houmita Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL -------------------------------------------------------------- ABDELHAKIM HOUMITA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. 632 VANDERBILT FOOD CORP. d/b/a Foodtown of Prospect Heights, FOODTOWN INC., EHAB JAWAD, ABDUL JAWAD, SHADI WIDDI and MOHMOUD WIDDI, Case No. 1:25-cv-03969 (E.D.N.Y., July 17, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs under the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as brings claims pursuant to the New York State Human Rights Law, New York State Executive Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Defendants jointly employed Plaintiff and similarly situated employee. The Defendants owned and/or operated a Foodtown Supermarket located at 632 Vanderbilt Avenue, Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Brown, Esq. BROWN KWON & LAM LLP 521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Telephone: (212) 295-5828 Facsimile: (718) 795-1642 E-mail: wbrown@bkllawyers.com AHOLD DELHAIZE: Faces Scott Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info --------------------------------------------------------------- DESIREE SCOTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AHOLD DELHAIZE USA SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00559 (M.D.N.C., July 3, 2025) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, whose personally identifiable information and, in some instances, protected health information, was compromised as a result of a widespread and preventable data breach involving Ahold Delhaize USA Services. The complaint alleges that Ahold failed provide timely, accurate and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class members that their PII/PHI had been taken by an unauthorized third party and that thus that they were faced with imminent danger of identity theft, fraud and the misuse of their PII and PHI for over seven months. As a result of Defendant's negligence or reckless conduct and its intentional failure to timely provide notice of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members face a significant risk of identity theft, financial harm, emotional distress, and a loss of privacy for a prolonged period of time. The Plaintiff seeks remedies, among others: reimbursement of out-of-pocket losses, compensatory damages, injunctive and equitable relief, including further and more robust credit monitoring services with accompanying identity theft insurance, and an order requiring Ahold to implement improved data security measures, among other things. The Plaintiff is a resident of Portland, Maine, who was employed by Hannaford Supermarkets from 2010 through 2018. Ahold Delhaize USA Services, LLC is a service provider for grocery stores in the United States and is owned by an international retailing group based in the Netherlands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Karl S. Gwaltney, Esq. MAGINNIS HOWARD 7706 Six Forks Rd, Suite 101 Raleigh, NC 27615 Telephone: (919) 960-1545 E-mail: kgwaltney@carolinalaw.com - and - Lynda J. Grant, Esq. THEGRANTLAWFIRM, PLLC 521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Telephone: (212) 292-4441 Facsimile: (212) 292-4442 E-mail: lgrant@grantfirm.com - and - Melissa R. Emert, Esq. Gary S. Graifman, Esq. KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C. 135 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200 Montvale, NJ 07645 Telephone: (201) 391-7000 Facsimile: (201) 307-1086 E-mail: memert@kgglaw.com ggraifman@kgglaw.com AHOLD DELHAIZE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Olbrich Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- BRENNA OLBRICH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AHOLD DELHAIZE USA SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00564 (M.D.N.C., July 3, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected health information, personally identifiable information, and financial information stored within Defendant's information network. Between November 5, 2024 and November 6, 2024, upon information and belief, unauthorized third-party cybercriminals gained access to Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and financial information as hosted with Defendant, with the intent of engaging in the misuse of the PII and financial information, including marketing and selling Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and financial information. The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and financial information was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use, says the suit. The Plaintiff is a former employee of the Defendant and a victim of the Data Breach. Ahold Delhaize USA Services, LLC is a service provider for grocery stores in the United States and is owned by an international retailing group based in the Netherlands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Wilkerson, Esq. WILKERSON JUSTUS PLLC Asheville, NC 28802 Telephone: (828) 316-6902 E-mail: dwilkerson@wilkersonjustus.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com ALBERTSONS COS: Ends Mislabeling Class Suit With Private Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Albertsons and plaintiff Mark Trammell have reached an agreement to end a proposed class action lawsuit. Why: Trammell alleged the grocery chain's Signature Select Fruit & Grain cereal bars were deceptively labeled "naturally flavored." Where: The Albertsons class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. Albertsons has reached a settlement to end a class action lawsuit alleging its Signature Select Fruit & Grain cereal bars were deceptively labeled "naturally flavored" while containing an artificial ingredient derived from petroleum. The grocery chain filed a joint stipulation for voluntary dismissal on June 20 in California federal court. Plaintiff Mark Trammell's individual claims were dropped with prejudice, while class claims were dismissed without prejudice, according to the stipulation. Judge Anthony J. Battaglia approved the stipulation on June 23, ordering the case closed and all pending motions terminated. Trammell filed the class action against Albertsons in May 2024, claiming the grocery chain's Signature Select Fruit & Grain cereal bars were deceptively labeled "naturally flavored" while containing an artificial ingredient derived from petroleum. The plaintiff claimed Albertsons used synthetic DL malic acid, derived from petrochemicals like benzene or butane, to flavor the blueberry and strawberry cereal bars instead of the more expensive natural L malic acid found in fruit. Albertsons used synthetic ingredients in cereal bars, plaintiff claimed Trammell claimed he commissioned lab testing that confirmed the presence of the artificial ingredients in the cereal bars. "Consumers pay a premium for 'clean label' foods free of artificial ingredients and were economically harmed by Albertsons' alleged mislabeling," Trammell argued, as reported by Law360. Albertsons, however, countered that a reasonable consumer would not think "naturally flavored" meant the product was totally free from artificial ingredients. In 2024, Schweppes and Canada Dry ginger ales were hit with the same class action allegations that they used DL malic acid while claiming the drinks to be "naturally flavored." What do you think about the claims against Signature Select Fruit & Grain cereal bars and the case dismissal? Let us know in the comments. Trammell is represented by Charles C. Weller of Charles C. Weller APC. The Albertsons class action lawsuit is Trammell v. Albertsons Cos. Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-00862, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. [GN] ALTO NEUROSCIENCE: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- Pmerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Alto Neuroscience, Inc. ("Alto" or the "Company") (NYSE:ANRO) and certain officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and docketed under 25-cv-06105, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired: (a) Alto common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering conducted on or about February 2, 2024 (the "IPO" or "Offering"); and/or (b) Alto securities between February 2, 2024 and October 22, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you are an investor who purchased or otherwise acquired Alto securities during the Class Period, you have until September 19, 2025 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Alto operates as a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company in the United States. The Company's product pipeline includes, inter alia, ALTO-100, which at the time of the IPO was in a Phase 2b clinical trial for the treatment of patients with major depressive disorder ("MDD"). Also has touted ALTO-100 as "a novel small molecule that has shown evidence of a pro-neurogenesis/neuroplasticity mechanism of action" and has stated that the Company "believe[s] binds a receptor not targeted by other [central nervous system ("CNS")] therapeutics, which would make it first-in-class if approved." On January 12, 2024, Alto filed a registration statement on Form S-1 with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in connection with the IPO, which, after several amendments, was declared effective by the SEC on February 1, 2024 (the "Registration Statement"). On February 2, 2024, pursuant to the Registration Statement, Alto's common stock began publicly trading on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "ANRO." On February 5, 2024, Alto filed a prospectus on Form 424B4 with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which incorporated and formed part of the Registration Statement (the "Prospectus" and, collectively with the Registration Statement, the "Offering Documents"). Pursuant to the Offering Documents, Alto issued 8,040,000 shares of its common stock to the public at the Offering price of $16.00 per share for proceeds of $119,635,200 to the Company after applicable underwriting discounts and commissions, and before expenses. The Offering Documents were negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing their preparation. Additionally, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Offering Documents and Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) ALTO-100 was less effective in treating MDD than Defendants had led investors to believe; (ii) accordingly, ALTO-100's clinical, regulatory, and commercial prospects were overstated; (iii) as a result, Alto's business and/or financial prospects were overstated; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On October 22, 2024, Alto issued a press release announcing topline results from the Phase 2b trial evaluating ALTO-100 as a treatment for MDD. That press release stated, in relevant part, that "ALTO-100 in patients with [MDD] did not meet its primary endpoint, assessed by a change from baseline in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), compared to placebo." On this news, Alto's stock price fell $10.17 per share, or 69.99%, to close at $4.36 per share on October 23, 2024. Analysts were quick to comment on the Company's announcement. For example, on October 22, 2024, Jeffries cut its price target for Alto to $17 from $33 and stated that ALTO-100's data raises questions around the Company's overall biomarker approach to CNS disorders and psychiatry. As of the time this Complaint was filed, Alto's common stock continues to trade below the $16.00 per share Offering price, damaging investors. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] AMAZON.COM INC: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Prime Video Ads ----------------------------------------------------------------- Will McCurdy, writing for MSN, reports that Amazon has prevailed in a class-action lawsuit that accused it of engaging in deceptive trade practices. The complaint, filed in February 2024, claimed that Amazon violated California's consumer protection laws when it incorporated ads into a previously ad-free tier of Prime Video. Following the change, Amazon Prime users needed to pay an extra $2.99/month on top of their basic subscription to continue to enjoy an ad-free experience. The lawsuit argued that instead of "receiving a subscription that included ad-free streaming of TV shows and movies, they received something worth less." The plaintiffs called Amazon Prime's change a "bait and switch." But unfortunately for subscribers looking for a payout, the judge didn't see things that way. According to The Hollywood Reporter, US District Judge Barbara Rothstein moved to dismiss the lawsuit, finding that adding commercials didn't constitute a price increase and was in fact merely a modification to the users' subscription package. The court noted that Amazon's terms and conditions explicitly state that Prime's benefit package may change over time. "Amazon's introduction of advertisements to Prime Video was not a price increase; it was a benefit modification, and such modification was specifically contemplated and authorized by the parties' governing agreements," Judge Rothstein ruled. As per the filing, the judge dismissed the suit "with prejudice," meaning that consumers won't be able to score a win with a revised version of the class-action lawsuit. Though this is a legal win for Amazon, we've seen consumers prevail against streaming giants in class lawsuits before. In September 2024, Peacock subscribers based in California gained the right to a payout of just over $18 after a judge decided the service had automatically renewed customers' subscriptions without providing proper disclosures or authorization. (This week, Peacock subscribers were met with their third price hike in three years.) Amazon, meanwhile, has other legal battles ahead. Another judge last week accused the company of behavior "tantamount to bad faith" by allegedly withholding thousands of documents in an FTC lawsuit that argues Amazon tricked millions of consumers into signing up for a Prime subscription. [GN] ANNE ARUNDEL: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Dance Says --------------------------------------------------------------- VORONICA DANCE, On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ANNE ARUNDEL DERMATOLOGY, P.A, Case No. 1:25-cv-02293-GLR (D. Md., July 15, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and other similarly situated persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information and Protected Health Information that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant experienced between February 14, 2025 and May 13, 2025. In July 2025, the Defendant sent a Notice of Data Breach to Plaintiff and other individuals whose Private Information was impacted by the Data Breach. The Notice of Data Breach indicates that an unauthorized third part intruded on certain of Defendant’s systems between Feb. 14, 2025, and May 13, 2025. The Notice of Data Breach also states that Defendant "performed an assessment of these data files and determined, on May 20, 2025, that some of the files contained certain personal information when the unauthorized third part had access to them." Accordingly, the following types of Private Information were compromised as a result of the Data Breach: name, date of birth, patient ID, medical record number, health history, financial information, insurance information, and appointment history. The Defendant failed to timely report the Data Breach exposing the victims vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their Private Information, asserts the suit. According to the complaint, the Defendant is "one of the largest and most well-established dermatology practices in the Mid-Atlantic and Southeastern states." It "specializes in general, surgical, and cosmetic dermatology" and is headquartered in Linthicum Heights, Maryland.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary E. Howerton, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC 223 Duke of Gloucester Street Annapolis, MD 21401 Telephone: (410) 269-6620 Facsimile: (410) 269-1235 E-mail: zhowerton@milberg.com - and - Terence R. Coates, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 E. Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 665-0204 E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com ANTHROPIC PBC: Illegally Downloaded Books From Pirate Websites -------------------------------------------------------------- Blake Brittain, writing for Reuters, reports that a California federal judge ruled on Thursday, July 17, that three authors suing artificial intelligence startup Anthropic for copyright infringement can represent writers nationwide whose books Anthropic allegedly pirated to train its AI system. U.S. District Judge William Alsup said the authors can bring a class action, on behalf of all U.S. writers whose works Anthropic allegedly downloaded from "pirate libraries" LibGen and PiLiMi to create a repository of millions of books in 2021 and 2022. Alsup said Anthropic may have illegally downloaded as many as 7 million books from the pirate websites, which could make it liable for billions of dollars in damages if the authors' case is successful. An Anthropic spokesperson said the company was considering options to challenge the ruling and that the court failed to account for the difficulty of establishing copyright ownership "millions of times over in a single lawsuit." An attorney for the authors declined to comment on the decision. Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber and Kirk Wallace Johnson sued Anthropic last year, arguing that the Amazon- (AMZN.O), and Alphabet-backed (GOOGL.O), startup used their books without permission or compensation to teach its chatbot Claude to respond to human prompts. The case is one of several high-stakes lawsuits brought by authors, news outlets and other copyright owners against companies including OpenAI, Microsoft (MSFT.O), and Meta Platforms (META.O), over their AI training. AI companies argue their systems make fair use of copyrighted material to create new, transformative content. Alsup determined in June that Anthropic's AI training made fair use of authors' works, but said the company still violated their rights by saving pirated copies of their books to a "central library of all the books in the world" that would not necessarily be used for AI training. Alsup said the three authors could represent all writers whose books Anthropic allegedly downloaded from LibGen and PiLiMi, rejecting Anthropic's argument that identifying all of the copyright-eligible works and their authors would be impractical. [GN] ANTHROPIC PBC: To Appeal Class Certification Ruling to 9th Cir. --------------------------------------------------------------- Anthropic PBC advised the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California it is challenging the court's recent decision granting class certification in Bartz et al v. Anthropic PBC, Case No. 3:24-cv-05417 (N.D. Cal.) before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Anthropic asked the Hon. William Alsup to issue a stay "pending potential appellate guidance on the weighty issues presented, particularly given the potentially profound and unfair harm to Anthropic from further litigation and a trial under the present framework." Anthropic is looking to file the appeal to the Ninth Circuit by July 31. Anthropic already filed a request asking the district court to certify for interlocutory appeal its summary judgment order entered in June. A hearing on that request is set for Aug. 28. Anthropic pointed out the district court's Summary Judgment Order conflicts with the order in Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., which presents "the same issues involving the same data and presents an important legal question concerning fair use that warrants immediate appellate review." In Kadrey, Judge Chhabria viewed Meta's downloading of books in light of Meta's ultimate objective of LLM development, and deemed that copying fair use. On July 17, Judge Alsup entered an order granting the motion for class certification as to one of the alternative pirated books classes, and otherwise denied, as follows: 1. The following LibGen & PiLiMi Pirated Books Class is certified: "All beneficial or legal copyright owners of the exclusive right to reproduce copies of any book in the versions of LibGen or PiLiMi downloaded by Anthropic." "Book" refers to any work possessing an ISBN or ASIN which was registered with the United States Copyright Office within five years of the work's publication and which was registered with the United States Copyright Office before being downloaded by Anthropic, or within three months of publication. Excluded are the directors, officers and employees of Anthropic, personnel of federal agencies, and district court personnel. Because the order grants certification to this class under Rule 23(b)(3), it declines to consider alternative bases for certification proposed by plaintiffs under Rule 23(b)(2) or Rule 23(c)(4). The Defendant is compelled to produce related information described above by noon on August 1, 2025. This certification is contingent upon plaintiffs’ satisfactory filing of the list described above by noon on September 1, 2025. 2. Certification of a Book3 Pirated Books Class is denied, as is certification of a Scanned Books Class. 3. As Representative Plaintiffs for the LibGen & PiLiMI Pirated Books Class, the following person and entities are designated: Andrea Bartz, Inc., Charles Graeber, and MJ + KJ Inc. 4. As LibGen & PiLiMi Pirated Books Class Counsel, the following law firms are appointed: Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP and Susman Godfrey LLP. 5. Counsel from both sides shall submit a joint proposal for the form of class notice and for the dissemination of class notice to conform with the standards set forth above, by noon on Aug. 15, 2025. Anthropic is an American artificial intelligence startup company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=irNZF8 at no extra charge.[CC] In its summary judgment motion, Anthropic argues that pirating initial copies of the authors' books and millions of other books was justified because all those copies were at least reasonably necessary for training LLMs. Anthropic, however, has resisted putting into the record what copies or even sets of copies were in fact used for training LLMs. When the authors earlier interrogated Anthropic in discovery about what library copies (the original copies "obtained or created" by Anthropic) Anthropic had recopied for further uses, Anthropic responded that providing information about any copies made for uses beyond training commercially released LLMs would be overbroad, and that it could not count up all its copying even for LLMs in any case. On June 23, Judge Alsup issued an Order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion for summary judgment. Judge Alsup finds that Anthropic's use of the books at issue to train its Claude AI and its precursors was exceedingly transformative and was a fair use under Section 107 of the Copyright Act. And, the digitization of the books purchased in print form by Anthropic was also a fair use but not for the same reason as applies to the training copies. Instead, it was a fair use because all Anthropic did was replace the print copies it had purchased for its central library with more convenient space-saving and searchable digital copies for its central library -- without adding new copies, creating new works, or redistributing existing copies. However, Judge Alsup holds that Anthropic had no entitlement to use pirated copies for its central library. Creating a permanent, general-purpose library was not itself a fair use excusing Anthropic's piracy. With respect to the training copies and the print-to-digital converted copies, Judge Alsup explains that this Order has drawn all ambiguities and inferences in favor of the opposing side, namely Authors. With respect to the pirated copies, this Order has also accepted the Authors' version of the facts. Authors did not move for summary judgment but if they had, then we would have been obligated to accept all reasonable views given the evidence in the defendant's favor instead, Judge Alsup points out. This Order grants summary judgment for Anthropic that the training use was a fair use. And, it grants that the print-to-digital format change was a fair use for a different reason. But it denies summary judgment for Anthropic that the pirated library copies must be treated as training copies. Judge Alsup says there will be a trial on the pirated copies used to create Anthropic's central library and the resulting damages, actual or statutory (including for willfulness). That Anthropic later bought a copy of a book it earlier stole off the internet will not absolve it of liability for the theft but it may affect the extent of statutory damages. Nothing is foreclosed as to any other copies flowing from library copies for uses other than for training LLMs. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 23, 2025, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4xzdr34h from PacerMonitor.com. ASB BANK: Rejects Offer to Settle Breaches Suit for $300MM ---------------------------------------------------------- RNZ reports that ASB bank has rejected an offer to settle a class action law suit for historic breaches of credit disclosure laws. The offer on behalf of more than 150,000 customers of the ASB and ANZ was to settle for just over $300 million. ASB has joined ANZ in rejecting the offer as a move to influence MPs considering changes to the credit laws to close historic loopholes and bad drafting. ASB said it did not understand how the offer had been calculated, and that it would not put an end to legal action. The consumers' group said the proposed credit law changes might undermine their claim, while the industry said the loopholes posed a multi-billion dollar risk for the financial system. [GN] ASHLYNN MARKETING: Faces Class Suit Over Deceptive 7-OH Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- M.G. and J.H., individually on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ASHLYNN MARKETING GROUP, INC., doing business as SE7EN, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-06491 (C.D. Cal., July 16, 2025) is a civil class action against Se7en for its false, misleading, deceptive, and negligent sales practices regarding its Se7en brand 7-Hydroxymitragynine (7-OH) tablet and shot products. These Products are sold in smoke shops, gas stations, and online storefronts as if they were benign herbal supplements -- when in reality, they are chemically potent substances akin to opioids that cause powerful dependence, painful withdrawal symptoms, and severe psychological and physical harm. 7-OH is a psychoactive alkaloid found in trace amounts in the leaves of the kratom plant (mitragyna speciosa), a tropical plant indigenous to Southeast Asia. While kratom itself has long been consumed in raw or powdered form for its stimulant and opiate-like effects, the 7-OH alkaloid is far more potent than kratom's primary alkaloid, mitragynine (MG), and acts on the same mu-opioid receptors in the human brain as morphine, heroin, oxycodone, and fentanyl. However, what consumers do not know is that the opiate-like effects produced by MG and 7-OH are not the result of novel chemical interactions in the brain. Rather, these alkaloids behave, in part, exactly like opioids. That is, the MG and 7-OH alkaloids, found in the kratom plant bind to the same opioid receptors in the human brain as morphine, heroin, and other opiates and opioids, asserts the suit. Consequently, kratom consumption has the same risks of addiction, dependency, and painful withdrawal symptoms, among various other negative side effects as traditional opioids. But it gets worse. While both active alkaloids in kratom interact with the opioid receptors, 7-OH is substantially more potent than MG. Indeed, some studies have shown that 7-OH is ten times more potent than morphine in activation of these opioid receptors, the suit adds. As a result, the consumption of 7-OH -- even in seemingly low doses -- can produce the same cycle of euphoria, physical dependence, rapid tolerance, and excruciating withdrawal symptoms associated with traditional opioid addiction. Plaintiff J.H. is a resident and citizen of Solvang, California, located in Santa Barbara County. In or around late 2023 or early 2024, he encountered Se7en-brand 7-OH Products for sale at a local smoke shop. With a personal history of substance use and a strong desire to avoid relapse, Plaintiff J.H. exercised caution in selecting substances and relied heavily on packaging disclosures to make informed decisions. The Defendant owns and operates a commercial website under the "Krave" brand and distributes its Se7en-brand Products through a network of third-party retailers, including smoke shops and online resellers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. Scott G. Braden, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 9171 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 180 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (619) 762-1910 Facsimile: (858) 313-1850 E-mail: scott@lcllp.com todd@lcllp.com BELLRING BRANDS: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action securities lawsuit was filed against BellRing Brands, Inc. that seeks to recover losses of shareholders who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between June 30, 2020 and June 30, 2025. CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made false statements and/or concealed that: On May 6, 2025, BellRing Brands during its second quarter of 2025 earnings call revealed that certain customers were now choosing to "optimize" their inventories by lowering "their weeks of supply on hand," which would slow sales growth in the third quarter to "low-single-digits." Following this news, the price of BellRing Brands fell by nearly 19% on the same day. WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in BellRing Brands, Inc. stock during the relevant time frame - even if you still hold your shares - go to https://zlk.com/pslra-1/bellring-brands-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=157224&wire=5&utm_campaign=27 to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or obligation to participate. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 https://zlk.com/ [GN] BIOHAVEN LTD: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Set September 12 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of securities of Biohaven Ltd. (NYSE:BHVN) between March 24, 2023 and May 14, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 12, 2025. SO WHAT: If you purchased Biohaven securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Biohaven class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=41650 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for more information. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 12, 2025. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) troriluzole's regulatory prospects as a treatment for spinocerebellar ataxia ("SCA"), and/or the sufficiency of data that Biohaven submitted in support of troriluzole's regulatory approval for this indication, were overstated; (2) BHV-7000's efficacy and clinical prospects as a treatment for bipolar disorder were likewise overstated; (3) all the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to have a significant negative impact on Biohaven's business and financial condition; and (4) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Biohaven class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=41650 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for more information. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] BLACKMORES LIMITED: May Face Class Suit Over Mislabeled Supplements ------------------------------------------------------------------- Hayley Taylor of 7NEWS.com.au reports that a young father left with devastating injuries is at the centre of a looming class action against a popular Australian health supplement company. Dominic Noonan-O'Keeffe says he was taking multiple over-the-counter Blackmores supplements, to bolster his health before becoming a father. But one magnesium product he was taking contained 29 times the recommended daily intake of vitamin B6 -- making it toxic to his body, according to a May statement from Polaris Lawyers. The Melbourne law firm's founder and principal, Nick Mann, told 7NEWS.com.au that 600 Australians have now reached out to Polaris with reports of lasting injuries from B6 consumed through over-the-counter supplements. While B6 is an essential vitamin for the brain, nervous system, immune system, hormonal regulation and metabolism, and can be found naturally in food -- too much is toxic. It can leave those who consume unsafe amounts with nerve damage, migraines, heart spasms, and sensations of burning or numbness across the body. For Noonan-O'Keeffe, "significant fatigue, excruciating headaches and hypersensitivity to his environment" began in August 2023, three months after he began taking Blackmores supplements. "His symptoms escalated, with Dominic experiencing muscle spasms, neuralgia, heart palpitations, visual disturbances and loss of sensation across his body," Polaris Lawyers said in May. "Dominic was left unable to concentrate, struggling to sleep, constantly in pain and even at times found it difficult walking. His medical team would go on to identify neuropathy caused by excessive B6 levels in the Blackmores supplements." Such symptoms of B6 toxicity are widely reported, but the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) said that "many people are not aware" of them, in a 2022 alert to raise awareness. This alert was published by the TGA one month after it strengthened labelling requirements on products with daily doses that included over 10mg of vitamin B6. "No product is 100 per cent free from risk," a TGA spokesperson told 7NEWS.com.au. "The risk-based approach to regulation applied by the TGA ensures the benefits outweigh the risks associated with a product's use." Noonan-O'Keeffe, the lead plaintiff in the proposed class action, in the wants further changes to the way supplements are sold. In a June interim decision report discussing amendment to the Poisons Standard, the TGA could not find a consensus on the levels of B6 safe enough to totally ensure against the development of peripheral neuropathy. "Previously, it was generally considered that high intake greater than 200mg per day taken over a long period of time was required to develop peripheral neuropathy," TGA said. But it cited a European literature review which found supplemental doses of less than 50mg per day had caused peripheral neuropathy in some people, and there were notes of "large inter-individual differences in sensitivity to vitamin B6 toxicity". The TGA listed 174 reports of nerve-damage conditions as of June 4, and cited concerns of under-reporting. In its 2022 warning, the TGA said that in many cases of adverse reactions to B6 toxicity, patients "were unaware they had consumed vitamin B6 as the product they were taking was a magnesium supplement". Of the 32 cases of peripheral neuropathy under review at the time of the alert, 28 per cent involved "multiple medicines containing vitamin B6, some of which did not have a label warning because they contained less than 50mg of vitamin B6." In the class action call-out for anyone who believes they may have suffered injuries as a result of B6 toxicity, Polaris Lawyers described how Noonan-O'Keeffe "could not have imagined the significant long term medical problems that taking the supplement would cause". Mann said Noonan-O'Keeffe's case was "tragic" but noted that he "is not alone". "It's alarming to walk down the vitamin aisle of any chemist in Australia and see vitamin supplements containing levels of B6 which are far and above the recommended daily intake." The TGA interim decision outlines a rescheduling of vitamin B6, so that products with daily dosages over 50mg will be classified as "Pharmacist Only Medicines". The TGA spokesperson told 7NEWS.com.au that new regulatory changes mean all products containing a daily dose of vitamin B6 above 10mg require a label warning about peripheral neuropathy. "The maximum permitted daily dose of vitamin B6 in products has also been reduced from 200mg to 100mg for adults, with lower daily dose limits in place for children depending on their age," the spokesperson said. A Blackmores spokesperson told 7NEWS.com.au: "All our products, including those containing Vitamin B6, are developed in strict accordance with the regulatory requirements of the TGA. "This includes compliance with maximum permitted daily doses and the inclusion of mandated warning statements. We acknowledge the interim decision issued by the TGA, and we will ensure full compliance with its final determination." [GN] BOWTECH LLC: Fixes Archery Product Prices, Dunkin Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- GARY T. DUNKIN, Plaintiff v. BOWTECH, LLC; HOYT ARCHERY, INC.; MATHEWS ARCHERY, INC.; PRECISION SHOOTING EQUIPMENT, INC.; BPS DIRECT, LLC D/B/A BASS PRO SHOPS; CABELA'S LLC; DICK'S SPORTING GOODS, INC.; JAY'S SPORTING GOODS, INC D/B/A JAY'S SPORTING GOODS; KINSEY'S OUTDOORS, INC.; LANCASTER ARCHERY SUPPLY, INC.; ROGERS SPORTING GOODS HOLDINGS, INC.; ARCHERY TRADE ASSOCIATION, INC.; TRACKSTREET, INC.; AND NEUINTEL LLC, D/B/A PRICESPIDER HOLDINGS LLC F/K/A ORIS INTELLIGENCE, Case No. 4:25-cv-00546-BP (W.D. Mo., July 15, 2025) is a class action suit against the Defendants for their unlawful contract, combination, or conspiracy to fix the prices of Archery Products sold throughout the United States. The case arises from the Defendants' unlawful agreement, beginning no later than January 1, 2014, and continuing today, to artificially inflate the retail price of Archery Products. According to the complaint, the Defendants are the largest and most powerful Archery Product manufacturers, retailers, distributors, brands, suppliers, and trade associations in the United States. The Defendants conspired, colluded, and entered into an agreement to artificially raise, fix, maintain, or stabilize prices of Archery Products at supracompetitive levels, asserts the suit. The Defendants' alleged scheme to fix Archery Product prices included the joint exchange of competitively sensitive information through the ATA. Indeed, the ATA was the chief facilitator of Defendants' unlawful and anticompetitive conduct, including MAP training, clandestine communication channels, private events and other opportunities for Defendants to meet and discuss the industry, signaling, and other invaluable resources that served as the backbone to Defendants' successful price fixing agreement, says the suit. The Plaintiff purchased one or more Archey Products subject to minimum advertised price (MAP) policy pricing during the Class Period. The Plaintiff suffered antitrust injuries as a direct result of Defendants' unlawful conduct by paying higher prices for Archery Products purchased. Bowtech is a part of the larger entity, "Pure Archery Group," acquired by JDH Capital in 2022.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard M. Paul III, Esq. Ashlea G. Schwarz, Esq. David Bodenheimer, Esq. Megan M. Duffield, Esq. PAUL LLP 600 Broadway Boulevard, Suite 600 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 984-8100 Facsimile: (816) 984-8101 E-mail: Rick@PaulLLP.com Ashlea@PaulLLP.com David@PaulLLP.com Megan@PaulLLP.com BRITISH COLUMBIA: Reaches $60MM Deal in Solitary Confinement Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- CBC News reports that a proposed settlement of up to $60 million has been reached in a class-action lawsuit related to the use of solitary confinement in B.C. correctional facilities. The Quebec-based law firm Proactio says the settlement still needs to be approved by the B.C. Supreme Court, but could provide eligible class members up to $91,000. A statement from the firm on Saturday, July 19, said the lawsuit alleges the B.C. government improperly subjected prisoners to solitary confinement, "causing emotional, physical, and psychological harm." It further states that the province "denies liability but has opted to resolve the class action without a trial." The class includes people incarcerated after April 18, 2005, and involuntarily held in separate confinement or segregation for at least 15 consecutive days, or when the province knew or ought to have known they suffered from a mental illness. B.C.'s Ministry of Attorney General confirmed in an emailed statement that the province has agreed to jointly propose the resolution to the court. The allegations in the statement of claim originally filed in November 2018 have not been tested in court. The ministry said it has "taken lessons from the litigation successfully brought against other jurisdictions across the country and proposed a resolution to close this chapter quickly and avoid the kind of long expensive legal fights" seen elsewhere. The distribution of public notices is the first step in the settlement approval process, the statement added. "It's important to note this is not a finalized settlement and it is still subject to court approval, where the court will assess whether the agreement the parties have reached is as fair as we think it is," it said. Settlement hearing A hearing to decide whether to approve the proposed settlement has been set for Oct. 22, the statement from Proactio said. Class members have until Sept. 2 to indicate if they support or object to the proposal, it said. Those put in separate confinement after Dec. 22, 2020, can opt out by Sept. 2, in which case they would not receive compensation but would retain their right to pursue an individual lawsuit. The firm said class members can also submit a claim for compensation at a later date if the court approves the settlement. The court has appointed Koskie Minsky LLP and McEwan Partners LLP as class council, while Proactio has been mandated to act as administrator of the class action, the statement added. [GN] CAMPBELL'S COMPANY: Faces Class Suit Over Preservative-Free Ads --------------------------------------------------------------- Potato Pro reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that The Campbell's Company has misled consumers by marketing Cape Cod potato chips as free from preservatives, given that the snacks contain the common food additive citric acid. The 23-page lawsuit contends that despite the overt label statement that Cape Cod potato chips contain "No Artificial Flavors or Preservatives" or "No Artificial Colors, Flavors or Preservatives," the products are made with citric acid, which is classified as a preservative by the United States Food and Drug Administration. The preservative-free misrepresentation is designed to entice health-conscious consumers in search of products that are more natural or less processed, the class action suit alleges. The Cape Cod potato chips lawsuit takes issue with the preservative-free claim featured on the following snack varieties: -- Sea Salt & Vinegar; -- Sweet & Spicy Jalapeno; -- Sweet Mesquite Barbeque; -- Sea Salt & Cracked Pepper; -- Sour Cream & Onion; -- Less Fat Aged White Cheddar & Sour Cream; -- Less Fat Sea Salt & Vinegar; -- Less Fat Sweet Mesquite Barbeque; -- Honey BBQ Waves; -- Jalapeno Ranch Waves; and White Cheddar & Sour Cream Waves. According to the case, citric acid is frequently used in food products to help prevent oxidation and microbial growth. The complaint asserts that the potato chips' labeling is deceptive because citric acid functions as a preservative regardless of whether it is added for another purpose, such as a flavoring agent. The filing charges that consumers would not have paid as much for Cape Cod potato chips, or bought them at all, had they known the snacks were falsely advertised as preservative-free. The lawsuit looks to represent all individuals who, in the past three years, purchased the Cape Cod potato chips listed on this page within New York for personal, family or household purposes, and not for resale. [GN] CAPRICOR THERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Sept 15 ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action securities lawsuit was filed against Capricor Therapeutics, Inc. that seeks to recover losses of shareholders who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between October 9, 2024 and July 10, 2025. CASE DETAILS: According to the complaint, defendants provided investors with material information concerning Capricor's lead cell therapy candidate drug deramiocel for the treatment of cardiomyopathy associated with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). Defendants' statements included, among other things, Capricor's ability to obtain a Biologics License Application (BLA) for deramiocel from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning its four-year safety and efficacy data from its Phase 2 HOPE-2 trial study of deramiocel. On July 11, 2025, Capricor issued a press release announcing it received a Complete Response Letter (CRL) from the FDA denying the BLA specifically citing it did not meet the statutory requirement for substantial evidence of effectiveness and the need for additional clinical data. Further, the CRL referenced outstanding items in the Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls section of the application. Following this news, the price of Capricor stock declined from $11.40 per share on July 10, 2025 to $7.64 per share on July 11, 2025. WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Capricor stock during the relevant time frame - even if you still hold your shares - go to https://zlk.com/pslra-1/capricor-therapeutics-inc-lawsuit-submission-form-2?prid=157298&wire=1&utm_campaign=26 to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or obligation to participate. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 https://zlk.com/ [GN] CAPRICOR THERAPEUTICS: Faces Leong Suit Over Stock Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------------- HAU XIANG LEONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CAPRICOR THERAPEUTICS, INC. and LINDA MARBAN, Case No. 3:25-cv-01815-DMS-AHG (S.D. Cal., July 17, 2025) is a federal securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Capricor securities between October 9, 2024, and July 10, 2025, seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws. The Defendants provided investors with material information concerning Capricor's lead cell therapy candidate drug deramiocel for the treatment of cardiomyopathy associated with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). The Defendants' statements included, among other things, Capricor's ability to obtain a Biologics License Application (BLA) for deramiocel from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning its four-year safety and efficacy data from its Phase 2 HOPE-2 trial study of deramiocel, says the suit. This caused the Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase Capricor's securities at artificially inflated prices. The truth began to emerge on May 5, 2025, when Capricor issued a press release announcing it had completed its mid-cycle review meeting with the FDA on deramiocel for the treatment of DMD. In pertinent part, the Defendants announced that no significant deficiencies were identified by the Review Committee and that the package is on track for a Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) action date of August 31, 2025. Additionally, the FDA also confirmed its intent to hold an advisory committee meeting. In response to this news, Capricor's stock price declined from $10.30 per share to $7.30 per share. However, the Defendants materially misrepresented and/or created the false impression that they could obtain first approval for DMD cardiomyopathy full approval, thereby causing Capricor's stock price to increase under false pretenses over the next few months, the suit alleges. Investors remained in the dark until Stat News1 reported that Vinjay Prasad, the director of the FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), canceled the advisory committee meeting regarding deramiocel due to being "skeptical of the treatment" and uncertain about the drug's efficacy and safety. On this news, the price of Capricor's common stock declined from $11.94 per share on June 18, 2025, to $8.26 per share on June 20, 2025. Investors have sustained significant damages as a result of Defendants' fraudulent statements. Plaintiff seeks to recover those damages by way of this lawsuit, the suit further asserts. The Plaintiff purchased Capricor common stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation of the Defendants' fraud. Capricor is a clinical-stage biotechnology company that engages in the development of transformative cell and exosome-based therapeutics for treating Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) and other diseases with unmet medical needs in the United States. Its lead product candidate is deramiocel, an allogeneic cardiosphere-derived cells.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 515 South Flower Street 18th and 19th Floors Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 985-7290 E-mail: aapton@zlk.com CAPRICOR THERAPEUTICS: Fails to Disclose Material Info, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed Capricor Therapeutics, Inc. ("Capricor" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CAPR). The lawsuit alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse information concerning Capricor's four-year safety and efficacy data from its Phase 2 HOPE-2 trial study of deramiocel. If you purchased shares of Capricor between October 9, 2024 and July 10, 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/capricor/ for more information. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is September 15, 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. Telephone: (888) 508-6832 cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN] CASH APP: Settles Spam Text Message Class Action Suit for $12.5MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Francesca of CPMIS reports that nowadays online apps and digital payment platforms have become an essential part of our lives. But with the benefits of these technologies, sometimes such disturbing experiences also come to the fore which lead to legal action. A similar case has been seen recently with Cash App, where the company has accepted a class action settlement of $12.5 million (about $ 104 million) over a spam text message dispute. Under this, some eligible users can be paid up to $147 (about $ 12,250). What was the whole matter? Cash app has been charged with SMS spam text messaging that it was sending to several users without their consent. These messages were promotion or referral links, and the users never agreed to such messages. This issue was placed before a federal court of the United States on a class action suit. Legally, sending someone commercial messages without permission is illegal under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). What did Cash App do? This is what the company was not disputing in the court, but preferred to settle the waiver at 12.5 million dollars to escape being involved in lawsuits and a procedural procedure in the courts. This implies that they do not want to resolve the issue by parting with money, but also they do not want to acknowledge that they committed any wrong act. Who are eligible for this settlement? According to the terms of the settlement, people may be eligible: -- Those who were sent text messages from Cash App or its agents without consent between 2018 and 2023. -- People who received those messages without registering themselves or receiving a referral. -- Those who have filed or will file a claim in the class action. How much money will be received? The settlement fund is supposed to be paid to eligible claimants without consideration of legal fees, administration charges and other expenses but lasting up to 147 dollars per claimant. Nonetheless, this will also be determined by the total number of individuals that will make a claim. How to get money? If you live in the US and you think you received unwanted Cash App text messages, you can submit a claim by filling out a claim form. The process is completely online. You must apply before the claim form filing deadline (often listed on the court website or in the case notice). If the application is approved, you will be paid via direct deposit or check. Are users from India or other countries eligible? No. This settlement is only applicable to people living in the US. Users from India or other countries cannot be part of this claim, even if they have downloaded Cash App. What are the learnings from this case? Digital privacy is very important. No app or company can send you promotional messages without permission. If someone does this, you can take legal action or get compensation by joining a class action. Along with technology, we should be aware of our digital rights. What is a class action lawsuit? Class Action Lawsuit is a lawsuit in which a person or a few people file a case on behalf of a large group. Like in this case, many users got spam messages, so everyone together filed a single case – which is called a class action. The advantage of this is that by filing a case together, more people can get justice and compensation. Impact on Cash App's image? Although Cash App is a popular fintech app, this case has definitely affected the company's brand image. Although they did not admit fault, the settlement definitely indicated that they want to settle the dispute. To avoid such cases in the future, companies will have to give more importance to transparency and user consent. Conclusion This $12.5 million settlement of Cash App is a lesson for all those who send texts or emails to consumers without permission. It sends a message that your digital consent is important, and companies should respect it. Although this case will not directly benefit India, it inspires us that it is very important to be aware of your data and privacy. If you live in the US and are eligible to be a part of this class action, then an amount of $147 is waiting for you. FAQs 1. What is the $147 Cash App settlement about? The settlement relates to a class action lawsuit against Cash App for allegedly sending unsolicited spam text messages to users without their consent, violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). 2. Who is eligible to receive the $147 payment? You are eligible if you received one or more unsolicited spam text messages from Cash App between the specified period (as mentioned in the settlement terms) and are part of the settlement class. 3. Do I need to be a Cash App user to qualify? No, you don't need to be an active Cash App user. If you received promotional texts from Cash App, you may still be eligible. 4. How do I file a claim to receive the payment? You need to visit the official settlement website (usually provided in court-approved notices) and submit a claim form online or by mail before the deadline. 5. How much will each person receive? Each qualifying claimant may receive up to $147, although the final amount may vary depending on how many valid claims are submitted. [GN] COMMEMORATIVE BRANDS: Court Trims Discovery Bid in BIPA Case ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Stephen P. McGlynn of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery and motion for order or, alternatively, for telephonic conference regarding discovery dispute in the case captioned as JOSHUA GAERTNER and CARSON KOY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. COMMEMORATIVE BRANDS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 23-cv-02452-SPM (S.D. Ill.). Plaintiffs Joshua Gaertner and Carson Koy filed their operative Amended Class Action Complaint on Nov. 12, 2024, on behalf of themselves and as putative Class Representatives, against Defendants Commemorative Brands, Inc. d/b/a Balfour & Co., Commemorative Brands Illinois LLC, and Iconic Group, Inc., for alleged violations of the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act 740 ILL. COMP. STAT. 14/1 et. seq. ("BIPA"). On Jan. 22, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel discovery pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a). On May 28, 2025, the parties filed a Joint Status Report with the Court indicating that some of the outstanding discovery issues had been resolved, while others remained in dispute. The Motion for Order requests adjudication specifically as to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Interrogatory No. 7. Plaintiffs' Interrogatory No. 7 requests that Defendants identify all data that is accessed, analyzed, obtained, utilized, or created when Facial Recognition is used. Defendant Commemorative Brands, Inc. responded with "General Objections" as well as, in relevant part, an objection that the information sought is outside Commemorative Brands, Inc.'s possession, custody, and control. Plaintiffs argue, in their Motion to Compel, that this objection is improper, and that Defendants should be compelled to state, under oath, that such information is outside the possession, custody, and control of Defendants, or otherwise provide the responsive information requested. Plaintiffs further argue that resolution of this discovery dispute is needed at this time because, depending on the answer given, the issue may be relevant to class certification. Plaintiffs contend that resolution of this dispute at this time would allow them adequate time to conduct further discovery. The Court does not find that GradImages' objection that the information sought in Interrogatory No. 7 is not within its possession, custody, or control to sufficiently state with specificity their reasons for objecting to the Interrogatory. Defendants do not object on the basis that the information is unduly burdensome to gather or obtain. They also do not object on the ground that the information sought is not proportional to the needs of the case; nor do they object that the information sought is irrelevant outside of the context of Plaintiffs' standing to bring suit or Defendants' status as a State agency contractor or financial institution affiliate as defined by BIPA. As such, Rule 33 requires GradImages to raise a proper objection to the information sought in Plaintiffs' Interrogatory No. 7 or otherwise respond to the information fully in writing under oath. In addition to the one discovery dispute raised in Plaintiffs' Request for Order, there remains several additional disputed discovery issues yet to be resolved that were originally raised in Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel. Plaintiffs' Requests for Production Nos. 3−4 request information regarding the number of payments and total amount of payments that Defendants have made to Illinois photographers for taking photos in Illinois on which facial recognition was used. The Court finds that this discovery request is premature and not relevant to the issue of whether Plaintiffs can satisfy Rule 23's requirements for class certification. Accordingly, this request is denied. Plaintiffs' Requests for Production Nos. 18−21, 26−30, and Interrogatory No. 4 concern information about GradImages' policies regarding biometrics or other data derived from Facial Recognition, their compliance with those policies, and documents that may satisfy GradImages' consent and disclosure obligations under BIPA Sections 15(a) and (b). Defendants object that these requests are not related to discovery regarding class certification and are not related to the specific portions of BIPA at issue in this case. The Court agrees with Defendants to the extent that the requested discovery is not relevant to whether Plaintiffs can establish a Rule 23 class. Accordingly, this request is denied. Plaintiffs' Interrogatory No. 6 and Requests for Production Nos. 22−24 concern the income that Defendants receive from selling photos through their website and how facial recognition affects that income. Additionally, Requests for Production Nos. 5−6 seek all documents reflecting the amount of money GradImages has been paid from Persons having an Illinois address for photos sold through GradImages' website and documents reflecting the number of transactions GradImages has paid with Persons having an Illinois address involving the sale of photographs through GradImages' website. The Court finds that this information does not bear on the question of whether Plaintiffs can demonstrate there is a certifiable class. Plaintiffs' Interrogatory No. 11 asks GradImages to identify the author of the Facial Recognition Explanation and any Persons who contributed to information in writing the same. The Court finds that, to the extent the author of such information on GradImages' website may be relevant, it is not relevant to whether Plaintiffs can establish the existence of a Rule 23 class. This request is denied. The Court is denying these discovery requests without prejudice. Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel is granted in part to the extent it seeks to compel response to Plaintiffs' Interrogatory No. 7. Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel is denied in part with respect to the remainder of the requests to compel discovery from Defendants Plaintiffs' Motion for Order is granted in part to the extent it requests the Court issue an Order adjudicating the discovery dispute as to Interrogatory No. 7. The Motion is denied in part to the extent it requests a telephonic conference and any additional relief requested. A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Yab19k from PacerMonitor.com. COMODO GROUP: Settles Telemarketing Call Class Action for $1.63MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Aljets, writing for ClaimDepot, reports that consumers who received a telemarketing call on a cell phone from Comodo Group that used a prerecorded voice between July 22, 2012, and July 22, 2016, may be eligible to submit a claim for up to $1,500 per call from a class action settlement. Comodo Group Inc. agreed to pay $1.63 million to settle a class action lawsuit for allegedly violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making telemarketing calls using prerecorded messages to promote SSL certificates without prior express consent. Who is eligible for a TCPA settlement payment? Class members must meet the following criteria: -- They are located in the United States and received a telemarketing call from Comodo Group Inc. to their cellular telephone number. -- The call used a prerecorded voice. -- The call was made between July 22, 2012, and July 22, 2016. How much is the class action settlement payout? Pro rata cash payment per call: Each eligible claimant will receive a cash payment of up to $1,500 per qualifying prerecorded call. The final per-call payment amount will be determined by the number of valid claims filed and the total number of qualifying calls. How to claim a TCPA class action rebate To claim a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid claim form by the deadline of Sept. 15, 2025. There are two ways to file: -- Complete the online claim form -- Download the PDF claim form to print and mail it to the settlement administrator Settlement administrator's mailing address: Johnson v. Comodo Group Inc. Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 301134, Los Angeles, CA 90030-1134 Required claim information -- To submit a claim online or download a claim form to print and mail, class members must provide the claim ID and PIN from their official settlement notice or a qualifying phone number. -- The settlement administrator will contact approved claimants receiving payments of $600 or more with a request to complete a W-9 for tax purposes. Payout options -- Payments will be made by check mailed to the address provided on the claim form. -- Checks must be cashed within 90 days of issuance. -- If a second distribution is feasible, it will also be paid by check. $1.63 million TCPA settlement fund The $1,625,000 settlement fund of will include -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $731,250 -- Attorneys' expenses: Amount to be presented to the court for approval -- Service award to class representative: Up to $40,000 -- Payments to class members with valid claims: Remaining settlement funds Important dates -- Deadline to file a claim: Sept. 15, 2025 -- Deadline to opt out: Sept. 15, 2025 -- Final approval hearing: Oct. 27, 2025 When is the Comodo Group class action settlement payout date? Payments will be issued to approved claimants after the court grants final approval of the settlement and any appeals are resolved. Why did this TCPA class action lawsuit and settlement happen? This class action lawsuit was filed because the plaintiff alleged Comodo Group Inc. violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making telemarketing calls using prerecorded messages to individuals without their prior express consent. The TCPA allows for statutory damages of $500 to $1,500 per unlawful call. Comodo denies these allegations and maintains that it did not violate the law, but agreed to settle to avoid the cost and risk of continued litigation. [GN] CORMEDIX INC: Ruling Withdrawn After Defendants' Atty Cite Errors ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case In re Cormedix Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:21-cv-14020 (D.N.J.), the Hon. Julien Xavier Neals directed the Clerk of Court to remove an Opinion and Order the judge issued on June 30 -- that denied a request to dismiss the case -- after counsel for the defendants advised that the decision and order were entered in error. A subsequent Opinion and Order will follow, Judge Neals said July 23. Andrew J. Lichtman, a partner in the Litigation Department of Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, wrote to the Court July 22 to bring the Court's attention to "a series of errors" in the Opinion. These include three instances in which the outcomes of cases cited in the Opinion were misstated (i.e., the motions to dismiss were granted, not denied) and numerous instances in which quotes were mistakenly attributed to decisions that do not contain such quotes: 1. Dang v. Amarin Corp. PLC The Opinion cites approvingly to Dang v. Amarin Corp. PLC, 750 F. Supp. 3d 431 (D.N.J. 2024). The Opinion says: "In Dang v. Amarin Corp. PLC, the court applied the core operations doctrine where executives made misleading statements about Vascepa, the company's only product, while ignoring FDA Form 483s and audits identifying significant regulatory risks." However, the Dang court dismissed the plaintiffs' securities fraud complaint and specifically rejected the plaintiffs' argument under the "core operations" doctrine. In determining that the plaintiffs failed to allege misleading statements about Vascepa, the court explained that "the core operations doctrine does not permit imputing the requisite scienter regarding any statement made within a broad perimeter of the relevant core operations to an executive." The Opinion also states that the executives in Dang "ignor[ed] FDA Form 483s and audits identifying significant regulatory risks," but Dang does not contain any discussion of FDA Form 483s or audits. Similarly, the Opinion quotes Dang as referring to "classic evidence of scienter," but the case does not contain that quote. 2. In re Intelligroup Securities Litigation The Opinion relies on In re Intelligroup Securities Litigation, 527 F. Supp. 2d 262 (D.N.J. 2007), to support the following proposition: "Courts have repeatedly held that SOX certifications can support a strong inference of scienter when executives certify internal controls while aware of or recklessly disregarding serious deficiencies, especially when the issues pertain to core operations." The Opinion also notes, "[i]n Intelligroup, the court found that certifying executives made actionable misstatements by signing SOX certifications despite knowledge of serious internal control failures. The certifications became 'false statements in their own right' where executives were aware of red flags or contradictory information." However, as in Dang, the court in Intelligroup granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in its entirety. The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to allege scienter, and explicitly concluded that "[it] does not draw any inferences of Defendants' scienter from their SOX certifications." Intelligroup does not contain the quotation about "false statements in their own right." 3. Stichting Pensioenfonds Metaal en Techniek v. Verizon Commc'ns Inc. The Opinion contains the following statement in the scienter section: "Similarly, in Stichting Pensioenfonds Metaal en Techniek v. Verizon Commc'ns Inc., No. 23-05218, 2021 WL 3540968, at *15-17 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2021), access to internal emails and memos warning about inaccuracies supported a finding of scienter." Defendants' counsel said they have not been able to identify this case from the Southern District of New York, but believe the Court was referring to a case with the same caption from the District of New Jersey, Stichting Pensioenfonds Metaal en Techniek v. Verizon Commc'ns Inc., 775 F. Supp. 3d 826 (D.N.J. 2025). In Stichting, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in its entirety and specifically rejected all of the plaintiffs' arguments in support of scienter. Stichting also does not have any discussion of "internal emails" or "memos." 4. City of Warwick Retirement System v. Catalent, Inc. The Opinion attributes two quotes to City of Warwick Retirement System v. Catalent, Inc., No. 23-1108, 2024 WL 3219616 (D.N.J. June 28, 2024), but they are not contained in that case: -- "The absence of insider trading is not dispositive." -- "The importance of the product to the company's financial success supports the inference of scienter." 5. Roofer's Pension Fund v. Papa, No. 16-2805, 2018 WL 3601229 (D.N.J. July 27, 2018) The Opinion attributes a quote to Roofer's Pension Fund v. Papa, No. 16-2805, 2018 WL 3601229 (D.N.J. July 27, 2018), but the quote is not found in that case: -- "The lack of any competing inference that is more plausible than Plaintiffs' suggested inference . . . reinforces a strong inference of scienter." 6. The Opinion attributes two quotes to Defendants that they are not alleged to have made: -- "Todisco publicly stated that CorMedix . . . had 'resolved all issues related to manufacturing,'"; and -- "CorMedix issued statements in October 2019 . . . that the company had 'all necessary controls and processes in place for approval.'" Lichtman clarified that the Defendants do not seek reconsideration of the Opinion. "We are available to discuss further should the Court have any questions," said Lichtman. [GN] COVENANT SURGICAL: Nelson Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------- JUDITH NELSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COVENANT SURGICAL PARTNERS, INC., ANNE ARUNDEL GASTROENTEROLOGY ASSOCIATES, P.A., and THE MARYLAND CENTER FOR DIGESTIVE HEALTH, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00751 (M.D. Tenn., July 3, 2025) seeks to hold Defendants responsible for the harms they caused Plaintiff and similarly situated persons in the foreseeable, preventable data breach of Defendants' inadequately protected shared computer network. On or around April 25, 2025, cybercriminals targeted and infiltrated CSP's computer network and accessed and/or acquired multiple sensitive files containing the unencrypted personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and Class Members. In the course of Defendants' relationship, CSP furnishes support services to healthcare providers, while Plaintiff and Class Members went to MCDH and AAGA clinics for healthcare services. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former patients of Defendants who were required to provide their private information to Defendants as a condition of receiving healthcare services. The Defendants breached their duty and betrayed Plaintiff's and Class Members' trust by failing to properly safeguard and protect their Private Information, thus causing cybercriminals to access, acquire, appropriate, compromise, disclose, exfiltrate, release, steal, misuse, and/or view troves of sensitive, confidential patient data in the data breach. As a result of the unreasonable and inadequate data security practices that resulted in the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members have already suffered damages. For example, their Private Information is now in the hands of criminals who can offer it for sale, hold it for ransom, or use it for any other criminal purpose they desire, the suit says. Covenant Surgical Partners, Inc. offers physician partners with business support services focus on providing personalized care for their patients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com D&D ELECTRICAL: Benfield Seeks Foreclosures of Mechanic's Liens --------------------------------------------------------------- BENFIELD ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORP., THE COLONIAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., COOPER ELECTRIC SUPPLY, LLC, MIDTOWN ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORP., and IMPULSE ELECTRICAL SUPPLY, INC. individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated with regard to that certain construction project located at 267 Bond Street, Brooklyn, New York, Plaintiffs v. D&D ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., URBAN ATELIER GROUP, LLC, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, BAYSIDE GOWANUS OWNER, L.L.C., JF18 DRYWALL CORP., ACE WIRE & CABLE CO, INC. and "JOHN DOE No. 1" through "JOHN DOE No. 100", the names of the last 100 defendants being fictitious, Defendants, Case No. 25-07016-shl (S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for foreclosures of liens and action to enforce a Lien Law Trust. The case arises from the failure of D&D to pay for electrical materials that the Plaintiffs undeniably sold and delivered to D&D, which were used by D&D in connection with its work at a private improvement construction project located at 267 Bond Street, Brooklyn, New York (the "Project"). According to the complaint, the Defendants owed the Plaintiffs in excess of $1,000,000 in connection to the Project. The Plaintiffs seek foreclosure of the mechanic's liens which they filed against the Project, suit says. Benfield Electric Supply Corp. is a seller of electrical equipment and related supplies and materials based in Mount Vernon, New York. The Colonial Electric Supply Company, Inc. is a seller of electrical equipment and related supplies and materials based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Cooper Electric Supply, LLC is a seller of electrical equipment and related supplies and materials based in New York, New York. Midtown Electric Supply Corp. is a seller of electrical equipment and related supplies and materials based in Long Island City, New York. Impulse Electrical Supply Inc. is a seller of electrical equipment and related supplies and materials based in New Hyde Park, New York. D&D Electrical Construction Company, Inc. is an electrical contractor and subcontractor based in Mount Vernon, New York. Urban Atelier Group, LLC is a general contractor and construction manager based in New York, New York. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company is an insurance company in Boston, Massachusetts. Bayside Gowanus Owner, LLC is a property owner based in New York, New York. JF18 Drywall Corp. is a general contractor based in Corona, New York. Ace Wire & Cable Co., Inc. is a wire and cable supplier based in Woodside, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Rosenberg, Esq. TODD & LEVI, LLP 444 Madison Avenue, Suite 1202 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 308-7400 - and - Robert J. Ansell, Esq. 270 Park Avenue New Hyde Park, NY 11040 Telephone: (516) 812-6800 DAILY WIRE: Settles Video Privacy Class Action Lawsuit for $2-Mil. ------------------------------------------------------------------ William C. Gendron of ClaimDepot reports Log-in account holders or digital newsletter subscribers to Daily Wire websites who accessed a video through the sites between March 11, 2022, and Nov. 7, 2023, may qualify to claim up to $15 from a class action settlement. The Daily Wire LLC agreed to pay $2 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging it disclosed subscribers' personally identifiable information to Facebook without their consent and in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act. Who can file a Daily Wire claim? Class members must meet all of the following criteria: -- They were a log-in account holder and/or digital newsletter subscriber to a Daily Wire website (including, but not limited to, www.dailywire.com) in the United States. -- They accessed a video through a Daily Wire website while a pixel was operational between March 11, 2022, and Nov. 7, 2023. How much can class members get? Eligible class members who submit a valid claim can receive a cash payment of up to $15. The payment amount may be reduced on a pro rata basis if the total value of all approved claims exceeds the funds available for distribution to class members after deducting attorneys' fees, service awards and administrative costs. How to claim a video privacy payment Class members can submit the online claim form or download, print, complete and mail the PDF claim form to the settlement administrator. Eligible class members must submit a claim form by Sept. 8, 2025. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Daily Wire VPPA Settlement Administrator, 1650 Arch St., Suite 2210, Philadelphia, PA 19103 What information is necessary to submit a claim? To file an online claim, class members must enter the notice ID and confirmation code they received in the settlement notice sent via mail or email. Payout options -- Venmo -- PayPal -- Paper check $2 million settlement fund breakdown The $2,000,000 settlement fund covers: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees and expenses: Up to $666,666.67 -- Service awards to class representatives: Up to $5,000 -- Payments to eligible class members: The remainder of the fund Important dates -- Exclusion deadline: Sept. 1, 2025 -- Claim deadline: Sept. 8, 2025 -- Final approval hearing: Oct. 22, 2025 When is the Daily Wire VPPA settlement payout date? Payments will be issued to eligible claimants approximately 30 days after the court grants final approval of the settlement and any appeals are resolved. Why was there a class action settlement? The class action lawsuit alleged The Daily Wire LLC violated the Video Privacy Protection Act by disclosing subscribers' personally identifiable information to Facebook without consent. The defendant denied any wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid the expense and uncertainty of continued litigation. [GN] DNA DIAGNOSTICS: Faces $9.9MM Cessna Class Suit in N.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DNA Diagnostics Center. The case is captioned as Caroline Cessna, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. DNA Diagnostics Center, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-07250 (N.D. Ill., June 27, 2025). The suit demands $9, 9999,000 in damages. The case is assigned to the Hon. John Robert Blakey. The Defendant operates DNA paternity testing laboratories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented: Matthew John Langley, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (708) 529-5418 E-mail: matt@almeidalawgroup.com EISENHOWER MEDICAL: $875,000 Final Settlement Hearing Set Oct 20 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that an $875,000 class action settlement ends litigation against Eisenhower Medical Center (EMC) that alleged the facility secretly used third-party tracking technology on its website to share with Facebook, Google and others consumers' personal and/or protected health information. The Eisenhower Medical Center settlement, which received preliminary approval from the court on June 4, 2025, covers anyone who logged into the EMC MyChart patient portal, and/or submitted an online form and/or scheduled a lab appointment, on the Eisenhower Medical Center public website at any time between January 1, 2019 and May 3, 2023. The court-approved website for the Eisenhower Medical Center class action settlement can be found at EMCWebSettlement.com. Eisenhower Medical Center settlement class members who submit a valid, timely claim form will be eligible to receive a pro-rata, or equal share, amount of the $875,000 settlement fund after the payment of taxes, legal and court fees, and lead plaintiff service awards. To submit a claim form online, class members can head to this page and log in with the unique settlement claim ID found in the email or postcard settlement notice sent to all eligible EMC patients. Alternatively, a PDF of the claim form is available to print, fill out and mail back to the address listed on the first page of the document. All claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked no later than October 2, 2025. A hearing is set for October 20, 2025 to determine whether the settlement will receive final court approval. Compensation will begin to be dispensed to settlement class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Eisenhower Medical Center class action lawsuit alleged that the company used the Meta Pixel and other third-party tracking technology to track and record confidential patient data and subsequently disclose that sensitive information to third parties such as Meta and Google. [GN] EQUIFAX INFO: Improperly Reported Kaur as "Deceased," Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Parneet Kaur v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Trans Union, LLC, American Express National Bank, and Discover Bank, Case No. 2:25-cv-01332 (W.D. Wash., July 16, 2025) is a class action suit brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated arising from each Defendant's violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Accordingly, the Defendants improperly reported Plaintiff as "Deceased" on Plaintiff's credit report. The Plaintiff disputed the accounts. The Defendants failed correct the inaccuracies, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff was thereby damaged, asserts the suit. Equifax is a consumer reporting agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Brubaker, Esq. BRUBAKER LAW GROUP PLLC 14506 NE 184th Pl Woodinville, WA 98072 Telephone: (206) 335-8746 E-mail: michael@brubakerlawgroup.com - and - Eliyahu Babad, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: EBabad@SteinSaksLegal.com EYEMART EXPRESS: N.D. Tex. Court Dismisses Wiretapping Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Vivian Wen, Jordan Joachim & Kathryn Cahoy of Covington report that Heath and health-adjacent websites, from home pregnancy test companies to eyewear companies, continue to be a target for wiretapping lawsuits if they use pixels or other common-place third-party technologies. A Texas federal court recently dismissed one such suit challenging the use of website pixels by Eyemart Express, LLC, a company selling prescription and non-prescription eyewear. Rand v. Eyemart Express, LLC, No. 3:24-CV-621-N, 2025 WL 1519726 (N.D. Tex. May 27, 2025). Five named plaintiffs, who allegedly visited Eyemart's website, claimed that Eyemart used website pixels to track their interaction "events" on the website, including the items they added to a digital cart, and then shared that data with the pixel provider. Plaintiffs claimed that the pixels intercepted their private health information ("PHI") in violation of the Federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Missouri Wiretap Act, and the Illinois Eavesdropping Statute. The Court granted Eyemart's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice. The Court first concluded that three named plaintiffs failed to plead facts plausibly establishing that they shared any PHI with Eyemart that could have been shared with the pixel provider. The Court explained that these plaintiffs had alleged only a subjective intent to visit the website (e.g., to purchase prescription eyewear or nonprescription sunglasses), and that this was insufficient to allege that they shared PHI. The Court next concluded that the other two named plaintiffs failed to plead that their PHI was disclosed to the pixel provider. Although these plaintiffs had alleged they shared their PHI with Eyemart, the Court found they had not alleged this information was captured by the pixel. The Court also dismissed plaintiffs' wiretap act claims based on the one-party consent exception to the statutes at issue and plaintiffs' failure to allege an independent crime or tort to invoke an exception to that rule. [GN] FAIRBANKS UROLOGY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Denning Says -------------------------------------------------------------- MELVIN DENNING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FAIRBANKS UROLOGY, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00026-HRH (D. Alaska, July 15, 2025) arises out of the Defendant's failure to properly safeguard and protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly sensitive protected health information and/or personally identifiable information resulting in a large and preventable data breach that impacted at least 4,289 individuals (Data Breach). Fairbanks treats men and women with urinary and sexual symptoms. Some of the medical conditions Fairbanks treats include, erectile dysfunction, penile curvature (Peyronie's disease), penile fracture, prostate enlargement, urinary tract infections, low testosterone, low libido, bladder cancer, atrophic vaginitis, testicular pain, testicular cancer, and infertility. Accordingly, patients seeking treatment from Fairbanks are often doing so at a very vulnerable time in their lives. In connection with the medical services Fairbanks provides, Fairbanks acquired the highly sensitive PHI of Plaintiff and the Class, including their names, diagnosis/clinical information, doctors' names, medical procedure information, medical, record numbers, and treatment information. Fairbanks also acquired highly sensitive PII, such as addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, Social Security numbers, health insurance information, and financial information (such as payment card information and account information). On June 13, 2025, Fairbanks learned that an email phishing incident resulted in access to an undisclosed number of email accounts and SharePoint accounts between December 13, 2024, and December 16, 2024. As a result, the Plaintiff's and the Class's PHI/PII was compromised and is now in the hands of cybercriminals who can immediately put their PHI/PII to a variety of sordid uses. The Plaintiff seeks to obtain damages, restitution, and injunctive relief. Fairbanks is based in Fairbanks, Alaska and provides men and women with urinary and sexual symptoms.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Cooley, Esq. Katherine Elsner, Esq. EHRHARDT, ELSNER & COOLEY 215 Fidalgo Ave, Suite 201 Kenai AK 99611 Telephone: (907) 283-2876 Facsimile: (907) 283-2896 E-mail: josh@907legal.com katie@907legal.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com FANATICS INC: Faces Jones Class Suit Over Anticompetitive Scheme ---------------------------------------------------------------- PHILLIP JONES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. FANATICS, INC.; FANATICS, LLC; FANATICS COLLECTIBLES INTERMEDIATE HOLDCO, INC.; FANATICS SPV, LLC; FANATICS HOLDINGS, INC.; MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL; MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PROPERTIES, INC.; MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYERS ASSOCIATION; MLB PLAYERS, INC.; NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE; NFL PROPERTIES LLC; NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS ASSOCIATION; NFL PLAYERS, INC.; NATIONAL BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION; NBA PROPERTIES, INC.; NATIONAL BASKETBALL PLAYERS ASSOCIATION; ONETEAM PARTNERS LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-05776 (S.D.N.Y., July 14, 2025) is a class action complaint against the Defendants for violations of federal and state laws, seeking actual damages, treble damages, disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief, a declaratory judgment, reasonable costs and attorneys' fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest. The Plaintiff and all other similarly situated persons and entities in the United States who, at any time from January 1, 2022, until such time as the anticompetitive conduct alleged herein ceases purchased from a non-Defendant distributor (e.g., big-box or other retailer, local trading card shop, or online store) newly-issued, fully-licensed MLB, NFL, or NBA trading cards produced by Fanatics. The Defendants have engaged in an anticompetitive scheme in the market for newly-issued, fully-licensed Major U.S. Professional Sports Leagues trading cards produced by Fanatics, resulting in inflated prices and reduced competition for purchasers of such cards. Pro Sports Trading Cards featuring professional athletes are valued both as collectibles and as investments, creating a thriving and competitive market. To effectively compete in this market, manufacturers must obtain licenses from both professional sports players associations to use the names, images, and likenesses of players, and from professional sports leagues to use the names, logos, and uniforms of the players' teams.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq. Alexander E. Barnett, Esq. Jonathan S. Crevier, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 933-1000 E-mail: gasciolla@dicellolevitt.com abarnett@dicellolevitt.com jcrevier@dicellolevitt.com FINASTRA TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Kalabich Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JACOB KALABICH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FINASTRA TECHNOLOGY, INC., Case No. 6:25-cv-01344 (M.D. Fla., July 17, 2025) arises out of the recent data breach involving the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the Personally Identifiable Information that Defendant collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices, including Plaintiff's and Class Members' names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, and financial account numbers (without access information). Accordingly, the Plaintiff and Class Members were required to entrust Defendant with sensitive, non-public Private Information as a condition of receiving services from Defendant, without which Defendant could not perform its regular business activities. Defendant retains this information for at least many years and even after the company relationship has ended. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. The Defendant allegedly failed to adequately protect the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information -- and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. In breaching its duties to properly safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information and give them timely, adequate notice of the Data Breach's occurrence, Defendant's conduct amounts to negligence and/or recklessness and violates federal and state statutes, says the suit. The Defendant is a financial software company that provides solutions to banks, lenders, and other financial institutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com FINASTRA TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Koney Says -------------------------------------------------------------- DONNA KONEY and HENRY KONEY on 308 behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. FINASTRA TECHNOLOGY, INC., Case No. 6:25-cv-01308-CEM-RMN (M.D. Fla., July 14, 2025) alleges that Finastra failed to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiffs' and other similarly situated Finastra customers' names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, and financial account numbers (without access information) from hackers. On July 3, 2025, Finastra filed official notice of a hacking incident with the Office of the Maine Attorney General’s Office. On June 30, 2025, Finastra also sent out data breach letters to individuals whose information was compromised as a result of the hacking incident. Based on the Notice, Finastra detected unusual activity on some of its computer systems on November 7, 2024. In response, the company conducted an investigation which revealed that an unauthorized party had access to certain company files between October 31, 2024, and November 8, 2024 (the Data Breach). Yet, Finastra waited seven months to notify the public that they were at risk. As a result of this delayed response, the Plaintiffs and "Class Members" had no idea for seven months that their Private Information had been compromised, and that they were, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm. The risk will remain for their respective lifetimes. The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included highly sensitive data that represents a gold mine for data thieves, including but not limited to, Social Security numbers and financial account information, that Finastra collected and maintained, says the suit. Finastra is a financial software company that provides solutions to banks, lenders, and other financial institutions that serves more than some of the largest banks in the world, including JPMorgan Chase, HSBC, and Bank of America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com - and - Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 468 N. Camden Dr., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 E-mail: daniel@slfla.com - and - M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. CLAYEO C. ARNOLD A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 239-4778 Facsimile: (916) 924-1829 E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com gharoutunian@justice4you.com FLORIDA: DMV Customers Sue Over Appointment Shortages, Scalping --------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that Florida citizens have been forced to wait in unreasonably long lines or even camp outside DMV offices overnight due to third-party appointment scalping and artificially created appointment scarcity. According to the six-page lawsuit, the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV) has for months experienced an appointment shortage that the case claims is the result of mismanaged schedules, systemic staffing problems and appointment scalping. The class action lawsuit emphasizes that the lack of DMV appointments has forced some residents, including minors, to "camp out overnight" without adequate lighting, security or facilities in order to obtain driver's license services. Per the suit, the plaintiff, a 17-year-old Broward County resident who filed the suit through her mother, was directed by DHSMV staff around the night of January 9, 2025 into the early morning the next day to camp out at the Pompano Beach Citi Centre branch overnight. "Plaintiff complied with these directions and was forced to remain outside the facility overnight, during which time she was subjected to harassment, assault, and severe emotional distress," the case alleges. The complaint states that investigative reports and public records have revealed and confirmed that third parties have used false accounts and automated software programs known as bots to exploit DHSMV systems and claim a large number of appointments, which are then sold back to Florida residents for anywhere between $25 and $250. The lawsuit contends that the Florida DHSMV is aware of the conditions faced by some customers, including that "overnight stays were occurring regularly," yet has failed to provide a safe and secure environment for public services. The Florida DHSMV class action lawsuit seeks to represent all individuals who have been denied timely DMV services in Florida due to appointment scalping, scheduling mismanagement or forced overnight waiting at state-run DMV branches. [GN] FLOWERS BAKERIES: Faces Nelson Over Deceptive Brand Bread Labels ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA NELSON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FLOWERS BAKERIES, LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-01801 (C.D. Cal., July 16, 2025) is a California consumer class action for violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and for breach of express warranty. The packaging prominently displays on the front of the label the following claim: "Our Promise. NEVER any artificial preservatives, colors or flavors and NO high fructose corn syrup." The Plaintiff that the statement is false since the products are made with ascorbic acid -- an artificial preservative ingredient used in food products. The Defendant's packaging, labeling, and advertising scheme is intended to give consumers the impression that they are buying a premium product that is free from artificial preservatives, asserts the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff, who purchased the Products in California, was deceived by the Defendant's unlawful conduct and brings this action on her own behalf and on behalf of California consumers to remedy Defendant's unlawful acts. The Defendant manufactures, distributes, advertises, markets, and sells the Nature's Own brand bread Products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael T. Houchin, Esq. Craig W. Straub, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 E-mail: mhouchin@crosnerlegal.com craig@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com FLYING EAGLE: Agrees to Settle Securities Class Action for $10MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- William C. Gendron of ClaimDepot report that consumers who held Flying Eagle Acquisition Corp. Class A common stock as of Dec. 16, 2020, may qualify to claim a share of a $10,000,000 award from a class action settlement. Flying Eagle Acquisition Corp. agreed to pay $10 million to resolve a class action lawsuit alleging the company and related defendants breached their fiduciary duties and made misleading statements in connection with the company's merger with Skillz Inc. Who are the class members? The class includes: -- All holders of Flying Eagle Class A common stock, whether as beneficial or record holders, as of the closing of the merger on Dec. 16, 2020 -- The heirs, successors-in-interest, transferees and assigns of those holders -- Any person or entity who subsequently purchased such stock -- Those who inherited or otherwise acquired the shares after the merger date The following shares are excluded: -- Shares of Class B common stock that converted into Class A solely in connection with the merger -- Shares of Class A common stock redeemed before the merger How much is the Flying Eagle payout? Pro rata payment: The total settlement fund is $10,000,000 but will also be used to pay court-approved deductions for taxes, notice and administration costs, attorneys' fees and expenses, and service awards to plaintiffs. The amount each class member receives will depend on the number of eligible shares they held as of Dec. 16, 2020, and the total number of eligible shares held by all class members. No action needed to receive payment Class members do not need to submit a claim form to receive a payment. The settlement administrator will pay eligible class members directly using records from the company and its transfer agent. There is no online or PDF claim form to submit. The administrator will work with Depository Trust & Clearing Corp. participants and intermediaries to ensure class members who held shares through a broker or other nominee receive their payment. For beneficial owners, their broker or intermediary will handle the distribution. Payout options Payments will be made by paper check. $10 million settlement fund breakdown The $10,000,000 settlement fund covers: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees and expenses: Up to $2,000,000 -- Service awards to class representatives: Up to $5,000 per plaintiff paid from attorneys' fees -- Payments to eligible class members: The remainder of the settlement fund Important dates -- Settlement fairness hearing: Sept. 2, 2025 When is the Flying Eagle stockholder litigation payout date? Payments to eligible class members will be made after the court grants final approval of the settlement and any appeals are resolved. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit alleged Flying Eagle Acquisition Corp. and related defendants breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders by pursuing a merger with Skillz Inc. for their own benefit and issuing a proxy statement that was allegedly false or misleading. The plaintiffs claimed these actions prevented unaffiliated Class A shareholders from making an informed decision about whether to redeem their shares. The defendants denied all allegations but agreed to settle to avoid the burden, expense and distraction of continued litigation. [GN] FORTREA HOLDINGS: Aug. 1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline in Deslande Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ordered that members of the purported class have until Aug. 1, 2025, to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiffs in the case captioned as LUCAS DESLANDE, individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, -v.- FORTREA HOLDINGS INC., THOMAS PIKE, and JILL MCCONNELL, Defendants, Case No. 25-cv-04630-KPF (S.D.N.Y.). Opposition to any motion for appointment of lead plaintiff shall be served and filed by Aug. 15, 2025. A conference will be held at 10:00 a.m. on Sept. 3, 2025, in Courtroom 618, Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, New York to consider any motions for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel and for consolidation. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SvMQ50 from PacerMonitor.com. GENERAL MOTORS: Sells Vehicles With Engine Defect, Sherman Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- BETTY SHERMAN and ANTHONY LOFTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-12032-BRM-APP (E.D. Mich., July 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment, strict product liability, and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. The case arises from the Defendant's design, manufacturing, marketing, advertising, selling, warranting, and servicing of vehicles with alleged defect in the L87 6.2L V8 engine. According to the complaint, L87 engines are known to be prone to and have experienced failure, resulting in breaching of the engine block by the connecting rod and/or engine seizure. In late April 2025, the Defendant issued a recall for nearly 600,000 of the Class vehicle models because of the defect. As a result of the Defendant's omissions and concealment, the Plaintiffs and the Class suffered damages. General Motors LLC is an automobile manufacturer, with its principal place of business in Detroit, Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq. Dana E. Fraser, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM PC 950 W. University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 Email: epm@millerlawpc.com dal@millerlawpc.com def@millerlawpc.com - and - Stephen R. Basser, Esq. Samuel M. Ward, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE One America Plaza 600 West Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0800 Email: sbasser@barrack.com sward@barrack.com HARBOR COLLISION: Faces Saur Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------- EDWARD SAUR, ROBERT SELIER, and SEBASTIAN DEVIA, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HARBOR COLLISION OF ST. JAMES INC., JON PEDONE, and DONNA PEDONE, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-03722 (E.D.N.Y., July 3, 2025) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations. The complaint alleges the Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiffs' proper overtime wages, failure to provide a wage notice upon hire, failure to furnish accurate wage statements for each pay period. Plaintiff Saur was employed by Defendants as a heavy collision technician from in 2001 until June 20, 2025. Plaintiff Saur's primary job duties included vehicle body repair and maintenance for automobiles. The Defendants owned and operated an automobile repair shop located on Middle Country Road in Suffolk County, New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew J. Farnworth, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 HELLO PRODUCTS: Faces Class Suit Over Heavy Metals in Toothpastes ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit accuses Hello Products of failing to warn consumers that Hello Kids Dragon Dazzle toothpaste and "Fresh Watermelon"-flavored Hello Kids Fluoride Free toothpaste contain "alarmingly high" levels of lead and mercury. According to the 35-page Hello Products toothpaste lawsuit, testing conducted by consumer safety organization Lead Safe Mama revealed that the products contained levels of heavy metals that greatly exceed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) established contaminant limits. The suit alleges that the company has concealed the presence of lead and mercury in its products and instead continued to market Hello-brand toothpastes as "friendly," safe and "good-for-you," despite the known health risks associated with exposure to these heavy metals. Per the case, testing indicated that Hello Kids Dragon Dazzle toothpaste contained 428.4 parts per billion (ppb) of lead -- approximately 28 times the action level set by the EPA -- and 11.8 ppb of mercury, more than five times the agency's maximum contaminant level for the heavy metal. Similarly, "Fresh Watermelon"-flavored Hello Kids Fluoride Free toothpaste tested for 493 ppb of lead -- 32 times the EPA's allowable level -- and 19 ppb of mercury -- nine times the established contaminant limit, the complaint reports. As the lawsuit tells it, ingesting even small amounts of these substances can increase the risk of certain cancers, reproductive complications, issues with cognitive development and other adverse conditions. Children are especially vulnerable when it comes to lead exposure because of their developing brains and the way their bodies store the heavy metal, the suit says. Nowhere on the packaging or labels is the potential contamination risk disclosed, leading consumers to believe the products are safe to use regularly and will not expose them to harmful heavy metals, the filing claims. The case argues that consumers would not have bought the Hello-brand products had they known the items risked containing dangerous substances such as lead and mercury. The lawsuit looks to represent all individuals in New York who purchased a Hello-brand toothpaste during the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] IES COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Keith Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Cody Keith, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. IES Communications, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-02452-JFM (D. Ariz., July 14, 2025) arises out of the recent targeted ransomware attack and data breach on the Defendant's network that resulted in unauthorized access and acquisition of the Plaintiff's highly sensitive data. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information (PII) that Defendant collected and maintained. As a result of the Data Breach, Class Members suffered ascertainable losses in the form of the failure to receive agreed-upon compensation, benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack, emotional distress, and the present risk of imminent harm caused by the compromise of their sensitive personal information, including their financial information and social security numbers. Accordingly, the specific information compromised in the Data Breach includes PII, such as first and last name, date of birth, address, certain payroll information, Social Security Number, and other identifying information. The Defendant obtained the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members and stored that PII, unencrypted, in an Internet-accessible environment on the Defendant's network, from which unauthorized actors used an extraction tool to retrieve sensitive PII belonging to Plaintiff and Class Members, the suit says. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII -- which were entrusted to the Defendant, their officials, and agents—were compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the Data Breach. The Defendant is a national provider of industrial products and infrastructure services to a variety of end markets, including electrical, mechanical and communications contracting solutions for the commercial, industrial, residential and renewable energy markets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lincoln Combs, Esq. O'STEEN MACLEOD COMBS PLC 300 W. Clarendon Ave., Suite 400 Phoenix, AZ 85013-3424 Telephone: (602) 252-888 Facsimile: (602)-274-1209 E-mail: lcombs@omclawyers.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS, & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com miadevaia@stranchlaw.com IHEARTMEDIA: Installs Trackers on Web Visitor's Browser, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ TREVOR HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. IHEARTMEDIA, INC., Case No. 5:25-cv-06038-NC (N.D. Cal., July 17, 2025) alleges that when users visit the Website, Defendant causes at least three Trackers -- the ADNXS Tracker, the TripleLift Tracker, and the OpenX Tracker -- to be installed on Website visitors' internet browsers. The Trackers are operated by separate and distinct third parties: Microsoft, TripleLift, and OpenX (the Third Parties). Through their respective Trackers, each of the Third Parties collect Website users’ internet protocol (IP) addresses and other device identifier information such as device type, browser type, and unique and persistent identifiers (the Device Metadata). These trackers add the IP addresses and Device Metadata of Website users to comprehensive user profiles and use that information to track Plaintiff and Class Members across the Internet, says the suit. Accordingly, the Defendant then uses the data collected by the Trackers, and in conjunction with the Third Parties operating them, for targeted marketing and advertising that enable Defendant to monetize its Website. The Defendant owns and operates a website, iheart.com, which is a digital platform with broadcast, podcast, radio, and music streaming.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua R. Wilner, Esq. Philip L. Fraietta, 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: ehorne@bursor.com jwilner@bursor.com pfraietta@bursor.com - and - Michael P. Canty, Esq. Jonathan D. Waisnor, Esq. James M. Fee, Esq. Danielle Izzo, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 JOHNSON CONTROLS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Bunn Says ---------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM BUNN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-01028-BHL (E.D. Wisc., July 15, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard Representative Plaintiff's and/or Class Members' protected health information and personally identifiable information stored within the Defendant's information network. The Plaintiff seeks to hold the Defendant responsible for the harms it caused and will continue to cause Representative Plaintiff and thousands of other similarly situated persons in the massive and preventable cyberattack purportedly discovered by Defendant in September 2023 by which cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected network and accessed the Private Information which was being kept under-protected (the Data Breach). The PII includes name, date of birth, Social Security number, information related to health insurance or payment for medical treatment, information related to health or medical history including diagnosis or treatment information, employee identification number, information related to internal investigation of claims or disputes, employment benefits and compensation information, and information related to employment or work for the Defendant. While Defendant claims to have discovered the breach as early as September 2023, the Defendant did not begin informing victims of the Data Breach until July 1, 2025, and failed to inform victims when or for how long the Data Breach occurred, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to the provisions of Rules 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of Representative Plaintiff and the following class(es)/subclass(es): Nationwide Class: "All individuals within the United States of America whose Private Information was exposed to unauthorized third parties as a result of the data breach allegedly discovered by Defendant on or before September 2023." Excluded from the Classes are the following individuals and/or entities: the Defendant and Defendant's parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers and directors and any entity in which Defendant has a controlling interest, all individuals who make a timely election to be excluded from this proceeding using the correct protocol for opting out, any and all federal, state or local governments, including, but not limited to, its departments, agencies, divisions, bureaus, boards, sections, groups, counsel and/or subdivisions, and all judges assigned to hear any aspect of this litigation, as well as their immediate family members. The Defendant offers portfolio of building technology and software as well as service solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laura Van Note, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 Facsimile: (510) 891-7030 E-mail: lvn@colevannote.com JOHNSON CONTROLS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Hefley Says ------------------------------------------------------------ DEREK HEFLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JOHNSON CONTROLS INC., Case No. e 2:25-cv-01036-PP (E.D. Wisc., July 16, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class members' personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's information network. This duty arises because it is foreseeable that the exposure of PII to unauthorized persons -- especially hackers with nefarious intentions -- will result in harm to the affected individuals, including, but not limited to, the invasion of their private financial matters. The harm resulting from a breach of private data manifests in a number of ways, including identity theft and financial fraud. The exposure of a person's PII through a data breach ensures that such person will be at a substantially increased and certainly impending risk of identity theft crimes compared to the rest of the population, potentially for the rest of their lives, asserts the suit. The Defendant knowingly obtains sensitive employee and business associate PII and has a resulting duty to securely maintain such information in confidence. The Plaintiff brings this Class action on behalf of himself and all other individuals whose PII was accessed and taken by unauthorized third parties during a data breach of the Defendant's system from Feb. 1, 2023, through Sept. 30, 2023, which was announced when Defendant began providing notices on or about July 4, 2025. JCI provides services related to engineering, manufacturing and servicing of building products and systems, including commercial HVAC equipment, industrial refrigeration systems, controls, security systems, fire detection systems and fire-suppression solutions. Entities under the JCI corporate umbrella include Tyco or Sensormatic Solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick J. Schott, Esq. SCHOTT BUBLITZ & ENGEL S.C. 640 W. Moreland Blvd. Waukesha, WI 53188 Telephone: (262) 827-8920 E-mail: pschott@sbe-law.com - and - Rachele R. Byrd, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERTZ LLP 750 B Street, Suite 1820, San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619-239-4599 E-mail: byrd@whafh.com - and - James F. Woods, Esq. Annie E. Causey, Esq. WOODS LONERGAN PLLC One Grand Central Place 60 East 42nd St., Suite 1410 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: 212-684-2500 E-mail: jwoods@woodslaw.com acausey@woodslaw.com - and - Jon Tostrud, Esq. Anthony Carter, Esq. TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, PC 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 278-2600 Facsimile: (310) 278-2640 E-mail: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com acarter@tostrudlaw.com JOHNSON CONTROLS: Scott Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info ------------------------------------------------------------- CONSTANCE SCOTT-LAROSA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00969 (E.D. Wis., July 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach discovered no later than February 1, 2023, to September 30, 2023. 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. Johnson Controls, Inc. is a multinational conglomerate, with its principal place of business in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon. Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com JOHNSON CONTROLS: Zaplotinsky-Cameron Sues Over Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- KODI ZAPLOTINSKY-CAMERON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 25-cv-958 (E.D. Wis., July 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated Defendant employees' and clients' sensitive personal identifiable information. On or about September 24, 2023, the Defendant became aware of a cyber incident that involved the disruption of its information technology infrastructure and resulted in an unauthorized actor having access to and taking data stored on Johnson Controls' network. On or about June 30, 2025, Defendant began issuing public disclosures about the data breach. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members PII––and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted PII was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and their utter failure to protect employees' and clients' sensitive data. The Plaintiff and Class Members seek to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices. Johnson Controls, Inc. produces electronics and HVAC equipment. The Company offers HVAC equipment, building automation, security, fire detection, batteries, and other related products, as well as building control systems, energy management, and integrated facility management services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. ADEMI & FRUCHTER LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Tel: (414) 482-8000 Fax: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Ken Grunfeld, Esq. Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com ostrow@kolawyers.com maccarone@kolawyers.com K.W. EMERSON: Leiva Suit Removed from State Ct. to E.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action suit captioned as WALTER LEIVA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. K.W. EMERSON, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25CV48066 (Filed May 23, 2025) was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Calaveras to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on July 14, 2025. The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-at-00581 to the proceedings. The Plaintiff alleges he was employed by Defendant in California, as a non-exempt "grounds man" during the undefined statutory period. More specifically, the Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Groundman from June 26, 2023, to September 20, 2023, and was a member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1245. The Defendant is a General Engineering Contractor licensed in California and Nevada.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Matthew H. Green, Esq. MURPHY AUSTIN ADAMS SCHOENFELD LLP 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 850 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 446-2300 Facsimile: (916) 503-4000 E-mail: asilva@murphyaustin.com mgreen@murphyaustin.com KBR INC: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims ----------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of KBR, Inc. (NYSE: KBR) resulting from allegations that KBR may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased KBR securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=42136 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On June, 20, 2025, before the market opened, KBR issued a press release entitled "KBR Announcement on HomeSafe Alliance Global Household Goods Contract." The press release stated that "HomeSafe Alliance, a KBR (NYSE: KBR) Joint Venture, informed us on June 18, 2025, that U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM) has terminated HomeSafe's role in the Global Household Goods Contract, a contract designed to improve the moving system for military service members and their families." On this news, KBR stock fell $3.85 per share, or 7.2%, to close at $48.93 on June 20, 2025. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. At the time Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] KEURIG GREEN: $950,000 Final Settlement Hearing Set September 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a $950,000 settlement resolves a class action lawsuit that alleged a defect plaguing the Keurig Green Mountain K-Supreme, K-Supreme Plus and K-Supreme SMART single-serve coffee makers could cause the machines to die suddenly during the descaling process. The court-approved website for the Keurig coffee maker class action settlement can be found at KSupremeSettlement.com. The Keurig K-Supreme settlement covers a class of all individuals in the United States and its districts or territories who lodged to Keurig a complaint claiming that a qualifying coffee maker experienced the alleged defect within the first 12 months of purchase between October 1, 2020 and June 20, 2025 and were not provided with a remedy by Keurig pursuant to its limited warranty. This group of consumers, referred to as the performance issue claim class, also includes those who can demonstrate valid claims that a covered coffee maker manifested operational issues associated with the descaling process. The official Keurig settlement website notes that the class does not cover individuals whose coffee makers are still within the company's original limited warranty period or will be within the extended limited warranty period offered by Keurig as part of the deal. The settlement also covers a coffee maker purchaser class that includes all individuals in the United States and its districts or territories who purchased a qualifying coffee maker or Keurig's descaling solution between October 1, 2020 and June 20, 2025. According to the website, this class excludes those in the performance issue claim class and any consumers who lodged a complaint to Keurig claiming that an eligible coffee machine experienced the apparent defect within that period and were provided with a remedy by the company pursuant to its limited warranty. The site relays that eligible consumers in the performance issue claim class who submit a valid, timely claim form and any required documentation will be entitled to receive a pro-rated share of the $950,000 settlement fund, up to $250 per person. Per the settlement agreement, individual payout amounts will depend on the total number of valid claims that are filed, among other factors. Eligible members of the coffee maker purchaser class who submit a valid claim form by the applicable deadline will be entitled to receive a 12-month extended warranty on their Keurig coffee maker, the website says. For performance issue claim class members, and for coffee maker purchaser class members whose machines experienced power loss during descaling prior to June 20, 2025, the deadline to file a Keurig settlement claim form is November 14, 2025. For consumers in the coffee maker purchaser class whose machines experienced power loss after June 20, 2025, the deadline to submit a claim form is September 30, 2027. Keurig K-Supreme settlement claim forms can be filed online on this page. Class members who prefer to submit a claim by mail can download a PDF claim form to print, complete and return to the settlement administrator. Online submission requires a unique ID and PIN, which can be found in the settlement notice emailed to consumers about the deal. The class action settlement, which resolves the class action lawsuit against Keurig Green Mountain, was preliminarily approved by the court on June 20, 2025. The parties now await a hearing on September 30, 2025, at which time the court will determine whether to grant final approval to the terms of the deal. The website states that Keurig settlement checks will be issued to eligible class members only if the deal receives ultimate court approval, and after any appeals are resolved. [GN] KOD ATLANTA: Wallace Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Illegal Kickbacks ----------------------------------------------------------------- STASHA WALLACE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KOD ATLANTA, LLC d/b/a KING OF DIAMONDS ATLANTA, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, and AKINYELE ADAMS, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-03761-VMC (N.D. Ga., July 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act including failure to pay minimum wages and overtime wages, illegal kickbacks, unlawful taking of tips, forced tipping, and retaliation. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants' King of Diamonds Atlanta club, located in Forest Park, Georgia from September 2023 to June 2024. KOD Atlanta, LLC, doing business as King of Diamonds Atlanta, is an adult entertainment club owner and operator, located in Forest Park, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan P. Rose, Esq. Carlos V. Leach, Esq. Jordan P. Rose, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 N. Orange Ave., Suite 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 423-5864 Email: cleach@theleachfirm.com jrose@theleachfirm.com ppalmer@theleachfirm.com LEE ENTERPRISES: Agrees to Settle Privacy Class Suit for $9.5MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Clark Kauffman of Nebraska Examiner reports that Iowa-based newspaper company Lee Enterprises has agreed to pay $9.5 million to subscribers alleging privacy violations and is now facing three invasion-of-privacy lawsuits from current or former employees. The three new lawsuits, each filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, allege that Lee, which owns hundreds of newspapers and specialty publications in Iowa and 24 other states, is guilty of negligence, breach of an implied contract, unjust enrichment and invasion of privacy. Lee's Iowa newspapers include the Quad-City Times in Davenport, the Sioux City Journal, and the Muscatine Journal. It owns Nebraska papers as well, including the Omaha World-Herald, the Lincoln Journal Star and the Kearney Hub. Each of the three lawsuits is seeking class-action status in pursuit of damages on behalf of thousands of current and former Lee employees whose personal information is believed to have been accessed by cybercriminals. The three named plaintiffs in the cases are Nicole Church of Colona, Illinois; Declan Lawson of Missoula, Montana; and Anthony Bangert of Wisconsin. According to the lawsuits, on June 3, 2025, Lee began sending letters to current and former employees advising of them that the private information of certain employees had been accessed by others without authorization. The lawsuits allege the letters omitted details such as the cause of the data breach, the system vulnerabilities that had been exploited, and any remedial measures undertaken to guard against additional security breaches. In one of the cases, the plaintiff asserts the "purported disclosure amounts to no real disclosure at all" in that it fails to provide critical facts surrounding the incident, limiting workers' ability to take steps to mitigate any damages that might result. Lee, the lawsuits claim, could have prevented the data breach by properly securing and encrypting the files and file servers containing the employees' private information and by training its employees on standard cybersecurity practices. The data breach, one of the plaintiffs alleges, could have been avoided had Lee "bothered to implement basic monitoring and detection systems, which then would have stopped the data breach or greatly reduced its impact." Lee Enterprises has yet to file a response to the lawsuits, and Tracy Rouch, director of communications for Lee, said the company does not comment on pending litigation. However, Lee has stated that it has incurred $2 million in expenses related to restoring data systems in the wake of the February 2025 cyberattack. The company has also indicated the data breach affected the company's finances by hampering its ability to bill customers and pay vendors. The Qilin ransomware group has claimed credit for the attack and alleged that it gained access to 350 gigabytes of data. It also shared samples of what it claimed was data stolen from the company, including contracts, financial spreadsheets, non-disclosure agreements and other confidential files. In SEC filings and in a filing with the attorney general of Maine, Lee indicated the data breach involved documents containing personally identifiable information related to 39,779 individuals. The documents may include a mix of names, Social Security numbers, driver's license data, financial account numbers, medical information and health insurance data, according to the Maine attorney general. The plaintiffs Lawson and Bangert are each represented by the law firm of Shindler, Anderson, Goplerud & Weese of West Des Moines. Church is represented by Josh Christensen of RSH Legal in Cedar Rapids. Lee agrees to $9.5 million payout in subscriber case It's not the first time data systems at Lee have been hacked. In 2020, Iranian cybercriminals allegedly gained access to the company's systems as part of a what prosecutors claimed was a campaign to spread disinformation related to the 2020 presidential election. Two Iranian nationals were later charged with conspiracy to commit computer fraud and abuse, intimidate voters, and transmit interstate threats. Court records indicate the criminal case remains open and active. In December 2022, a group of subscribers to Lee newspapers sued the company, alleging it had failed to disclose that their personal identifying information was being captured by various tracking methods embedded in Lee websites and then transferred to the social-media company Facebook where it could be accessed by others. The lawsuit, which attained class-action status, alleged individuals could use fairly basic web-browsing tools to see the titles of whatever video content had triggered the initial exchange of information between Lee and Facebook, providing an indirect link between named Facebook users and the specific videos those users had watched on Lee websites. The plaintiffs in that case sought a temporary injunction requiring Lee to immediately remove tracking tools from the company's websites and to obtain the appropriate consent from subscribers for any information sharing that may take place. In March 2025, the parties in that case reached a proposed settlement which they presented to the court for preliminary approval. According to public court filings, the proposed settlement grew out of an all-day mediation session in November 2024 before Judge Wayne R. Andersen in Fort Myers, Florida. Andersen later provided a mediator's proposal that recommended the matter be resolved by Lee or its insurer paying $9.5 million to settle the case, and the parties agreed. Court records indicate the proposed settlement involves 1,528,941 paid subscribers to Lee newspapers who accessed video material on a Lee website at any time between December 2020 through March 4, 2025, and who used Facebook during that same period. In a memorandum supporting court approval of the settlement, the parties state that the "$9,500,000 will yield a significant benefit to each of the participating class members," while avoiding costly litigation that could drag on for years. According to the court records, the settlement agreement also requires revisions to Lee's business practices. A court hearing on final approval of the settlement agreement is now scheduled for Aug. 7, 2025. [GN] LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Faces Suit Over Compensation Rule Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard J. Andreano, Jr. of Ballard Spahr reports that recently, a complaint was filed against loanDepot.Com, LLC ("loanDepot") in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA)/Regulation Z loan originator compensation rule (Rule), which applies to closed-end consumer credit transactions secured by a dwelling. The complaint alleges that loanDepot "unlawfully steered Plaintiffs and those similarly situated to loans with higher rates and fees and further created a system for the falsification of internal forms and federal disclosures to conceal those activities." In particular, loanDepot deployed "a sophisticated, years-long scheme to systemically circumvent and conceal its willful violations of the loan officer compensation laws set forth in . . . TILA . . for the purpose of obtaining a competitive advantage over other lenders and maximizing profits at the expense of Plaintiffs and those similarly situated, all to enhance its financial performance in the months leading up to and following its Initial Public Offering ("IPO")." The Rule contains three main prohibitions: No loan originator may receive and no person may pay to a loan originator compensation in an amount that is based on a term of a covered consumer credit transaction, the terms of multiple covered consumer credit transactions by an individual loan originator, or the terms of multiple covered consumer credit transactions by multiple individual loan originators. For purposes of this prohibition, if a loan originator's compensation is based in whole or in part on a factor that is a proxy for a term of a transaction, the loan originator's compensation is based on a term of a transaction. If any loan originator receives compensation directly from a consumer in a covered consumer credit transaction secured by a dwelling: -- No loan originator may receive compensation from any person other than the consumer in connection with the transaction; and -- No person who knows or has reason to know of the consumer-paid compensation to the loan originator (other than the consumer) may pay any compensation to a loan originator in connection with the transaction. -- A loan originator shall not direct or "steer" a consumer to consummate a covered consumer credit transaction based on the fact that the originator will receive greater compensation from the creditor in that transaction than in other transactions the originator offered or could have offered to the consumer, unless the consummated transaction is in the consumer's interest. For purposes of this prohibition, an employee of a party acting as a creditor in the transaction is deemed to comply with the prohibition if they comply with the first prohibition set forth above. In particular, the complaint alleges that: -- In violation of the Dodd–Frank Act, "loanDepot linked the commission paid to loan officers to the rates and fees consumers paid." -- "To conceal this illegal commission reduction scheme, loanDepot created a system of sham internal transfers, requiring loan officers who failed to push borrowers into higher rate loans to transfer (on paper only) the borrower's loan file to a purported "Internal Loan Consultant" or "ILC."" -- "[T]here was no actual transfer of the loans to ILCs—the ILC assumed no additional duties—and the original loan officer continued to perform the same duties, but at a reduced commission rate." -- "The only purpose of the sham transfer was to provide a false narrative that the loan officer's compensation was being reduced because of the purported transfer, as opposed to a correlation to the reduction in price, which loanDepot knew was unlawful." -- "loanDepot furthered its concealment scheme by choosing to require loan officers who failed to push borrowers into higher rate loans to falsify internal documentation as to the reason for the transfer to the ILC in order to receive any commission and to obscure the reality that the transfer and corresponding commission reduction was linked to a reduction in the loan terms. " -- "Further, loanDepot created transfer forms with false justifications for the transfers that loan officers had to select, and if the loan officers failed or refused to do so, loanDepot eliminated their commission altogether." The plaintiffs will have to overcome a particular hurdle with their claims. The Rule is subject to a three-year statute of limitations, which is longer than the one-year statute of limitations that applies to most claims under TILA. Based on the allegations in the complaint, the loans that the class representatives obtained from loanDepot were originated between September 12, 2019 and June 16, 2021. Presumably the plaintiffs will argue for the tolling of the statute of limitations under a fraudulent concealment theory, which may be why the complaint includes various references to "conceal" or "concealment." [GN] LOVESHACKFANCY LLC: Faces Harris Class Suit Over Junk Fees ---------------------------------------------------------- CHANEL HARRIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. LOVESHACKFANCY, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-05828 (S.D.N.Y., July 15, 2025) is a class action seeking monetary damages, restitution, and public injunctive and declaratory relief from Defendant arising from its deceptive addition of junk fees to consumers' shopping carts. Accordingly, when consumers browse products on the LoveShackFancy website, LoveShackFancy advertises the price of its retail items, along with an advertisement for either free or flat rate shipping. Those pricing representations are false, however, because LoveShackFancy surreptitiously adds junk fees to consumer purchases, including a so-called "Shipping Protection" fee. By unfairly obscuring their true shipping costs, Defendant deceives consumers and gains an unfair upper hand on competitors that fairly disclose their true shipping charges. To wit, other major e-commerce sites do not assess such a fee, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff seeks damages and, among other remedies, public injunctive relief that fairly allows consumers to decide whether they will pay shipping costs. LoveShackFancy is engaged in the business of providing retail women's clothing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah M. Levin, Esq. Amanda J. Rosenberg, Esq. Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. Sophia G. Gold, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 280-4783 E-mail: slevin@kalielpllc.com arosenberg@kalielgold.com jkaliel@kalielpllc.com sgold@kalielgold.com - and - Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com MARKLUND CHILDREN'S: Johnson Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- MARYANN JOHNSON, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. MARKLUND CHILDREN'S HOME, an Illinois non-profit corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-08080 (N.D. Ill., July 16, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The Plaintiff and all other hourly employees have regularly worked in excess of 40 hours a week and have been paid some overtime for those hours but at a rate that does not include Defendant’s On-call pay or other non-discretionary remuneration as required by the FLSA. The Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3) on behalf of: "All current and former hourly employees who worked for Defendant at any location in Illinois during the applicable statutory period." The Plaintiff is an adult resident of Carol Stream, Illinois and was employed by the Defendant from December 2023 through January 13, 2025. Marklund provides residential services for children, teens, and adults with developmental disabilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Town Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com MAZDA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Cars' Missing Features ------------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Symes, writing for Yahoo Autos reports that Mazda is facing a proposed class action lawsuit over some 2025 Mazda3 cars not including equipment as advertised. More specifically, the sound systems allegedly don't come with as many speakers as the window sticker says. This is an odd turn of events since we've never heard of an automaker getting sued over sound system speakers, until now. But it all started with one man who noticed his Mazda3 didn't have any speaker sound in the backseat area. Reportedly, the window sticker, called the Monroney label, clearly stated there were eight speakers in the vehicle. However, sound was only coming through six of the speaker grilles, all of them in the front seat area. Allegedly, there were no speakers under the grilles in the rear seat portion of the compact car. What's more, the window sticker apparently listed HD radio as a feature, but there was none, just regular FM radio. In other words, the man felt he'd been duped into buying a vehicle with promised features which weren't present. This might not sound like a huge deal to some people because they don't care about the number of speakers or HD radio in their car. But letting automakers get away with fudging about what equipment is included in vehicles being sold wouldn't be good. The class action suit claims the following 2025 Mazda models were sold with falsely stated audio features: Mazda3 2.5 S Sedan, Mazda3 2.5 S Hatchback, Mazda3 2.5 S Select Sport Sedan, Mazda3 S Select Sport Hatchback, Mazda3 2.5 S Preferred Sedan, Mazda3 2.5 S Preferred Hatchback. When the man who discovered the missing features emailed the dealership where he purchased the Mazda about the problem, a reply said there were "typos" on the Monroney label. According to the class action suit filings, Mazda replaced the incorrect window stickers with updated versions listing out the correct equipment in an effort to "cover up" the missteps. We would think that's doing the right thing once a problem has been pointed out, but that will be up to the attorneys and a judge to work out. [GN] MDL 2873: Abbott Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF/TOG Products ------------------------------------------------------------------ GARY ABBOTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba, Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCT USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO., INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, 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.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC.; and WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-06151-RMG (D.S.C., June 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, wantonness, and fraudulent transfer. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing fluorochemical products. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their AFFF and TOG products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with thyroid disease and bladder cancer. The Abbott case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Allstar Fire Equipment is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in California. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. BASF Corporation is a chemicals company based in New Jersey. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. CB Garment, Inc. is a manufacturer of safety equipment in Oregon. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Daikin America, Inc. is a chemicals company in New York. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Fire Service Plus, Inc. is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in Georgia. Fire-Dex, LLC is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in Ohio. Globe Manufacturing Company LLC is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in New Hampshire. Honeywell Safety Product USA, Inc. is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in Rhode Island. Innotex Corp. is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment in Alabama. Johnson Controls, Inc. is a global diversified technology and industrial business company in Wisconsin. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. L.N. Curtis & Sons is a manufacturer of fire safety products in Utah. Lion Group, Inc. is a protective clothing supplier in Vandalia, Ohio. Mallory Safety and Supply LLC is a safety equipment supplier in Portland, Oregon. Milliken & Company is a chemical industry company in South Carolina. Mine Safety Appliances Co., LLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products in Pennsylvania. Municipal Emergency Services, Inc. is a public safety company offering fire equipment services based in Utah. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West Chester, Pennsylvania. PBI Performance Products, Inc. is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment in North Carolina. Perimeter Solutions, LP is a chemicals company in Missouri. Raytheon Technologies Corporation is an aerospace and defense company in Virginia. Ricochet Manufacturing Co., Inc. is manufacturer of firefighting equipment in Pennsylvania. Safety Components Fabric Technologies, Inc. is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment in South Carolina. Southern Mills, Inc. is a manufacturer of protective clothing fabric for industrial and military use in Georgia. Stedfast USA, Inc. is a manufacturer of protective barrier technologies in Tennessee. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. Veridian Limited is a manufacturer of fire protective equipment in Iowa. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. is an American multinational manufacturing company in Delaware. Witmer Public Safety Group, Inc. is a safety equipment supplier in Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James C. Ferrell, Esq. FERRELL LAW GROUP, PC 6226 Washington Avenue, Suite 200 Houston, TX 77007 Telephone: (713) 337-3855 Facsimile: (713) 337-3856 MDL 2873: Faces Cameron Suit Over AFFF/TOG Products' Toxic Elements ------------------------------------------------------------------- RANDELL CAMERON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba, Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCT USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO., INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, 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.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC.; and WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-06099-RMG (D.S.C., June 23, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing fluorochemical products. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their AFFF and TOG products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with thyroid disease. The Cameron case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Allstar Fire Equipment is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in California. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. BASF Corporation is a chemicals company based in New Jersey. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. CB Garment, Inc. is a manufacturer of safety equipment in Oregon. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Daikin America, Inc. is a chemicals company in New York. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Fire Service Plus, Inc. is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in Georgia. Fire-Dex, LLC is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in Ohio. Globe Manufacturing Company LLC is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in New Hampshire. Honeywell Safety Product USA, Inc. is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in Rhode Island. Innotex Corp. is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment in Alabama. Johnson Controls, Inc. is a global diversified technology and industrial business company in Wisconsin. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. L.N. Curtis & Sons is a manufacturer of fire safety products in Utah. Lion Group, Inc. is a protective clothing supplier in Vandalia, Ohio. Mallory Safety and Supply LLC is a safety equipment supplier in Portland, Oregon. Milliken & Company is a chemical industry company in South Carolina. Mine Safety Appliances Co., LLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products in Pennsylvania. Municipal Emergency Services, Inc. is a public safety company offering fire equipment services based in Utah. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West Chester, Pennsylvania. PBI Performance Products, Inc. is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment in North Carolina. Perimeter Solutions, LP is a chemicals company in Missouri. Raytheon Technologies Corporation is an aerospace and defense company in Virginia. Ricochet Manufacturing Co., Inc. is manufacturer of firefighting equipment in Pennsylvania. Safety Components Fabric Technologies, Inc. is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment in South Carolina. Southern Mills, Inc. is a manufacturer of protective clothing fabric for industrial and military use in Georgia. Stedfast USA, Inc. is a manufacturer of protective barrier technologies in Tennessee. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. Veridian Limited is a manufacturer of fire protective equipment in Iowa. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. is an American multinational manufacturing company in Delaware. Witmer Public Safety Group, Inc. is a safety equipment supplier in Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Y. Shenkar, Esq. MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS, LLP 101 West Elm St., Suite 520 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (803) 315-3357 Facsimile: (610) 941-9880 Email: jshenkar@bernllp.com MDL 2873: Nunnally Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- DONALD NUNNALLY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba, Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCT USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO., INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, 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.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC.; and WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-06096-RMG (D.S.C., June 23, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing fluorochemical products. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their AFFF and TOG products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with thyroid disease and high cholesterol. The Nunnally case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Allstar Fire Equipment is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in California. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. BASF Corporation is a chemicals company based in New Jersey. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. CB Garment, Inc. is a manufacturer of safety equipment in Oregon. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Daikin America, Inc. is a chemicals company in New York. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Fire Service Plus, Inc. is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in Georgia. Fire-Dex, LLC is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in Ohio. Globe Manufacturing Company LLC is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in New Hampshire. Honeywell Safety Product USA, Inc. is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in Rhode Island. Innotex Corp. is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment in Alabama. Johnson Controls, Inc. is a global diversified technology and industrial business company in Wisconsin. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. L.N. Curtis & Sons is a manufacturer of fire safety products in Utah. Lion Group, Inc. is a protective clothing supplier in Vandalia, Ohio. Mallory Safety and Supply LLC is a safety equipment supplier in Portland, Oregon. Milliken & Company is a chemical industry company in South Carolina. Mine Safety Appliances Co., LLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products in Pennsylvania. Municipal Emergency Services, Inc. is a public safety company offering fire equipment services based in Utah. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West Chester, Pennsylvania. PBI Performance Products, Inc. is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment in North Carolina. Perimeter Solutions, LP is a chemicals company in Missouri. Raytheon Technologies Corporation is an aerospace and defense company in Virginia. Ricochet Manufacturing Co., Inc. is manufacturer of firefighting equipment in Pennsylvania. Safety Components Fabric Technologies, Inc. is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment in South Carolina. Southern Mills, Inc. is a manufacturer of protective clothing fabric for industrial and military use in Georgia. Stedfast USA, Inc. is a manufacturer of protective barrier technologies in Tennessee. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. Veridian Limited is a manufacturer of fire protective equipment in Iowa. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. is an American multinational manufacturing company in Delaware. Witmer Public Safety Group, Inc. is a safety equipment supplier in Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Y. Shenkar, Esq. MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS, LLP 101 West Elm St., Suite 520 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (803) 315-3357 Facsimile: (610) 941-9880 Email: jshenkar@bernllp.com MDL 2873: Vickers Sues Over Exposure to PFAS From AFFF/TOG Products ------------------------------------------------------------------- LESTER VICKERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba, Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCT USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO., INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, 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.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC.; and WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-06097-RMG (D.S.C., June 23, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing fluorochemical products. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their AFFF and TOG products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with thyroid disease and high cholesterol. The Vickers case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Allstar Fire Equipment is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in California. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. BASF Corporation is a chemicals company based in New Jersey. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. CB Garment, Inc. is a manufacturer of safety equipment in Oregon. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Daikin America, Inc. is a chemicals company in New York. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Fire Service Plus, Inc. is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in Georgia. Fire-Dex, LLC is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in Ohio. Globe Manufacturing Company LLC is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in New Hampshire. Honeywell Safety Product USA, Inc. is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in Rhode Island. Innotex Corp. is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment in Alabama. Johnson Controls, Inc. is a global diversified technology and industrial business company in Wisconsin. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. L.N. Curtis & Sons is a manufacturer of fire safety products in Utah. Lion Group, Inc. is a protective clothing supplier in Vandalia, Ohio. Mallory Safety and Supply LLC is a safety equipment supplier in Portland, Oregon. Milliken & Company is a chemical industry company in South Carolina. Mine Safety Appliances Co., LLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products in Pennsylvania. Municipal Emergency Services, Inc. is a public safety company offering fire equipment services based in Utah. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West Chester, Pennsylvania. PBI Performance Products, Inc. is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment in North Carolina. Perimeter Solutions, LP is a chemicals company in Missouri. Raytheon Technologies Corporation is an aerospace and defense company in Virginia. Ricochet Manufacturing Co., Inc. is manufacturer of firefighting equipment in Pennsylvania. Safety Components Fabric Technologies, Inc. is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment in South Carolina. Southern Mills, Inc. is a manufacturer of protective clothing fabric for industrial and military use in Georgia. Stedfast USA, Inc. is a manufacturer of protective barrier technologies in Tennessee. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. Veridian Limited is a manufacturer of fire protective equipment in Iowa. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. is an American multinational manufacturing company in Delaware. Witmer Public Safety Group, Inc. is a safety equipment supplier in Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Y. Shenkar, Esq. MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS, LLP 101 West Elm St., Suite 520 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (803) 315-3357 Facsimile: (610) 941-9880 Email: jshenkar@bernllp.com META PLATFORMS: Files Petition for Writ of Mandamus to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ META PLATFORMS, INC., filed on July 7, 2025, a petition for writ of mandamus with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, under Case No. 25-4172, in connection with a court order in the lawsuit entitled John Doe, I, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03580-WHO, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Plaintiffs bring this suit against the Defendant for alleged collection of website visitors' personal information through the installation of Meta Pixel on websites without consent. [BN] Defendant-Petitioner CRYE-LEIKE INC. is represented by: Andrew Brian Clubok, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP 555 11th Street, NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004 - and - Gary Feinerman, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP 330 N. Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60611 - and - Melanie Blunschi, Esq. Nicholas Rosellini, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 - and - Lauren R. Goldman, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 META PLATFORMS: Settles $8-Billion Facebook Privacy Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Aimee Picchi of CBS MoneyWatch reports that Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and other board members of the social media giant settled a shareholder lawsuit Thursday, July 17, a day after a trial began in court over an $8 billion class-action lawsuit linked to the 2018 privacy scandal involving Cambridge Analytica, according to AFP. In an email to CBS News, Meta declined to comment on the settlement but pointed out that the lawsuit "was a suit against Mark Zuckerberg and directors personally, not Meta Platforms." The $8 billion class-action lawsuit against Zuckerberg and other Meta leaders began on July 16, with investors claiming that the company didn't fully disclose the risks that Facebook users' personal information would be misused by political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica. Shareholders claim Facebook officials repeatedly and continually violated a 2012 consent order with the Federal Trade Commission under which Facebook agreed to stop collecting and sharing personal data on platform users and friends without their consent. Facebook later sold user data to commercial partners in direct violation of the consent order and removed disclosures from privacy settings that were required under consent order, the lawsuit alleges. The settlement comes the same day that Marc Andreessen, co-founder of venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz and a Meta board member, was due to take the stand, the AFP reported. [GN] METHODIST HOSPITALS: Agrees to Settle Privacy Suit for $650,000 --------------------------------------------------------------- Claim Depot reports that patients of The Methodist Hospitals who had a MyChart patient portal account at any time between Jan. 1, 2020, and Dec. 31, 2023, may be eligible to claim a $25 payment from a class action settlement. The Methodist Hospitals Inc. agreed to pay $650,000 to resolve a class action lawsuit alleging it disclosed confidential personally identifiable information and/or protected health information to third parties without patient consent. Who can claim a Methodist Hospitals payment? Class members must meet the following criteria: -- They are or were a patient of The Methodist Hospitals. -- They resided in the United States. -- They had a MyChart patient portal account with The Methodist Hospitals at any time from Jan. 1, 2020-Dec. 31, 2023. How much can class members receive? -- Each eligible class member who submits a valid claim form can receive a $25 cash payment. -- All class members will automatically receive a code to enroll in Privacy Shield Pro, which provides privacy protection services, regardless of whether they make a claim. How to claim a data privacy payment To receive the $25 cash payment, class members must submit an online claim form or download, print, complete and mail the PDF claim form to the settlement administrator. The claim deadline is Oct. 22, 2025. Settlement administrator's mailing address: The Methodist Hospitals Inc. Settlement, c/o Simpluris, PO Box 25226 Santa Ana, CA 92799 Information required Class members must provide the unique class member login ID and password located on their notice. Those who did not receive this information but believe they are eligible can email info@TheMethodistHospitalsSettlement.com to verify their identity and receive login credentials. Payout options -- Venmo -- PayPal -- Zelle -- Paper check Settlement fund breakdown The settlement fund includes: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees and expenses: Up to $650,000 -- Service awards to class representatives: Up to $3,500 each ($7,000 total) -- Privacy Shield Pro costs: To be determined -- Payments to eligible class members: The remainder of the fund Important dates -- Opt-out deadline: Sept. 22, 2025 -- Final approval hearing: Oct. 14, 2025 -- Claim deadline: Oct. 22, 2025 When is the Methodist Hospitals settlement payout date? If the court approves the settlement at the final approval hearing and there are no appeals, payments and instructions for Privacy Shield Pro will be issued within 55 days after the settlement becomes final. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit alleged The Methodist Hospitals Inc. disclosed confidential personally identifiable information and protected health information to third parties without patient consent. The Methodist Hospitals denies all allegations of wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid the expense, burden and uncertainties associated with continued litigation. [GN] MIDEA AMERICA: Faces $5MM Cannon-Rivera Fraud Suit in S.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midea America Corporation. The case is captioned as Latazia Cannon-Rivera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Midea America Corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-05388-UA (S.D.N.Y., June 27, 2025). The nature of suit states fraud demanding $5,000,000 in damages. Midea manufactures home appliances.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented: Mason Adams Barney, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: mbarney@sirillp.com MUELLER SPORTS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Ortiz Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH ORTIZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. MUELLER SPORTS MEDICINE, INC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00644 (W.D.N.Y. July 17, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.muellersportsmed.com/b2c-us/e, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 504 et seq. prohibiting discrimination against the blind. Because the Defendant's interactive website, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant’s corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Defendant offers the commercial website to the public. The Website offers features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services offered by Defendant and which Defendant ensures delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Settles Inflated Commissions Suit for $44MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that four real estate companies agreed to pay a combined $44.05 million to resolve claims they conspired to inflate real estate commissions. The real estate commission class action settlement benefits consumers who sold a home between Oct. 31, 2019, and July 22, 2025, who listed the home on a multiple listing service (MLS), and who paid a commission to a real estate brokerage in connection with the sale. According to the class action lawsuit, The National Association of Realtors conspired with multiple real estate brokerage firms and families of the firms to inflate real estate commissions. The defendants allegedly enforced rules that required home sellers to pay commissions to the broker or agent representing the buyer. The real estate commission class action lawsuit claims these rules violated federal antitrust laws, including the Sherman Act. Many defendants have already settled, and more may settle in the future. This particular settlement concerns only Higher Tech Realty, eXp World Holdings, Weichert of North America and Atlanta Communities Real Estate Brokerage. These defendants have not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $44.05 million class action settlement to resolve the allegations. The settlement includes $750,000 from Higher Tech, $34 million from eXp, $8.5 million from Weichert and $800,000 from Atlanta Communities. Under the terms of the real estate commission settlement, class members can receive a cash payment based on the amount they paid in commissions. Class members who paid a higher amount in commissions will receive a larger share of the net settlement fund. Exact payment amounts will vary. The settlement also includes non-monetary relief in the form of practice changes. The defendants agreed to implement new policies to ensure compliance with antitrust laws. These changes include prohibiting MLS rules that require sellers to pay buyer broker commissions, prohibiting MLS rules that require seller-paid commissions to be a certain percentage of sale prices and more. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Sept. 20, 2025. The final approval hearing for the class action lawsuit settlement is scheduled for Oct. 28, 2025.To receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid claim form by Sept. 20, 2025. Who's Eligible Individuals who sold a home during the eligible date range of Oct. 31, 2019, through July 22, 2025, listed the home on a multiple listing service (MLS) anywhere in the United States, and paid a commission to a real estate brokerage in connection with the home's sale. Potential Award Varies Proof of Purchase Claimants must provide information and/or evidence of their home sale and commissions paid. 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 09/20/2025 Case Name 1925 Hooper LLC, et al. v. The National Association of Realtors, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-05392-MHC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division. Final Hearing 10/28/2025 Settlement Website NationwideRealEstateCommissionSettlement.com Claims Administrator 1925 Hooper LLC, et al. v. The National Association of Realtors, et al. c/o CPT Group Inc. 50 Corporate Park Irvine, CA 92606 NationwideRealEstateCommissionSettlement@cptgroup.com (888) 317-3086 Class Counsel Bryan Knight Jonathan Palmer KNIGHT PALMER LLC Nathan Chapman KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP Defense Counsel Thomas Grantham ALSTON & BIRD LLP Elizabeth C. Wolicki ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP Dylan Ballard VINSON & ELKINS LLP Ned Blumenthal WEISMANN P.C. Charles Van Horn BERMAN FINK VAN HORN P.C. [GN] NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Judge Dismissed Merchandising Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Kit Yona, writing for FindLaw, reports that The National Football League (NFL) is no stranger to the inside of a courtroom. While its 32 teams are separately owned and operated, they reliably move in lockstep together with policies ranging from collective bargaining agreements to merchandising. This has contributed to making the NFL the wealthiest sports league in the world by revenue. The vigorous and ferocious manner in which they protect and expand their interests has made the league the target of numerous antitrust suits as well. The latest attempt to loosen the NFL's iron grip was stuffed at the goal line. On July 14, 2025, U.S. District Judge Andrew Carter Jr. dismissed without prejudice a class action lawsuit brought by Casey's Merchandising. Casey's had alleged that the NFL's tight control over the ability of distributors to sell licensed NFL merchandise through third parties like Amazon and Walmart resulted in higher prices for consumers. Seeking injunctive, declaratory, and equitable relief, the suit also named Fanatics and each of the 32 teams as defendants. After Judge Carter dismissed the suit for lack of standing, Casey's will have to decide if they want to go for it with an amended complaint or punt instead. You Come for the King, You Best Not Miss Founded in 1920 as the American Professional Football Association, the NFL has evolved to become one of the most powerful sporting entities in the world. While it merged with the American Football League (AFL) in 1970, the NFL has a history of crushing its opposition both in and out of court. The United States Football League (USFL) tried to offer a competing product in 1983, but it lasted only three years before folding. The league filed an antitrust suit against the NFL in 1986, claiming that the NFL had conspired to monopolize football and seeking $1.5 billion in damages. In a famous decision, a six-person jury ruled that the NFL did indeed act as a monopoly, but also agreed with the NFL's claim that the USFL was responsible for their failure. The USFL was awarded $1 in damages, which was trebled to $3. They were later given millions in legal fees, but the league was long gone by then. More recently, the NFL lost a class-action suit in 2024 filed by subscribers over its Sunday Ticket viewing plan. Claiming the viewing restrictions and inflated prices were clear antitrust violations, the plaintiffs won a massive award of $4.7 billion. However, the judge overturned the verdict, claiming the jury had used "guesswork or speculation" to determine those numbers and that, under Federal Rule 702, should not have heard the evidence presented by two "expert" witnesses. Casey's was not the first company to legally challenge the NFL's stranglehold over merchandising. In the 2010 case American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld rulings that although each of the 32 NFL teams was a separately owned entity, they couldn't be guilty of conspiring or colluding to restrict trade because they acted as a single entity with regard to antitrust laws. With this precedent for exclusivity looming before them, Casey's was facing a legal challenge that seemed like a bit of a Hail Mary. Little did they know a flag would be thrown before they got to snap the ball. Can't Spell Fanatic Without Fan In their lawsuit, Casey's presented claims for alleged conspiracy in restraint of trade, alleged monopolization, alleged attempted monopolization, and alleged conspiracy to monopolize. They cited Fanatic's deals that gave them exclusive selling rights with Walmart and Amazon as antitrust violations under the Sherman Act and caused consumers to pay inflated prices due to the lack of competition. In dismissing the case, Judge Carter admitted that Fanatic's business tactics gave the company a decided edge over other competitors like Casey's, but reasoned that the advantage wasn't illegal. As antitrust laws are intended to protect consumers, he ruled that Casey's hadn't adequately shown that the alleged schemes of the NFL and Fanatics had led to financial injury for football fans and buyers of team apparel. Because the case was dismissed without prejudice, Casey's has the opportunity to amend the complaint to better fit the requirements of an antitrust suit. With a deadline of July 30, the attorneys had better use a hurry-up offense to file on time. [GN] NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Sued Over Exportation of Chargers' Home Game --------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Florio, writing for NBC Sports, reports that maybe the Philip Rivers retirement was a pre-emptive distraction. On Monday, July 21, attorney Daniel Wallach passed along a signed but unfiled (for now) class-action complaint against the Chargers over the exportation of a 2025 home game against the Chiefs to Brazil. The lawyer for the plaintiff is Rana Ayazi. The 14-page document arises from a very simple set of allegations. One, the Chargers marketed season tickets based on a nine-game regular-season slate of home opponents, including the Chiefs. Two, the Chargers sent the Chiefs game to Brazil. Three, the Chargers did not provide a refund to season-ticket holders. The complaint seeks relief under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the California False Advertising Law, and the California Unfair Competition Law. The renewals arrived in October 2024, touting nine regular-season home games for 2025 -- including the Chiefs. The Chiefs' presence on the schedule was repeated in advertising published in February 2025, after it was announced that the Chargers would open the season in Brazil. By June 2025, the Chiefs logo had been removed from the collection of teams listed in advertising by the Chargers, and the Saints logo (the Chargers' preseason home opponent) was added. As alleged at paragraph 6 of the complaint, the Chargers "did not offer a refund, credit, or other compensation to Season Ticket Holders" after the Chiefs game exited the mix. As alleged at paragraph eight, the Chargers "would not allow Season Ticket Holders to cancel their tickets for the 2025 season with a refund." Instead, cancellation would have resulted in the forfeiture of any payments already made for the 2025 season tickets. "There was thus no way," the complaint explains, "for Season Ticket Holders, who reasonably believed based on the previous advertising that the Kansas City Chiefs game would be included, to cancel without forfeiting thousands of dollars in payment." The plaintiff in the case, Devin Abney, alleges that he attempted to cancel his season tickets and get a full refund, after learning that the Chiefs game had been sent to Brazil. The Chargers declined to do so. Abney also alleges that the Chargers violated their own internal policies by failing to affirmatively refund to season-ticket holders the cost of the Chiefs game, once it was sent to Brazil. At a bare minimum, the Chargers should have given season-ticket holders a partial refund based on the loss of one of ten total 2025 home games, if the tickets were purchased under the assumption that they'd attend all of the games. And, yes, if someone bought season tickets under the assumption that they'd get to see the Chiefs -- and if the loss of that game was enough to get them to cancel the transaction -- they should be allowed to do so. The first point is highly conducive to a class action. The second is tougher to sell as a class claim, because not every season-ticket holder would want to scrap the whole package without getting to see the Chiefs. We'll see where it goes from here. For now, we'll say this: If the allegations in the complaint are accurate, the Chargers seem to have a little problem. [GN] NAVIENT CORP: Cockrell Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------ JOSEPH COCKRELL is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled Joseph Cockrell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Navient Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 8:24-cv-01780-JVS-JDE, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The Plaintiff brings this suit against the Defendants for breach of contract, violations of California's Unfair Competition Law and California's Student Borrower Bill of Rights by allegedly placing a retroactive administrative forbearance on loans. On Jan. 24, 2025, the Plaintiff filed first amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Feb. 7, 2025. On Apr. 18, 2025, the Plaintiff filed second amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on May 2, 2025. On May 2, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to strike class allegations. On June 9, 2025, Judge James V. Selna entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' second amended complaint. The Defendants' motion to strike class allegations is denied as moot. The appellate case is entitled Cockrell v. Navient Corporation, et al., Case No. 25-4222, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 9, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on July 14, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on August 18, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on September 17, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JOSEPH COCKRELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Ethan Preston, Esq. 4054 McKinney Avenue, Suite 310 Dallas, TX 75204 Defendants-Appellees NAVIENT CORPORATION, et al. are represented by: Nicholas J. Hoffman, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS, LLP 355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 4200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 NEOGEN CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Material Info ----------------------------------------------------------- Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of Operating Engineers Construction Industry and Miscellaneous Pension Fund against Neogen Corporation ("Neogen" or the "Company"), Neogen's CEO John Adent, and Neogen's COO & CFO David Naemura (collectively, the "Defendants"). The action alleges that Defendants defrauded investors by making materially false and/or misleading statements and failing to disclose materially adverse facts about the Company's acquisition and subsequent integration of the Food Safety Division of 3M Corporation ("3M"). The action is brought on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or acquired Neogen common stock from January 5, 2023 through June 3, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The action, brought in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, is captioned Operating Eng'rs Constr. Indus. & Misc. Pension Fund v. Neogen Corp., et al., No. 1:25-cv-00802 (W.D. Mich.). Neogen is a food safety company that manufactures and markets products and services dedicated to food and animal safety. The Company's products include diagnostic test kits and other products to test for dangerous substances in human and animal food. Neogen also develops and supplies pharmaceuticals and medical instruments in the veterinary market. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants misrepresented the status of the 3M integration and failed to disclose the negative impact of integration issues on the financial health of Neogen. Defendants issued a series of materially false and misleading statements which led investors to believe that the integration was progressing smoothly. Defendants downplayed integration "inefficiencies" and assured investors that they were fully aware and committed to resolving the issues quickly. Investors slowly learned the truth through a series of disclosures beginning on January 10, 2025. That day, the Company revealed that GAAP net income in the second quarter was significantly negative due to a $461 million non-cash goodwill impairment charge related to the 3M acquisition and cut its FY25 revenue and EBITDA guidance. Neogen also revealed that, as of November 30, 2024, the Company had material weaknesses in its internal control over financial reporting. On this news, the price of the Company's common stock declined 5% to close at $12.36 per share. In its next financial quarter, on April 9, 2025, Neogen announced that quarterly revenue fell 3.4% to $221 million due to integration issues and again cut its FY25 guidance and noted that capital expenditures were expected to be $100 million as a result of lowered adjusted EBITDA and a pull-forward of integration-related capital expenditures into FY25. Neogen also announced that CEO Adent would be stepping down. On this news, the price of the Company's common stock plummeted 28% to close at $5.02 per share, on a volume spike of 47 million shares. Finally, on June 4, 2025, Neogen revealed that it expected "EBITDA margin to probably be around the high-teens" which represented a considerable drop from the previous quarter's profit margin of 22%. On this news, the price of the Company's common stock fell an additional 17%, to close at $4.96 per share. Investors who purchased or acquired Neogen common stock during the Class Period are members of this proposed Class and may be able to seek appointment as lead plaintiff, which is a court-appointed representative of the Class, by complying with the relevant provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the "PSLRA"). See 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(2)(A)(i)-(iv). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court by no later than September 16, 2025. You do not need to seek to become a lead plaintiff in order to share in any possible recovery. You may also retain counsel of your choice to represent you in this action. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact Karin E. Fisch at Grant & Eisenhofer at 646-722-8500, or via email at kfisch@gelaw.com. You can also find more information at gelaw.com. [GN] NIKE INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Misleading Email-Marketing ----------------------------------------------------------------- emailexpert reports that Nike Inc. is currently embroiled in a proposed class action lawsuit filed in Washington state, alleging that the company employed deceptive email marketing tactics by using misleading subject lines to create a false sense of urgency. This legal challenge claims violations of both the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA) and the Washington Consumer Protection Act, highlighting a significant shift towards stricter enforcement of consumer protection laws in the digital marketing space. Case Overview and Allegations The lawsuit, initiated by plaintiff Harrison Ma, accuses Nike of sending promotional emails with subject lines such as "Only a few hours left," "Ends tonight," "Cyber Monday is here," and "Last chance to save an extra 25%." These subject lines allegedly implied that sales were ending imminently or were strictly time-limited. However, the promotions were reportedly extended beyond the dates suggested, or the "urgency" was entirely fabricated. For instance, a key example cited in the complaint is an email sent on June 10, 2022, with the subject line "2 days only: Save up to 50%." The lawsuit contends this misrepresented the duration of the sale, which allegedly lasted until June 18, 2022. Other examples include subject lines like "THE Ultimate Sale Ends tonight: Save up to 60%" (July 15, 2023) and "Up to 50% off disappears tonight" (August 26, 2022), which the plaintiff asserts created a false sense of impending expiration. The complaint asserts that these tactics exploited psychological pressure to induce consumers to make immediate purchasing decisions, thereby distorting their decision-making process and potentially wasting their time with false notifications. The plaintiff, Harrison Ma, is demanding a jury trial and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, alongside actual and statutory damages for himself and all class members. The lawsuit, Ma v. Nike, Inc., Case No. 25-2-16073-4 KNT, was initially filed in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County on May 29, 2025, and subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on July 1, 2025. Harrison Ma is represented by Walter M. Smith of Smith & Dietrich Law Offices PLLC, Lynn A. Toops and Ian R. Bensberg of Cohen Malad LLP, and J. Gerard Stranch IV of Stranch, Jennings & Garvey PLLC. Legal Implications and Crucial Precedent CEMA specifically prohibits any commercial email that contains "false or misleading information in the subject line" from being sent to the email address of a Washington resident. The lawsuit argues that Nike, with its extensive marketing infrastructure and access to data, had the means to determine the location of its email recipients and should have known when it was targeting Washington residents. This case is significantly bolstered by a recent and pivotal ruling from the Washington Supreme Court. In April 2025, the Washington Supreme Court, in the case of Brown v. Old Navy, LLC, issued a landmark decision that broadly interpreted CEMA. The court ruled that CEMA imposes a $500 statutory penalty on every commercial email sent to Washington residents that contains any false or misleading information in the email's subject line. Crucially, this ruling clarified that plaintiffs do not need to prove actual financial damages to recover these statutory penalties; the "injury is receiving the email that violates CEMA." This precedent greatly enhances the plaintiff's position in the Nike lawsuit, potentially exposing the company to substantial penalties if found liable, amounting to millions or even billions of dollars depending on the scale of the alleged violations. The ruling also distinguished between permissible "puffery" and actionable false statements of objective fact, directly impacting the alleged misleading claims about sale durations in Nike's emails. Industry Context and Marketing Practices Nike is not the only major brand facing scrutiny over its marketing practices. Other companies, including Crumbl Cookies and Skims, have been involved in similar legal disputes related to their promotional tactics. These cases, particularly in light of the Brown v. Old Navy ruling, highlight a growing trend of legal challenges against brands for deceptive marketing practices, signaling a clear shift towards stricter enforcement of consumer protection laws in the digital marketing space. Large corporations like Nike typically leverage sophisticated marketing technology (MarTech) stacks. While Nike has robust in-house marketing teams led by executives like EVP, Chief Marketing Officer Nicole Graham, they also partner with various creative and advertising agencies for content and strategy, which would contribute to the creation and execution of these email campaigns. The ultimate responsibility for compliance, however, rests with Nike Inc.'s marketing department and legal oversight. Conclusion and Recommendations for Marketers The outcome of this lawsuit could have significant financial and reputational implications for Nike and broader repercussions for email marketing strategies across the industry. Marketers should take this case as a cautionary tale and critically review their email marketing practices to ensure compliance with applicable laws and to maintain consumer trust. Key takeaways for marketers include: Accuracy in Subject Lines: Ensure that all claims made in email subject lines, particularly those implying urgency or limited duration, are factually accurate and genuinely reflect the offer's terms. Avoid fabricated scarcity. Geo-Targeting Compliance: Implement or enhance geo-targeting capabilities to ensure that marketing messages comply with specific state laws, especially in jurisdictions with stringent consumer protection acts like Washington. Dynamic Content: Utilize email marketing platforms that allow for dynamic content and timely updates to subject lines if promotions change, or ensure campaigns are halted once an offer genuinely expires. Regular Audits and Legal Review: Conduct routine, independent audits of email marketing programs and collaborate closely with legal counsel from the campaign planning stage to proactively identify and mitigate compliance risks. For more detailed information, you can refer to public court documents filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington under Case No. 2:2025cv01235. Case Overview The lawsuit, initiated by plaintiff Harrison Ma, accuses Nike of sending promotional emails with subject lines such as "Only a few hours left" and "Ends tonight," which implied that sales were ending imminently. However, these promotions were extended beyond the dates suggested by the subject lines. For instance, an email sent on June 10, 2022, with the subject line "2 days only: Save up to 50%," allegedly misrepresented the duration of the sale, which actually lasted until June 18, 2022. The complaint asserts that these tactics exploited psychological pressure to induce consumers to make immediate purchasing decisions, thereby distorting their decision-making process. ozempiclnjuryclaim.com Legal Implications CEMA prohibits any commercial email that contains false or misleading information in the subject line from being sent to the email address of a Washington resident. The lawsuit argues that Nike, with its extensive marketing infrastructure, had the means to determine the location of its email recipients and should have known when it was targeting Washington residents. This case underscores the importance of transparency and honesty in email marketing practices, particularly concerning the use of urgency in promotional messages. Marketers are advised to ensure that their subject lines accurately reflect the content and timing of their offers to avoid potential legal repercussions. Industry Context Nike is not the only major brand facing scrutiny over its marketing practices. Other companies, including Crumbl Cookies and Skims, have been involved in legal disputes related to their promotional tactics. These cases highlight a growing trend of legal challenges against brands for deceptive marketing practices, signaling a shift towards stricter enforcement of consumer protection laws in the digital marketing space. ozempiclnjuryclaim.com Conclusion The outcome of this lawsuit could have significant implications for email marketing strategies across the industry. Marketers should take this case as a cautionary tale and review their email marketing practices to ensure compliance with applicable laws and to maintain consumer trust. [GN] NORTHWOOD CARE: Motion to Certify COVID-19 Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------ Sean Mott, writing for CTV News, reports that The Northwood Care Group has lost an appeal in a class-action lawsuit about the deaths of more than 50 people at a Halifax long-term care facility during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Northwood, according to a written decision by Justice Elizabeth Van den Eynden, sought an appeal in relation to an order certifying a class proceeding in the matter. On June 23, Van den Eynden denied the appeal and ordered Northwood to pay $800 to the plaintiff in the lawsuit. The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia certified the class-action lawsuit last December. According to Van den Eynden, the plaintiff Erica Surette filed an action for a proposed class of people whose next of kin tested positive for COVID-19 and died while staying at Northwood facilities between March 15, 2020, and June 30, 2020. "During this period, 53 residents died after contracting COVID-19," Van den Eynden's written decision reads. "The statement of claim alleges Northwood owed legal duties to the deceased residents, breached those duties and the standard of care, and caused harm and damages as a result of the deaths." Ray Wagner, the lawyer representing the families in the lawsuit, says they are seeking damages for the loss of their loved ones. "They want accountability, of course. They want to know why this happened," Wagner told CTV News. "Why didn't it happen in other long-term care facilities? Why did it only happen in Northwood?" Van den Eynden said Northwood's appeal argued the Supreme Court judge erred by not applying a "two-step method" in his analysis, which they claimed impacted the certification process. "Northwood asserts, as it did before the motions judge, that the applicable test is a two-part framework which requires a plaintiff to demonstrate there is (1) some basis in fact that the proposed common issue actually exists; and (2) some basis in fact that the proposed issues are common to each class member," the written decision reads. "The test the judge employed was the equivalent to the second step." Van den Eynden ultimately ruled that Northwood did not raise a "arguable issue" in its appeal. "In my view, the judge applied the correct legal test, and even if he had adopted the two-part test advocated by Northwood, the result would have been the same given the unchallenged findings by the judge," the decision reads. The allegations in the lawsuit have not been tested in court. CTV News contacted lawyers for Northwood but they did not respond to a request for an interview. [GN] OIL BAR: Court Dismisses Wahab Class Action with Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------- Judge Edgardo Ramos of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismisses with prejudice the case captioned as ANGELA WAHAB, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE OIL BAR, LLC, Defendant, 24-cv-03156-ER (S.D.N.Y). Angela Wahab filed this putative class action against the Oil Bar, LLC on April 25, 2024. The Defendant was served on June 18, 2024. On July 2, 2024, David Stein filed a notice of appearance on behalf of the the Defendant and a Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure statement. There was then no activity on the docket for the next nine months. Accordingly, on April 11, 2025, the Court directed Wahab to submit a status letter by no later than April 18, 2025, and warned that failure to do so may result in a dismissal for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). No status letter was filed by April 18, 2025. The Court now dismisses Wahab's action for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Judge Ramos holds, "Because Wahab has ignored a Court order and delayed this case for over a year, there are no weaker sanctions that could remedy her failure to prosecute this case. Dismissal is appropriate where, as here, a plaintiff 'appears to have abandoned the litigation.'" A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SiO7Bw from PacerMonitor.com. ONYX PROPERTY: Faces Melingonis Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER MELINGONIS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. ONYX PROPERTY VENTURES, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-01817-JLS-MSB (S.D. Cal., July 17, 2025) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct toward the Plaintiff and the Class Members. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of herself and the Class Members, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. The Plaintiff registered his phone number to the Do-Not-Call List, which disallows calls and texts messages without prior authorization. The Plaintiff placed his telephone number, ending in 9812 on the Do-Not-Call List on April 5, 2025. Onyx is a local family-owned real estate investing company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (866) 219-3343 E-mail: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com - and - Kevin Lemiexu, Esq. Akylah Cooper, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF KEVIN LEMIEUX, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 488-6767 E-mail: Kevin@LawyerKevin.com Akylah@LawyerKevin.com OPEN RICE: Faces Yu Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Zhiqiang Yu, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Open Rice Poke Bowl LLC d/b/a Open Rice and Ying Chen, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-01076 (D. Conn., July 7, 2025) arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Connecticut Wage and Hour Law. The Plaintiff asserts that he is entitled to: (i) unpaid minimum wages from Defendants for work performed under 40 hours for which he did not receive statutory minimum wage pay; (ii) unpaid wages for overtime work for which he did not receive overtime premium pay, as required by law; (iii) liquidated damages, declaratory relief, costs, interest and attorneys' fees pursuant to the FLSA and state law. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from June 13, 2024 to June 21, 2025, as a general kitchen worker and cook's assistant at Defendants' restaurant Open Rice. The Defendants operate Open Rice Poke Bowl LLC d/b/a Open Rice restaurant at 930 High Ridge Road, Stamford, Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jian Hang, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-20 38th Ave., Suite 10G Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com OSMOSE UTILITIES: Johnson Suit Removed from State Ct. to N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit captioned MATTHEW JOHNSON, an individual, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals v. OSMOSE UTILITIES SERVICES, INC., a California Corporation, DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 25CV126200 (Filed June 10. 2025) was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on July 16, 2025. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No, Case No. 3:25-cv-06023 to the proceedings. The complaint purports to state causes of action under the California Labor Code, on behalf of Plaintiff and the putative class members for failure to pay minimum wage; failure to pay overtime; failure to provide meal breaks and failure to provide rest breaks. Osmose provides infrastructure construction and support services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James C. Fessenden, Esq. Jason P. Brown, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000 San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (858) 597-9600 Facsimile: (858) 597-9601 E-mail: jfessenden@fisherphillips.com jbrown@fisherphillips.com PEAK DESIGN: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Ortiz Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH ORTIZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. PEAK DESIGN, Case No. 1:25-cv-00639 (W.D.N.Y. July 16, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.peakdesign.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 504 et seq. prohibiting discrimination against the blind. Because the Defendant's interactive website, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant’s corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services -- all benefits it affords nondisabled Individuals -- thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. The Defendant offers the commercial website to the public. The Website offers features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services offered by Defendant and which Defendant ensures delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal PETER LUGER: Wills Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------- LAURENCE WILLS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PETER LUGER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03707 (E.D.N.Y., July 3, 2025) is a civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.peterluger.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's Website, blind and visually-impaired customers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the facilities and services Defendant offers to the public on its website. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Peter Luger, Inc. operates the website that provides multiple steakhouse restaurant locations in the New York City area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com PHILIPS NORTH: Breaches Fiduciary Duties, Halamek Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES HALAMEK, KARL TYSL, and KATHY WOODS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC, THE ERISA INVESTMENT COMMITTEE OF PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:25-cv-12003 (D. Mass., July 15, 2025) is a class action brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) against the Plan's fiduciaries, which include Philips North America and the ERISA Committee of Philips North America LLC and its members during the Class Period. The Plan is a defined contribution plan, established pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 1002(2)(A) and section 1002(34) of ERISA, that enables eligible participants to make tax-deferred contributions from their salaries to the Plan. The Plaintiffs allege that during the putative Class Period, Defendant breached the duties owed to the Plan, to Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plan by failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio, initially and on an ongoing basis, with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of performance. At all times during the Class Period, the Plan had at least $4 billion dollars in assets under management. At the Plan's fiscal year end in 2019, the Plan had $4,898,009,752 in assets under management that were/are entrusted to the care of the Plan's fiduciaries. During the putative Class Period, Defendants, as a "fiduciaries" of the Plan, as that term is defined under ERISA Sec. 3(21)(A), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1002(21)(A), breached the duties owed to the Plan, to Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plan by, inter alia: (1) failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of cost and performance; and (2) failing to defray reasonable expenses of administering the Plan. 21. Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment of participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence, in violation of 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1104. Their actions were contrary to actions of a reasonable fiduciary and cost the Plan and its participants millions of dollars, says the suit. Mr. Halamek invested in the Prudential SVF in the Plan and suffered injury to his Plan account due to the significant underperformance of the Prudential SVF. Plaintiff Halam Philips North America LLC is the Plan sponsor and Plan administrator with a principal place of business at 222 Jacobs Street, Cambridge Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey Hellman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY HELLMAN, LLC 195 Church Street, 10th Floor New Haven, CT 06510 E-mail: jeff@jeffhellmanlaw.com Telephone: 203-691-8762 Facsimile: (203) 823-4401 - and - Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. James A. Maro, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Facsimile: (717) 232-3080 E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com jamesm@capozziadler.com PLY GEM: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Defective Vinyl Windows ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that Ply Gem Specialty Products and Cornerstone Building Brands face a proposed class action lawsuit that alleges the companies' Builder 1100 series vinyl windows are defective in that they are unable to prevent moisture intrusion. The 23-page lawsuit was filed by two residents of the 251-home Queensbridge neighborhood of Indian Land, Lancaster County, South Carolina who allege that the windows' failure to keep out moisture can cause visible fogging, reduced visibility, water accumulation and water transfer to window sills, frames and surrounding walls, posing the risk of mold, wood rot and other property damage. Per the case, the Ply Gem windows were marketed as "low-maintenance," with "energy efficient warm edge insulating glass," and include a 10-year warranty that assures the windows "shall be free from material obstruction of vision as a result of film accumulation on interior glass surfaces resulting exclusively from failure of the hermetic edge seal (from sources other than glass breakage or cracking) due to faulty manufacturing." Ordinarily, the lawsuit states, insulated glass windows need to be defended against moisture accumulation or intrusion by a desiccant, which absorbs residual moisture trapped during manufacturing and any small amounts of moisture that slip past the seals over time. However, the complaint alleges that no desiccant was ever applied to the Ply Gem windows and that this was an intentional design choice made to lower the cost of manufacturing, even though it significantly raised the risk of water damage in and around the windows. Compounding this, the windows were installed with faulty or improperly placed settings and sealing materials and contain defective weep systems, meaning that they cannot adequately prevent or discharge water intrusion, the lawsuit claims. "A window that permits water intrusion violates building codes and industry standards," the case emphasizes. The lawsuit reports that several Queensbridge residents ordered replacement windows from Ply Gem when they began to notice the effects of the apparent defects in their original ones. However, the lawsuit claims that the windows that were delivered as replacements, for which the residents still had to pay shipping and installation costs due to one of several limitations in the warranty, bore the same defect. Per the lawsuit, Ply Gem has not changed its manufacturing practices or standards and is still selling defective windows that customers have no way of knowing are defective until well after purchase and installation. The complaint contends that Queensbridge residents whose homes are equipped with the Ply Gem windows at issue have not only been deprived of the value they were promised but have also suffered additional property damage from water and moisture intrusion. The Ply Gem Specialty Products class action lawsuit looks to cover all homeowners within Queensbridge located in the County of Lancaster, South Carolina, whose homes are equipped with the Builder 1100 series vinyl windows. [GN] PORTA HOME: Faces Hernandez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PORTA HOME, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03702 (E.D.N.Y., July 3, 2025) is a civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.porta-nyc.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The complaint alleges that the Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's Website, blind and visually impaired customers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the facilities, products, and services Defendant offers to the public on the Website. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Porta Home, LLC operates the website that offers European tableware and home furnishings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com PRIME RETIREMENT: Wells Balks at Unauthorized Personal Info Access ------------------------------------------------------------------ HERBERT WELLS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRIME RETIREMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, and PRINCE WILLIAM SOUND ACQUACULTURE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-12788 (D.N.J., July 7, 2025) is a class action arising out of the recent targeted attack and data breach on Defendants' network that resulted in unauthorized access to highly sensitive data. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those similarly situated to address Defendants' inadequate safeguarding of Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information that Defendants collected and maintained, and for Defendants' failure to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their PII had been subject to the unauthorized access of an unknown, unauthorized party. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members have been exposed to a present, heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft for the rest of their lives, says the suit. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings claims on behalf of himself and the Class for: negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. Through these claims, Plaintiff seeks, inter alia, damages and injunctive relief, including improvements to Defendants’ data security systems and integrated services, future annual audits, and adequate credit monitoring services. Prime Retirement Solutions is a full-service consulting and administrative firm for certain retirement and pension plans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Ken Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One W. Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 990-2218 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com grunfeld@kolawyers.com PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Appeals Court Order in Pryce Suit to 2nd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Cecelia Pryce, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-1467, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The Plaintiff brought this class action lawsuit against the Defendant for breach of contract and violations of New York's Comprehensive Motor Vehicle Reparations Act, New York Insurance Law, and New York General Business Law. The appellate case is entitled Progressive Casualty Insurance Company v. Pryce, Case No. 25-1669, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on July 9, 2025. [BN] Defendant-Petitioner PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY is represented by: Kymberly Kochis, Esq. EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP The Grace Building, 40th Floor 1114 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 PSG CALIFORNIA: Underpays Quality Assurance Inspectors, Parra Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ RAYMOND PARRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PSG CALIFORNIA LLC d/b/a WILDEN PUMP & ENGINEERING, Defendant, Case No. CIVSB2517919 (Cal. Super., San Bernardino Cty., June 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and failure to pay all wages due timely at separation. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Quality Assurance Inspector in Grand Terrace, California from approximately January 1987 to April 24, 2024. PSG California LLC, doing business as Wilden Pump & Engineering, is a pump solution provider in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq. Ori Edelstein, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com QUALITY BUILT: Shumate Sues Over Layoff Without Advance Notice -------------------------------------------------------------- KYLE SHUMATE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QUALITY BUILT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00839-UNA (D. Del., July 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. The case arises from the Defendant's action of terminating the employment of the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees as a result of a mass layoff ordered by the Defendant on or around July 3, 2025, without providing adequate advance notice as required by the federal WARN Act. Quality Built, LLC is a construction company based in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher D. Loizides, Esq. LOIZIDES, PA 1225 King Street, Suite 800 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 654-0248 Email: loizides@loizides.com - and - Jack A. Raisner, Esq. Rene S. Roupinian, Esq. RAISNER ROUPINIAN LLP 270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1801 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 221-1747 Facsimile: (212) 221-1747 Email: jar@raisnerroupinian.com rsr@raisnerroupinian.com RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES: Fails to Protect Private Info, Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- KIMBERLY WHITLEY-YEATTS, as parent and guardian ad litem of minor C.Y., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES OF RICHMOND, INC. ,Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00518 (E.D. Va., July 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Representative Plaintiff's and/or Class Members' protected health information and personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's information network. With this action, Representative Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it caused and will continue to cause Representative Plaintiff and, at least, thousands other similarly situated persons in the massive and preventable incident purportedly discovered by Defendant on May 2, 2025. The Defendant permitted unauthorized individuals to access Plaintiff and Class Members' Private Information which was being kept under-protected. Representative Plaintiff further seeks to hold Defendant responsible for not ensuring that the Private Information was maintained in a manner consistent with industry, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Privacy Rule (45 CFR, Part 160 and Parts A and E of Part 164), the HIPAA Security Rule (45 CFR Part 160 and Subparts A and C of Part 164) and other relevant standards. Representative Plaintiff (acting on behalf of her minor child) is an adult individual and was a resident and citizen of the State of Virginia. Representative Plaintiff's minor child is a victim of the Data Breach. Radiology Associates of Richmond is a non-profit corporation with a principal place of business located in North Chesterfield, Virginia. The Company operates provides a full range of imaging services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven T. Webster, Esq. WEBSTER BOOK LLP 2300 Wilson Blvd, Suite 728 Arlington, VA 22201 Telephone: (888) 987-9991 E-mail: stw@websterbook.com - and - Laura Van Note, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 Facsimile: (510) 891-7030 E-mail: lvn@colevannote.com RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Marple Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- LEIGH MARPLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES OF RICHMOND, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00556-DJN (E.D. Va., July 17, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard protected health information, as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and other personally identifiable information (PII), and for failing to provide timely, accurate, and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that the integrity of their Private Information was compromised in a cyber incident (the Data Breach). Accordingly, as a condition of receiving services from the Defendant, the patients are required to provide Defendant with personal information. When providing highly sensitive information to Defendant, patients expect that Defendant will employ adequate data security practices to protect their information from unlawful disclosure. On May 2, 2025, the Defendant discovered that an unauthorized third-party had accessed its IT Network. In response, the Defendant launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the Data Breach. On July 1, 2025, the Defendant issued a public disclosure about the Data Breach and began sending notice letter to impacted individuals. The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' Private Information with which it was entrusted for treatment with Defendant. The Defendant is a private radiology practice headquartered in Richmond, Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee A. Floyd, Esq. Justin M. Sheldon, Esq. BREIT BINIAZAN, PC 2100 East Cary Street, Suite 310 Richmond, VA 23223 Telephone: (804) 351-9040 Facsimile: (804) 351-9170 E-mail: Lee@bbtrial.com Justin@bbtrial.com - and - David K. Lietz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 5335 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 440 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com RED HOOK: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Jones Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- CLAY LEE JONES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE RED HOOK WINERY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05519 (S.D.N.Y., July 3, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.redhookwinery.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The complaint asserts that the Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's Website, blind and visually-impaired customers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the facilities and services Defendant offers to the public on its website. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Red Hook Winery, LLC is a Brooklyn, New York-based winery that operates the website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com REDFIN CORP: Court Okays Stipulated Discovery Deadline Motion ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge John H. Chun of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington approved parties' stipulated motion amending discovery and responsive pleading deadlines in the case captioned as JASON MORANO, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. REDFIN CORPORATION, ROCKET COMPANIES, INC., DAVID H. LISSY, GLENN KELMAN, ROBERT BASS, JULIE BORNSTEIN, KERRY D. CHANDER, AUSTIN LIGON, BRAD SINGER, JAMES SLAVET, and SELINA TOBACCOWALA, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00883-JHC (W.D. Wash.). The parties have discussed the outstanding Fee Petition and Scheduling Order, and have agreed that: (i) the claims set forth in Plaintiff's Complaint are now moot; (ii) Defendants do not need to file a responsive pleading to the Complaint to resolve this matter; and (iii) the only remaining issue in the case is the resolution of the Fee Petition; and in the interest of efficiently and expediently resolving this matter, the parties further agree that all other deadlines set by the Court may be held in abeyance pending the Court's resolution of the Fee Petition without prejudice to any party. The parties agree that: 1. (i) The FRCP 26(f) Conference deadline set for July 21, 2025, (ii) the Initial Disclosures Pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(1) deadline set for Aug. 4, 2025, (iii) Defendants' Responsive Pleading deadline set for Aug. 4, 2025, and (iv) the Combined Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan as Required by FRCP 26(f) and LCR 26(f) deadline set for Aug. 11, 2025 are all continued indefinitely and held in abeyance pending the Court's resolution of the Fee Petition; and 2. The parties will prepare a form of judgment in this matter within fourteen (14) days of the Court's decision on the Fee Petition. On May 9, 2025, Plaintiff Jason Morano filed the Class Action Complaint, alleging a claim under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Defendants Redfin Corporation, Rocket Companies, Inc., and David H. Lissy, Glenn Kelman, Robert Bass, Julie Bornstein, Kerry D. Chander, Austin Ligon, Brad Singer, James Slavet, and Selina Tobaccowala, a claim under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Individual Defendants, and a Delaware state law breach of fiduciary duty claim against the Individual Defendants. On May 16, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction, requesting that the Court enjoin (i) the stockholder vote scheduled for June 4, 2025, and (ii) the consummation of the Merger itself, which, after subsequent filings by the parties, was resolved by the Court on June 3, 2025. On June 11, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion for an Award of Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, which Defendants opposed on June 26, 2025. The Fee Petition remains pending. On July 7, 2025, the Court issued its Order Regarding Initial Disclosures, Joint Status Report, and Early Settlement, setting a July 21, 2025 deadline for the parties' FRCP 26(f) Conference, an Aug. 4, 2025 deadline for the parties' initial disclosures pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(1), and an Aug. 11, 2025 deadline for the parties to submit a combined joint status report and discovery plan pursuant to FRCP 26(f) and LCR 26(f). A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sGUycR from PacerMonitor.com. Attorneys for Plaintiff: Roger M. Townsend, Esq. TOWNSEND LEGAL CORP. 380 Winslow Way, Suite 200 Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Telephone: 206-761-2480 Email: Roger@townsendlegal.com - and - Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. Jonathan T. Lerner, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 971-1341 Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com jlerner@monteverdelaw.com - and - Joshua E. Fruchter, Esq. WOHL & FRUCHTER LLP 25 Robert Pitt Drive, Suite 209G Monsey, NY 10952 Telephone: (845) 290-6818 Email: jfruchter@wohlfruchter.com Attorneys for Defendant REDFIN CORPORATION, DAVID H. LISSY, GLENN KELMAN, ROBERT BASS, JULIE BORNSTEIN, KERRY D. CHANDER, AUSTIN LIGON, BRAD SINGER, JAMES SLAVET, and SELINA TOBACCOWALA: Jonathan Tamimi, Esq. FENWICK & WEST LLP 401 Union Street, 5th Floor Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: 206.389.4510 Facsimile: 206.389.4511 Email: jtamimi@fenwick.com Attorneys for Defendant ROCKET COMPANIES, INC. Tim J. Filer, Esq. Angelo Marchesini, Esq. 1111 Third Avenue, Suite 3000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: 206-447-4400 Email: tim.filer@foster.com angelo.marchesini@foster.com - and - Deborah S. Birnbach, Esq. Tucker DeVoe, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 100 Northern Avenue Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 570-1000 Facsimile: (617) 523-1231 Email: DBirnbach@goodwinlaw.com TDeVoe@goodwinlaw.com REGENERON PHARMA: Tampa Fund Is Lead Plaintiff in Securities Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the motion of City Pension Fund for Firefighters and Police Officers in the City of Tampa for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of its selection of Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP and Motley Rice LLC as lead counsel in the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY RADTKE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, -v- REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., LEONARD S. SCHLEIFER, CHRISTOPHER FENIMORE, and ROBERT E. LANDRY, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00145-MKV (S.D.N.Y.). The motion of Nora Bakshandeh for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP as lead counsel is denied. Jeffrey Radtke brings a putative class action for violations of the federal securities laws against Defendants Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. and three executives, Leonard S. Schleifer, Christopher Fenimore, and Robert E. Landry. The Complaint asserts claims for violations of the federal securities laws "on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Regeneron common stock between November 2, 2023 and October 30, 2024, inclusive (the 'Class Period')." Regeneron is a biotechnology company that designs products for eye diseases, allergic and inflammatory diseases, cancer, cardiovascular and metabolic diseases, among others. The Complaint alleges that the defendants in the Action misled investors about the company's ability to maintain revenue from one of its primary products, Eylea, and investors suffered significant losses from the decline in the market value of Regeneron stock. In making its determination, the Court is guided by a statutory rebuttable presumption that the most adequate plaintiff is the plaintiff that: (1) has either filed the complaint or made a motion for appointment as lead plaintiff, (2) has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class, and (3) otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Pension Fund argues that it has the largest financial interest in the Action and easily satisfies the requirements of Rule 23. Bakshandeh does not oppose the motion of the Pension Fund but does not withdraw her own motion. The Pension Fund allegedly suffered losses of approximately $4.15 million on its transactions in Regeneron securities, on a last-in-first-out basis, during the Class Period, while Bakshandeh allegedly suffered losses of approximately $34,805. The Court concludes that the Pension Fund is the most adequate plaintiff based on the statutory criteria and the parties' submissions. According to the Court, the Pension Fund makes a preliminary showing that its claims are typical because they arise from the same alleged course of events from which the other putative class members' claims and alleged injuries arise. Specifically, the Pension Fund submits that it purchased or otherwise acquired Regeneron securities during the Class Period in reliance on Defendants' allegedly false and misleading statements and suffered losses as a result. The Pension Fund also makes a preliminary showing that it will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class, the Court finds. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0XOBgB from PacerMonitor.com. RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT: Mercedes Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------- LUIS MERCEDES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05535 (S.D.N.Y., July 3, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.tellerschophouse.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's Website, blind and visually-impaired customers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the facilities and services Defendant offers to the public on its website. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Restaurant Management, Inc. is a restaurants and hospitality company that operates the website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com RISE ENGINEERING: Agrees to Settle Class Suit Over Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------------ Claim Depot reports that employees who worked as residential energy specialists for Rise Engineering in Massachusetts at any time between June 1, 2018, and May 7, 2025, may qualify to claim approximately $9,286 from a class action settlement. Thielsch Engineering Inc., doing business as Rise Engineering, agreed to resolve a lawsuit alleging it failed to pay overtime wages to residential energy specialists in Massachusetts. Who is eligible to file a Rise Engineering claim? Class members must meet all of the following criteria: -- They worked as a residential energy specialist for Rise Engineering in Massachusetts. -- Their employment occurred at any time between June 1, 2018, and May 7, 2025. -- They were not paid an overtime premium for hours worked over 40 in any workweek. How much is the wage and hour payout? The total settlement provides for an average gross payment of approximately $14,732 per class member before deductions. After deducting attorneys' fees, a service award for the class representative and administrative costs, the average net payment is expected to be about $9,286. The actual amount class members may receive depends on their individual employment history and the number of overtime hours they worked. The settlement fund is distributed on a pro rata basis, which means: -- 80% of the class fund is allocated based on each member's reported overtime hours. -- 20% is distributed based on the length of employment during the class period to account for possible unreported overtime hours. All payments are subject to applicable taxes and will be reported to the Internal Revenue Service as required by law. How to claim a class action rebate Class members can file a claim online or print the form via the same link, complete it and mail it to the settlement administrator: The claim deadline is Sept. 5, 2025. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Rise Settlement c/o Optime Administration LLC, PO Box 3206 Brockton, MA 02304 What information is required to submit a claim? Class members must provide their Social Security number. Payout options Settlement payments will be mailed by check to the address provided on the claim form. Settlement fund breakdown The settlement fund will cover: -- Administrative costs: $179 per class member -- Attorneys' fees: Up to one-third of the total settlement amount -- Service award to the class representative: $357 per class member -- Payments to eligible class members: The remainder of the fund After 90 days, any unclaimed funds will be donated to the Massachusetts IOLTA Committee Important dates -- Deadline to file a claim: Sept.5, 2025 -- Fairness hearing: Oct. 8, 2025 When is the Duty v. Rise Engineering payout date? If the court approves the settlement and there are no appeals, payments are expected to be mailed by Dec. 18, 2025. Why is there a class action settlement? The class action lawsuit alleged Rise Engineering failed to pay overtime wages to residential energy specialists in Massachusetts. The plaintiff claimed these employees were entitled to overtime under state law. Rise denied any wrongdoing and asserted that the employees were exempt as outside salespersons. Both sides agreed to settle the case to avoid the cost and uncertainty of further litigation and to provide compensation to eligible employees without further delay. [GN] RIVIANA FOODS: Faces Class Suit Over Arsenic in Mahatma Brown Rice ------------------------------------------------------------------ Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that Riviana Foods has failed to warn consumers that its Mahatma Brown Whole Grain Rice contains arsenic and cadmium. According to the 29-page lawsuit, independent testing revealed the presence of the toxic heavy metals in the Riviana Foods brown rice, with the products supposedly containing 317 parts per billion (ppb) of arsenic and 11.6 ppb of cadmium. Arsenic and cadmium are well-documented to be harmful to the human body, particularly for children, and have been declared "dangerous to human health" by the FDA and the World Health Organization (WHO), the filing stresses. Per the complaint, arsenic ingestion is linked to respiratory, hematological, gastrointestinal, renal, hepatic, neurological, skin and immunological conditions, as well as to atherosclerosis, cardiovascular disease and diabetes. Similarly, cadmium is a known carcinogen, and exposure to the heavy metal in even small quantities is linked to health issues such as kidney disease, bone loss, hemorrhagic gastroenteritis, cardiomyopathy, metabolic acidosis, cardiovascular disease and liver and kidney necrosis, the lawsuit relays. A 2022 study also reported that cadmium exposure can triple a child's risk of developing a learning disability, the suit says. Per the lawsuit, the amounts of arsenic and cadmium in the Mahatma Brown Whole Grain Rice greatly exceed the FDA maximum quantity allowances for the heavy metals. Riviana Foods advertises its Mahatma Whole Grain Brown Rice as "America's Favorite Rice," "100% Whole Grain," "Non-GMO," "Certified Gluten Free" and "Kosher," the case states. These representations, though they appeal to consumers increasingly concerned with the makeup and health value of their food, obscure and omit the potential presence of toxic heavy metals in the product, the complaint contends. The filing argues that a reasonable consumer has no means and at most limited knowledge of how or why to test for toxic contaminants or ingredients in their food and therefore must rely on the representations made by companies on product packaging. The case contests that any reasonable consumer who had been made aware of the heavy metals in the rice would not have purchased the product, or would have paid less for it. The class action lawsuit against Riviana Foods seeks to represent anyone who bought Riviana Foods Mahatma Whole Grain Brown Rice for household use and not for resale within the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] ROAD RUNNER: Renewal Suit Settlement Final Hearing Set Nov. 14 -------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit that alleged Road Runner Sports deceptively concealed the cost of its automatically renewing VIP Rewards Membership program while failing to provide customers with an easy cancellation process. The Road Runner Sports class action settlement received preliminary court approval on June 13, 2025 and covers anyone in California who was enrolled into a Road Runner Sports VIP Rewards Membership at any point between July 1, 2013 and May 1, 2025 and was charged a membership renewal fee. The court-approved website for the Road Runner settlement can be found at RoadRunnerLawsuit.com. Road Runner settlement class members who are enrolled in a VIP Rewards Membership as of the date the deal receives final approval from the court will automatically receive a one-time $10 reduction on their next membership renewal charge, the settlement site relays. Eligible class members will also automatically receive $15 in rewards cash to be used on Road Runner purchases within six months of its deposit into their Road Runner account, the site says. No action is required on the part of settlement class members to receive the aforementioned benefits. However, class members who are enrolled in a VIP Rewards Membership and believe they were damaged by the company's alleged auto-renewal practices can receive an additional $10 in rewards cash by submitting a timely, valid claim form, the class action settlement website says. Per the settlement website, class members who previously had a membership but are no longer enrolled in the program will receive a free, 12-month VIP Family Rewards Membership that will not be automatically renewed. The site adds that Road Runner will also deposit $25 in Rewards Cash into the free membership account of all class members whose membership terminated after May 25, 2017. For class members whose VIP Membership was terminated before May 26, 2017, Road Runner Sports will provide $15 in rewards cash, the website relays. No action is required on the part of formerly enrolled settlement class members to receive these benefits. To submit a claim form online, visit this page and log in with the unique ID and PIN found in original settlement notice sent out to all class members via email and/or postcard. Alternatively, a PDF of the claim form is available to print, fill out and mail back to the address listed on the first page of the document. All Road Runner Sport settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by December 14, 2025. As part of the deal, Road Runner has also promised to alter its membership signup processes to "improve notice, transparency, and fairness in its VIP program." In particular, Road Runner Sports has agreed to clearly disclose before enrollment or renewal all material terms of the VIP Rewards program, including price, renewal date and cancellation deadlines, among other injunctive measures. A hearing is set for November 14, 2025 to determine whether the settlement will receive final approval from the court. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Road Runner Sports class action lawsuit alleged that Road Runner automatically renewed VIP Rewards Memberships without consumers' informed consent, and intentionally obscured the means to cancel the membership. [GN] RR2 LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Hernandez Says ------------------------------------------------------------ TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RR2, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03718 (E.D.N.Y., July 3, 2025) is a civil rights action against Defendant its the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.thebkcircus.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The complaint says that the Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's Website, blind and visually impaired customers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the facilities, products, and services Defendant offers to the public on the Website, alleges the suit. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. RR2, LLC is a menswear brand that operates the website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com RXSIGHT INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit in C.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Makaveev v. RxSight, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:25-cv-01596, on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired RxSight, Inc. ("RxSight" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: RXST) securities between November 7, 2024 and July 8, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from the date of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. IF YOU SUFFERED A LOSS ON YOUR RXSIGHT INVESTMENTS, CLICK HERE TO INQUIRE ABOUT POTENTIALLY PURSUING CLAIMS TO RECOVER YOUR LOSS UNDER THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS. What Happened? On July 8, 2025, after the market closed, RxSight reported preliminary second quarter 2025 financial results, revealing significant declines in LDD sales, and LAL utilization, and overall revenue. The Company also lowered its full year 2025 guidance by approximately $42.5 million at the midpoint. The Company's Chief Executive Officer, Ronald Kurtz, also disclosed that "[a]doption challenges over the last few quarters have been a primary reason for the LDD stall." On this news, RxSight's stock price fell $4.84, or 37.8%, to close at $7.95 per share on July 9, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume. What Is The Lawsuit About? The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the Company was experiencing "adoption challenges" and/or structural issues resulting in declines in sales and utilization; (2) Defendants had overstated the demand for RxSight's products; (3) as a result, RxSight was unlikely to meet its own previously issued financial guidance for fiscal year 2025; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased or otherwise acquired RxSight securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. Contact Us To Participate or Learn More: If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact us: Charles Linehan, Esq., Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 Email: shareholders@glancylaw.com Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Toll-Free: (888) 773-9224 Visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email, please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Ruozzi Consumer Suit Removed to E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled SKYE RUOZZI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., Case No. 513181/2025, was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on June 23, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of New York assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-03508-AMD-MMH to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action against the Defendants for violations of New York's Consumer Protection Act and the New York City Administrative Code, negligence, fraud, and unjust enrichment. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. is a consumer electronics manufacturer based in New Jersey. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Eric W. Moran, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP One Vanderbilt Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 801-9200 Email: Eric.Moran@gtlaw.com SHENZHEN SMOORE: Sued Over Anticompetitive Price-Fixing Scheme -------------------------------------------------------------- Martin Rukeyser, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHENZHEN SMOORE TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, LTD.; SMOORE INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LIMITED; JUPITER RESEARCH, LLC; CB SOLUTIONS, LLC d/b/a CANNA BRAND SOLUTIONS; GREENLANE HOLDINGS, INC.; and 3WIN CORP., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-14238 (S.D. Fla., July 3, 2025) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendants under the Clayton Act, to remedy violations of the Sherman Act as well as under Florida state antitrust laws. Plaintiff Rukeyser, on behalf of himself and a Class of indirect purchasers of CCELL-branded ("Ceramic Cell") closed cannabis oil vaporizers systems and components (together, the "Products"), manufactured and sold by Defendant Shenzhen Smoore and owned by Smoore International Holdings Limited (collectively "Smoore") or its authorized Defendant distributors in the United States and its territories between January 1, 2016 and until the effects of the conspiracy have ceased, seeks actual damages, treble damages, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, and reasonable costs and attorneys' fees. The complaint alleges that Smoore is a monopolist in the manufacture of the Products for the United States market and produces as much as 80% of the closed cannabis oil vaping devices in the United States and sells the Products directly to cannabis producers and wholesale distributors, including to the Distributor Defendants. Smoore and the Distributor Defendants entered an anticompetitive scheme to charge cannabis oil producers and other consumers of the Products supracompetitive prices for closed cannabis oil vaporization systems. As part of this scheme, Smoore and Distributor Defendants entered into agreements that created a minimum price floor for the Products, agreed that Distributor Defendants would only sell Smoore's Products and not those of Smoore's competitors, agreed to allocate markets by not competing for one another's customers, and agreed to share price and customer information with one another, alleges the suit. Smoore Holdings is the parent corporation of Shenzhen Smoore, which is its wholly owned subsidiary. Smoore is a Chinese company that manufactures and distributes the products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT 1 West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com streisfeld@kolawyers.com SNEAKER BAR: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Valencia Says ------------------------------------------------------------- JUSTIN VALENCIA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SNEAKER BAR CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05521 (S.D.N.Y., July 3, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.sneakerbarnewyork.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The complaint alleges that the Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's Website, blind and visually impaired customers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the facilities, products, and services Defendant offers to the public on the Website. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Sneaker Bar Corporation is a New York City based retail store that operates the website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com SODEXO INC: Faces Orellana Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif. Super. -------------------------------------------------------------- SEBASTIAN ORELLANA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SODEXO, INC.; SDH SERVICES WEST LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV19891 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act including failure to provide employment records, failure to pay overtime and double time, failure to provide rest and meal periods, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage statements, failure to pay reporting time wages, failure to pay split shift wages, failure to pay all wages earned on time, failure to pay all wages earned upon discharge or resignation, failure to reimburse business expenses, and failure to provide notice of paid sick time and accrual. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a chief cook on or about March 14, 2022, until February 27, 2025. Sodexo, Inc. is a food services and facilities management company, doing business in California. SDH Services West LLC is a subsidiary of Sodexo, Inc., doing business in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq. Cathy Gonzalez, Esq. Kevin Grigorian, Esq. HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC 801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1015 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 696-2306 Facsimile: (818) 696-2307 Email: haig@hbklawyers.com cathy@hbklawyers.com kevin@hbklawyers.com SONOS INC: App Redesign "Defective," Siena Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- DAVID SIENA and CLIFFORD FISCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SONOS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-06118 (C.D. Cal., July 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, California Computer Access and Fraud Act, False and Misleading Advertising Law, California's Unfair Competition Law, Illinois' Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Illinois' Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and Oklahoma's Consumer Protection Act, trespass to chattels, breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and negligent misrepresentation. The case arises from the Defendant's release of a redesigned version of the Sonos App ("App Redesign") that materially changed the interface and functionality of the application, and, consequently, the devices. According to the complaint, the App Redesign was released with significant bugs and performance issues. Users reported that the App Redesign frequently crashed, failed to connect with devices, and lacked stable connection to the Sonos products. Many Sonos users experienced interruptions in audio playback and long delays between input and responses. As a result, Sonos users expected a fully functional app and devices but instead received a degraded app that sometimes rendered their current Sonos products ineffective or useless. Many users lost the benefit of key features that had influenced their purchase decisions, suit says. Sonos, Inc. is an audio technology company, headquartered in Santa Barbara, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 402 W. Broadway, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 Email: jnelson@milberg.com SONY INTERACTIVE: US Judge Rejects Settlement in Coupon Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Sam Sepiol, writing for Insider Gaming, reports that a US Judge has rejected Sony PlayStation's settlement for the class-action lawsuit, calling it a 'coupon settlement'. The class-action lawsuit in question has been ongoing since 2019, when PlayStation stopped retailers like Best Buy and GameStop from selling download codes for digital games. The class size includes more than 4.4 million individuals, alleging that Sony is placing 'unfair prices' in the platform's digital store and monopolising the sale of these games. The company's effort to settle this case has been rejected. Sony PlayStation Tried to Pay $7.8 million in Electronic Credits to Settle the Case Spotted by The Gamer, a report from Reuters reveals that U.S. District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin has rejected Sony PlayStation's class action settlement. The console manufacturer was willing to pay $7.8 million in electronic credits to the impacted users to settle the case. Martinez-Olguin has referred to the settlement as a "coupon settlement", which is "generally disfavored". The Judge has asked Sony to demonstrate how the "value and structure of this settlement remain defensible." Martinez-Olguin also wants to see an estimate of what individual class members would receive, along with examples of comparable cases. Sony PlayStation has stated that they are settling to reduce further costs and the "distraction of continued litigation". The settlement period includes all eligible game purchases made between April 2019 and December 2023. The plaintiff's lawyer has stated that they are seeking up to approximately "33% of the settlement for legal fees, or about $2.61 million." If $7.8 million store credits were to be distributed by 4.4 million impacted users, then each individual would receive less than $2 as a settlement in store credits. In other news, the pricing of PlayStation Store items has led to a class action lawsuit in the Netherlands. [GN] SOUNDHOUND AI: Appoints Lead Plaintiff for Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- TradingView reports that lead plaintiff has been appointed to represent investors in the class action against SoundHound AI Inc. Court: N.D. California Case: 5:25-cv-02915 What is this lawsuit about? On March 4, 2025, SoundHound delayed its 2024 10-K, citing unresolved accounting issues from acquisitions and ongoing material weaknesses in financial controls. Following this, SoundHound dropped nearly 6%. Then, on March 28, 2025, shareholders filed a claim against SoundHound. What can you do to recover your losses now? We're keeping track of all updates and will notify investors about potential recovery. More than 600 companies are currently facing securities class action lawsuits, and over 100 are already paying settlements. Connect your brokerage account to automatically check which ones you may have missed. [GN] SOUTHDOWN COFFEE: Fernandez Seeks Equal Web Access for the Blind ---------------------------------------------------------------- DEVIN FERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHDOWN COFFEE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-03694 (E.D.N.Y., July 3, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.southdowncoffee.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's Website, blind and visually impaired customers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the facilities, products, and services Defendant offers to the public on the Website. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. SOUTHDOWN COFFEE, LLC operates the website that serves as a specialty coffee roaster based in Long Island, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com SOUTHWOOD FINANCIAL: Solivan Files FDCA Suit in D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Southwood Financial LLC, et al. The case is captioned as SAMANTHA SOLIVAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SOUTHWOOD FINANCIAL LLC, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-12033-MEF-MAH (D.N.J., June 23, 2025). The suit is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act. Southwood Financial LLC is a financial services firm based in Sterling, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (973) 227-5900 Facsimile: (973) 244-0019 Email: jkj@legaljones.com SPECIALTY NETWORKS: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $2.6MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Adler of The HIPAA Journal reports that Specialty Networks LLC, a Cardinal Health company that provides radiology information systems and PPS analytics to urology, gastroenterology, and rheumatology practices to improve patient outcomes, has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit stemming from a 2023 data breach. The data breach was reported to the HHS' Office for Civil Rights (OCR) as affecting 411,037 individuals. The Chattanooga, TN-based firm announced on August 15, 2024, that hackers had access to its network from December 11, 2023, to December 18, 2023, and exfiltrated files containing sensitive patient data. The stolen data included names, dates of birth, driver's license numbers, Social Security numbers, medical record numbers, treatment and condition information, diagnoses, medications, and health insurance information. Six class action lawsuits were filed against Specialty Networks, LLC, and Prime Imaging, LLC in response to the data breach. The lawsuits were materially and substantively similar, had overlapping claims, and were based on the same facts; therefore, they were consolidated into a single action -- Smith et al. v. Specialty Networks et al. -- in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Chattanooga. The plaintiffs alleged negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, and invasion of privacy. Soon after the consolidated class action lawsuit was filed, all parties began discussing a potential settlement and scheduled mediation on February 3, 2025. Mediation was successful, and an agreement in principle was reached on a settlement. The terms have now been agreed, and the settlement has received preliminary approval from the court. Under the terms of the settlement, the defendants will establish a $2.6 million settlement fund that includes three types of benefits for class members. Class members consist of the 395,866 individuals who were notified about the data breach by mail and 12,234 individuals who did not have adequate address information and were notified via a substitute breach notice. Class members are entitled to three years of credit monitoring and identity theft services, which include a $1 million fraud insurance policy. Class members may also submit a claim for reimbursement of documented losses fairly traceable to the data breach up to a maximum of $5,000 per class member. Alternatively, individuals not wishing to submit a claim for reimbursement of losses may choose to receive a cash payment, which is estimated to be $100. The cash payments may be higher or lower depending on the number of valid claims received and will be paid pro rata. The cash payments will exhaust the settlement fund. The settlement also includes injunctive relief. The defendants have agreed to make adjustments to their cybersecurity practices over the next three years, and those investments have been valued at $300,000 over that period. Benefits will be paid from the settlement fund once attorneys' fees, expenses, class representative awards, and settlement administration costs have been deducted. Attorneys' fees will be up to one-third of the settlement fund, and class representative awards will be $2,500 per named plaintiff. The plaintiffs and class were represented by J. Gerard Stranch, IV and Grayson Wells of Stranch, Jennings & Garvey, PLLC. [GN] SPERRY'S RESTAURANTS: Paris Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- JULIA PARIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SPERRY'S RESTAURANTS, INC., SPERRY'S RESTAURANT-COOL SPRINGS, LLC, AL THOMAS, and SAM SANCHEZ, Case No. 3:25-cv-00795 (M.D. Tenn., July 16, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, unlawfully retained tips, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants comprise a single enterprise that owns and operates two Sperry's restaurants in the Nashville, Tennessee, area at which Plaintiff and those similarly situated have worked as tipped employees (including, but not limited to, servers and bartenders). These two restaurants are Sperry's Restaurant in Belle Meade and Sperry’s Restaurant in Cool Springs. The Defendants generally paid Plaintiff and those she seeks to represent an hourly wage lower than $7.25 per hour under the tip credit provisions of the FLSA. Throughout this complaint, the Plaintiff and these similarly situated employees are referred to as "Tip-Credit Employees." However, Defendants failed to satisfy the requirements for utilizing the tip credit to meet their minimum-wage and overtime obligations to their Tip-Credit Employees by failing to provide Tip-Credit Employees with the required notice before taking the tip credit. As a result of these violations, the Defendants are not permitted to rely on the tip credit to satisfy their minimum wage and overtime obligations under the FLSA and have failed to pay the required minimum wage, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 206, and overtime wage, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 207. SPERRY'S RESTAURANTS, INC. is a restaurant based in Nashville, Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Garrison, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. Nicole A. Chanin, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, PLLC 200 31st Avenue North Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com nchanin@barrettjohnston.com ST. JOSEPH'S: Bishop Alleges Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------- CEDRIC BISHOP, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. TRUSTEES OF ST. JOSEPH'S COLLEGE, Case No. 1:25-cv-05788 (S.D.N.Y., July 15, 2025) contends that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.sjcme.edu, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. During the Plaintiff's visits to the Website, including on February 3, 2025 and the last occurring on February 4, 2025, in an attempt to purchase Men's Plaid Shorts, from Defendant, and to view the information on the Website, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping and recreational experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public; and that denied Plaintiff the full enjoyment of the goods, and services of the Website by being unable to purchase Men's Plaid Shorts. Mr. Bishop is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. The Defendant offers the commercial website to the public. That Website offers features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services offered by Defendant and which Defendant ensures delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal SURF LINE: Wilson Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users ------------------------------------------------------------ HOWARD WILSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SURF LINE HAWAII, LTD., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07568 (N.D. Ill., July 7, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.jamsworld.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint alleges that Defendant's website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's website, blind and visually-impaired customers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the facilities, products, and services Defendant offers to the public on its website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Surf Line Hawaii, Ltd. operates the website that offers men's and boy's clothing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com TARO PHARMACEUTICALS: Appeals Experts' Opinions Order to 3rd Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- TARO PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled In Re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:16-md-02724, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This multidistrict antitrust litigation concerns alleged price-fixing schemes involving numerous generic drugs and generic drug manufacturers. The Defendants have moved to exclude the opinions of certain of End-Payer Plaintiffs' experts. On Dec. 3, 2024, Judge Cynthia M. Rufe entered an Order granting EPPs' motions to partially exclude the opinions of Dr. James W. Hughes, Dr. Erin E. Trish, and Dr. Laura E. Happe; granting in part EPPs' motion to partially exclude Dr. Richard J. Gilbert's opinions to exclude the opinions set forth in section IV.H of his report; and denying the Defendants' motion to exclude the opinions of Dr. James T. McClave, Dr. Russell L. Lamb, Ms. Laura R. Craft, and Mr. Eric J. Miller. The appellate case is entitled In Re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 25-2222, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on July 8, 2025. [BN] TESLA INSURANCE: Faces Consumer Class Action Suit in California --------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Scarcella, writing for Reuters, reports that electric vehicle maker Tesla's (TSLA.O), auto insurance unit has been hit with a consumer lawsuit in California accusing it of deliberately scheming to delay and minimize insurance payouts, causing some motorists to abandon claims or pay out of pocket. The proposed class action filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court on July 11 alleged Tesla Insurance failed to implement and maintain sufficient claims-handling procedures for its customers. Tesla, led by billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk, offers insurance policies in California to Tesla drivers and also to drivers of non-Tesla vehicles. The lawsuit, which seeks unspecified monetary damages, alleges Tesla violated California's unfair competition law and seeks to represent potentially thousands of motorists in California who had bought insurance from the company. Tesla and a lawyer for the named plaintiff did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Tesla launched its auto insurance unit in 2019, promising what Musk at the time called a "vastly better" service than rival providers. A Reuters investigation in 2023 showed a raft of consumer complaints about Tesla's insurance claims processing, and also scrutiny from state regulators. The Ohio Department of Insurance at least twice in 2023 found Tesla had violated state regulations for claims handling, including for a lack of timely communications with a policyholder. The plaintiff in the new lawsuit in California, a resident of North Hollywood, purchased a Tesla insurance policy in October for a leased Dodge Ram pickup truck, according to the lawsuit. After the vehicle was stolen this year, he filed an insurance claim under his policy but struggled to get in touch with Tesla, with calls to adjusters frequently unanswered, the lawsuit said. The policyholder has yet to receive compensation or other benefits, the complaint said. Tesla's "wrongful and unreasonable delays and refusals to act" have forced consumers to wait months or even years without reliable transportation or funds needed for repairs or a replacement vehicle, the lawsuit said. The case is Carlos Magana v. Tesla Insurance Co, Los Angeles Superior Court, No. 25STCV20622. For plaintiff: Maro Burunsuzyan and David Scott of the Law Offices of Maro Burunsuzyan For defendant: No appearance yet [GN] THANG BOTANICALS: Faces K.K. Suit Over 7-OH Tablets' Deceptive Ads ------------------------------------------------------------------ K.K. and Q.H., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THANG BOTANICALS, INC., and FTLS HOLDINGS LLC, collectively doing business as 7ΩHMZ, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CGC-25-626929 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., July 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law, and California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, unjust enrichment, fraud by omission, and breach of implied warranty. The case arises from the Defendants' false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of 7-Hydroxymitragynine ("7-OH") tablet products. According to the complaint, the Defendants have intentionally failed to disclose that 7-OH is extremely addictive and, as a result, tens of thousands of unsuspecting consumers have developed 7-OH dependencies that cause them serious physical, psychological, and financial harm. Had the Plaintiffs known about the dangers of 7-OH consumption, they would not have purchased the products or would have paid less than they did for them. Thang Botanicals, Inc. is a biotechnology solutions company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. FTLS Holdings LLC is a company that owns the trademark for the "7ΩHMZ" brand, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. Scott G. Braden, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 9171 Towne Centre Dr., Ste. 180 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (619) 762-1910 Facsimile: (858) 313-1850 Email: todd@lcllp.com scott@lcllp.com TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Quintero Sues Over Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH QUINTERO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05541 (S.D.N.Y., July 3, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failing to secure and protect prospective students' and employees' highly sensitive personally identifiable information. In or around 2024, the Plaintiff applied for admission to Columbia University, with the application requiring he provide certain PII, where he was admitted and enrolled beginning Fall 2024. On July 2, 2025, the Plaintiff received the Notice Email, wherein he was advised about a data breach. The Plaintiff and the Class have been placed at a substantial risk of harm in the form of credit fraud or identity theft and have incurred and will likely incur additional damages, including spending substantial amounts of time monitoring accounts and records, in order to prevent and mitigate credit fraud, identity theft, and financial fraud, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff and the Class have suffered severe emotional distress as a result of their PII being compromised and will continue to suffer for an indefinite period of time, the complaint notes. Additionally, the Plaintiff and the Class have suffered or are at increased risk of suffering from, inter alia, the loss of the opportunity to control how their PII is used, the diminution in the value and/or use of their PII entrusted to Defendant, and loss of privacy. Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York is a not-for-profit, private educational institution.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Thomas Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARY THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY d/b/a COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05561 (S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy/intrusion upon seclusion, and unjust enrichment/quasi contract, and violation of New York Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach. 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. Trustees of Columbia University, doing business as Columbia University, is a higher education institution based in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven Sukert, Esq. Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: sukert@kolawyers.com ostrow@kolawyers.com TZ INSURANCE: Connor Suit Seeks Sales Agents' OT Pay Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- KIMBERLY DOTSON and JENNIFER CONNOR, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. TZ INSURANCE SOLUTIONS, LLC d.b.a. TRANZACT, a New Jersey Company, Case No. 2:25-cv-13323 (D.N.J., July 15, 2025) is a collective and class action brought seeking payment for all time worked, including overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, the Defendant employs remote, hourly Technical Support Specialists -- Sales Agents that provide over-the-phone support to Defendant's customers. More specifically, Sales Agents assist Defendant's customers in finding and obtaining Medicare health plan policies through the various insurance carriers that Defendant contracts with. The time Sales Agents spend booting up and logging into or shutting down and logging out these programs and applications before, during and after their shifts is compensable because the programs and applications are an integral, indispensable and important part of the Sales Agents' work, and they cannot perform their jobs effectively without them. According to Defendant's website, Defendant "drives sales for the top insurance brands" and "offers a well-rounded suite of marketing solutions to help insurance companies stay ahead of the competition.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq. ASH LAW, PLLC 43000 W. 9 Mile Rd., Ste. 301 Novi, MI 48375 Telephone: (833) NWHLPAY (833) 694-5729 E-mail: cash@nationalwagelaw.com - and - Oscar Rodriguez, Esq. RODRIGUEZ LAW PLC 402 W. Liberty St. Ann Arbor, MI 48103 Telephone: (734) 662-4426 E-mail: oscar@orodlaw.com - and - Nicholas Conlon, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place #400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Telephone: (201) 630-0000 E-mail: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com ULTA SALON: Faces Garvey Over Misleading Conscious Beauty Program ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARGARET PEGGI LOUISE GARVEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ULTA SALON, COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-05965-SK (N.D. Cal., July 15, 2025) is a class action lawsuit against the Defendant for misleading consumers through its marketing and sale of products as part of the "Conscious Beauty (TM) at Ulta Beauty (TM)" program and claims that certain products are made with "Clean Ingredients" that excludes ingredients on Ulta Beauty's "Made Without List (TM)," which is Ulta's set of standards that considers the human and environmental impact of ingredients. Ulta claims that its "Made Without List (TM)" is designed to provide transparency to help consumers make informed beauty and personal care product choices. Ulta requires brands participating in the "Clean Ingredients" pillar of the "Conscious Beauty (TM) at Ulta Beauty (TM)" program to all formulate their hair, skin, makeup, body and fragrance products to the "Made Without List (TM)" standards which prohibit the use of certain categories of ingredients. Accordingly, Ulta created and utilized the "Conscious Beauty" and "Clean" marketing for its own profit, marketing the "Conscious Beauty (TM) at Ulta Beauty (TM)" program with claims that the Products are made with "Clean Ingredients" that comply with Ulta Beauty's "Made Without List (TM)" as an easy way for consumers to identity purportedly cleaner products, without having to do any of their own analysis, and thereby creating an easier buying experience for consumers and increasing the likelihood that consumers would choose to shop at Ulta, over other retailers, for their beauty product, says the suit. The Plaintiff is concerned about clean and green products that are healthy and environmentally friendly and seeks out products that are clean and do not contain any unwanted or harmful ingredients that have adverse health consequences and/or could negatively impact the environment. The Defendant is a U.S. beauty retailer and a beauty destination for cosmetics, fragrance, skin care products, hair care products and salon services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Morris, Esq. Shane. A. Greenberg, Esq. MORRIS LAW FIRM 4001 W. Alameda Avenue, Suite 202 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (747) 283-1144 Facsimile: (747) 283-1143 E-mail: jmorris@jamlawyers.com sgreenberg@jamlawyers.com - and - Daniel J. Orlowsky, Esq. ORLOWSKY LAW, LLC 7777 Bonhomme, Suite 1910 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 725-5151 Facsimile: (314) 455-7375 E-mail: dan@orlowskylaw.com - and - Adam M. Goffstein, Esq. GOFFSTEIN LAW, LLC 7777 Bonhomme, Suite 1910 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 725-5151 Facsimile: (314) 455-7278 E-mail: adam@goffsteinlaw.com UNIQLO USA: Tao's BIPA Lawsuit Remanded to State Court ------------------------------------------------------ Judge Valerie Caproni of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the plaintiff's motion to remand the case captioned as BRIAN TAO, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, -against- UNIQLO USA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 24-cv-06781-VEC (S.D.N.Y.) to state court. Plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees and costs is denied, and defendant's motion to dismiss is denied as moot. Defendant is a retail fashion company that sells its products in physical storefronts and on its website at http://www.uniqlo.com and web application. Defendant is headquartered in New York. Plaintiff Brian Tao brings a putative class action against Defendant UNIQLO USA, LLC alleging violations of California Civil Code Section 1670.8 (commonly referred to as the "Yelp Law"). Defendant timely removed the action to federal court and then moved to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff opposed the motion and moved to remand the case to state court and for an award of attorney's fees. Defendant opposed the motion. Plaintiff is a California resident who created an account to purchase clothing on Defendant's web application. To create an account, Plaintiff was required to agree to Defendant's Terms and Conditions. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's Terms violate the Yelp Law. At the time Plaintiff filed the Complaint, Defendant's Terms included a provision titled "Trademarks and Service Marks". Plaintiff alleges that this provision violates the Yelp Law because it restricts customers' rights to use Defendant's name, graphics, designs, logos, and commercial markings in any manner that disparages or discredits Defendant or the Uniqlo brand. Plaintiff's Motion to Remand The Court finds because Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged an injury, he does not have Article III standing. As a result, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Without subject matter jurisdiction, this case must be remanded to state court. According to Judge Caproni, "Plaintiff has failed to allege that he faced a credible threat of enforcement. Plaintiff simply has not alleged facts from which the Court could reasonably infer that it is likely that Plaintiff intended to make statements that would violate the Terms or that the Terms will be enforced against Plaintiff. Those are clear requirements for Article III standing in the pre-enforcement context." Plaintiff's Request for Attorneys' Fees and Costs Plaintiff argues that Defendant's failure to establish that Plaintiff has Article III standing merits an award of attorneys' fees and costs. He argues that Defendant's removal strategy, which consisted of removing the case to federal court and then immediately undermining federal jurisdiction with a motion to dismiss for a lack of standing has been considered a dubious, dilatory tactic by many federal courts. The Court finds an award of attorneys' fees and costs is not appropriate in this case because Defendant had a reasonable basis to remove this case to federal court. Defendant met the diversity and amount-in-controversy requirements of CAFA. According to the Court, although Defendant highlighted Plaintiff's lack of Article III standing, which Defendant has the burden of maintaining because it removed the case to federal court, Plaintiff is not entitled to attorneys' fees just because Defendant's arguments turned out to be unpersuasive. A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KtkeF5 from PacerMonitor.com. UNITED STATES: Appeals Class Cert. and Injunction Orders in Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al. are taking an appeal from court orders granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled D.B.U., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-CV-01163-CNS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The Plaintiffs are civil immigration detainees who fear imminent transfer from this judicial district and removal without adequate notice. Their fear is premised on the President's use of the Alien Enemies Act to remove noncitizens from the United States. On Apr. 12, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for temporary restraining order (TRO) and a motion to certify class. On Apr. 22, 2025, Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney granted the Plaintiffs' motion for TRO. On Apr. 25, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction. On May 6, 2025, Judge Sweeney entered Orders granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and motion to certify class. The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have met their burden of showing they are entitled to preliminary injunctive relief. Moreover, the Plaintiffs have satisfied Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(2)'s requirements by a preponderance of the evidence. The appellate case is entitled D.B.U., et al. v. Trump, et al., Case No. 25-1265, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on July 8, 2025. [BN] Petitioners-Appellees D.B.U., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Lee Gelernt, Esq. Omar C. Jadwat, Esq. Monique Sherman, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 549-2500 - and - Tamara F. Goodlette, Esq. Laura Lunn, Esq. ROCKY MOUNTAIN IMMIGRANT ADVOCACY NETWORK 7301 Federal Boulevard, Suite 300 Westminster, CO 80030 Telephone: (303) 589-6401 (720) 370-9100 - and - Annie Kurtz, Esq. Timothy MacDonald, Esq. Emma Kristine Mclean-Riggs, Esq. Sara R. Neel, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF COLORADO 303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 350 Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 777-5482 Respondents-Appellants DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al. are represented by: Kevin T. Traskos, Esq. OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 1801 California Street, Suite 1600 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 454-0100 - and - Michael Velchik, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Room 7209 Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 860-8388 UNITED STATES: Appeals Preliminary Injunction Order in G.F.F. Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ DONALD TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Petitioners' motion for a preliminary injunction in the lawsuit entitled G.F.F., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-2886, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Petitioners seek to challenge the March 2025 Presidential Proclamation entitled "Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren De Aragua" and/or its implementation. On Apr. 8, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for temporary restraining order (TRO), which Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein granted on Apr. 9, 2025. On May 14, 2025, Judge Hellerstein entered an Order granting the Petitioners' motion for a preliminary injunction. The Respondents (excluding the President with respect to any injunctive relief), their agents, representatives, and all persons or entities acting in concert with them are hereby: (1) enjoined from enforcing the Presidential Proclamation entitled "Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of The United States by Tren De Aragua" in the Southern District of New York; (2) ordered not to regulate, restrain, detain, or remove Petitioners, or any members of the certified class, from the United States under the Proclamation, regardless of their present location; (3) ordered not to transfer Petitioners, including members of the certified class, from the Southern District of New York, provided, however, that nothing in this Order shall be construed to bar the transfer, removal, or release from immigration detention, of Petitioners pursuant to proceedings held under the Immigration and Nationality Act. To the extent class members are transferred, the Court retains jurisdiction and the class members can only be transferred out of the District for removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act or where otherwise consented to by counsel; (4) ordered to provide class counsel with the following for all past, current, and future members of the certified class who have been or will be detained in the Southern District of New York at any point on or after April 8, 2025 and as further set forth in this Order; (5) ordered that after the May 21 conference, further proceedings in this Court shall be stayed pending appeal. Any party may move to lift the stay at any time. It is further ordered that the Petitioners shall not be required to furnish security for costs. The appellate case is entitled G.F.F. v. Trump, Case No. 25-1671, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on July 9, 2025. [BN] Petitioners-Appellees G.F.F., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Lee P. Gelernt, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NEW YORK 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Respondents-Appellants DONALD TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al. are represented by: Benjamin H. Torrance, Esq. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Southern District of New York 86 Chambers Street New York, NY 10007 UNITED STATES: Fired Staff May Pursue Claims Over Termination ------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Wiessner of Thomson Reuters reports that a U.S. civil service board judge has ruled that hundreds of U.S. Department of Interior employees who were fired and then reinstated amid the Trump administration's purge of the federal workforce can pursue claims that their terminations were illegal as a group. Chief Administrative Judge Sara Snyder of the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board in a decision on Thursday, July 17, said the validity of the February mass firing of 1,712 probationary employees at the Interior Department posed a common question that would best be addressed in a class action. Probationary workers typically have less than one year of service in their current roles, though some are longtime federal employees in new jobs, and they are generally easier to fire than career government workers. About 20 similar cases involving different federal agencies are pending at the merit board, collectively challenging the Trump administration's mass firings of roughly 25,000 probationary workers in February. Snyder in May certified a class, in a case involving the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. But the fate of the cases is uncertain because the board, which must review administrative judges' decisions before they can be enforced, does not have a quorum that can issue rulings. Unions and nonprofits also sued in federal court over the mass firings, and many of the probationary workers were reinstated after judges said the terminations were likely illegal. Higher courts paused those decisions pending appeals. Many workers were returned to full duty while some were placed indefinitely on paid administrative leave. At the Interior Department, nearly 1,000 probationary workers were returned to full duty, 274 remain on leave, and nearly 600 resigned or accepted buyouts to quit, according to Snyder's decision. The class certified by Snyder does not include 323 workers who accepted buyouts, or an unidentified number who have completed their one-year probationary periods or were fired over their individual conduct or performance. The White House and the Interior Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The department manages and conserves federal and tribal lands, including national parks, and their natural resources. Danny Rosenthal, a lawyer for the workers who filed the complaint, said the decision was a critical milestone in the case. "Practically speaking, this means that workers will have the opportunity to bring their claims forward together, giving more people a real chance to seek justice for their firings," Rosenthal said in a statement. The plaintiffs in all of the pending cases claim the mass terminations of probationary employees amounted to layoffs that are supposed to be guided by complex civil service rules. They are seeking to have the terminations removed from their personnel files. Probationary workers have limited legal protections compared with other civil servants, but agencies are still required to explain why they are being fired and give them advance notice of mass layoffs. President Donald Trump fired Cathy Harris, a Democrat on the three-member merit board in January and the term of another Democratic board member expired in February, leaving the board with a single Republican member and no quorom to decide workers' appeals. The U.S. Supreme Court in May allowed Harris to be removed while her lawsuit challenging her termination plays out. It could set important precedent on Trump's powers to remove officials from agencies designed to be independent from the White House. The merit board's resources are likely to be strained by an influx of new cases when a quorum is restored. About 10,800 appeals have been filed with the board since Trump took office in January. The case is Interior Probationary Employees Class v. Department of the Interior, U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, No. DC-0752-25-1550-I-1. For the class: Danny Rosenthal of James & Hoffman For the Interior Department: Not available [GN] VEGA CAPITAL: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Mish Suit to 7th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- VEGA CAPITAL LONDON, LTD., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Mish International Monetary Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Vega Capital London, Ltd., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-04577, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Plaintiff brings this suit against the Defendants after losing money in connection to the trading of the May 2020 NYMEX West Texas Intermediate "WTI" crude oil futures contract. The Plaintiff blames his losses to the Defendants, which facilitated his access to a clearinghouse, and Vega's owner, Adrian Spires. On Apr. 1, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Manish S. Shah granted on June 24, 2025. The Court concludes that the Plaintiff has satisfied the requirements for the class certification in this case. The appellate case is entitled Mish International Monetary Inc. v. Vega Capital London, Ltd., et al., Case No. 25-8013, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on July 8, 2025. [BN] Defendants-Petitioners VEGA CAPITAL LONDON, LTD., et al. are represented by: Michael P. Kelly, Esq. AKERMAN LLP 750 Ninth St., N.W., Suite 750 Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 824-1716 Email: michael.kelly@akerman.com - and - Amy Graham Doehring, Esq. Shawn M. Taylor, Esq. Lauren Goddard, Esq. 71 S. Wacker Drive, 47th Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 634-5700 Email: amy.doerhing@akerman.com shawn.taylor@akerman.com lauren.goddard@akerman.com - and - Joel S. Forman, Esq. 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 37th Floor New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 880-3800 Email: joel.forman@akerman.com - and - Matthew L. Mazur, Esq. Roger A. Burlingame, Esq. Ryan Dykhouse, Esq. DECHERT LLP 25 Cannon Street London EC4M 5UB United Kingdom Telephone: +44 (20) 7184 7000 Email: matthew.mazur@dechert.com roger.burlingame@dechert.com ryan.dykhouse@dechert.com - and - Steven E. Bizar, Esq. Julia Chapman, Esq. DECHERT LLP 2929 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 Telephone: (215) 994 4000 Email: steven.bizar@dechert.com julia.chapman@dechert.com VNGR BEVERAGE: Agrees to Settle Soda False Ads' Suit for $8.9MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Poppi has agreed to pay $8.9 million to resolve claims it falsely advertised its soda products as "gut healthy." The Poppi class action settlement benefits consumers who purchased any flavor or package size of Poppi beverages between Jan. 23, 2020, and July 18, 2025. Plaintiffs in the Poppi class action lawsuit accused Poppi of falsely advertising its products as "gut healthy." According to the plaintiffs, these claims were not backed by scientific evidence. Poppi, a sparkling prebiotic drink, has not admitted to any wrongdoing but agreed to this $8.9 million settlement to resolve the class action allegations. Under the terms of the Poppi class action settlement, class members can receive a cash payment based on the number of Poppi products they purchased. Class members who provide proof of purchase can receive up to $0.75 per single can, $3 per four-pack, $6 per eight-pack and $9 per 12- or 15-pack. Exact payments may vary depending on the number of claims filed with the settlement. Class members who do not provide proof of purchase can receive a maximum payment of $16 per household. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Sept. 26, 2025. The final approval hearing for the Poppi settlement is scheduled for Nov. 20, 2025. To receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid claim form by Sept. 26, 2025. Who's Eligible Consumers who purchased any flavor or package size of Poppi beverages between Jan. 23, 2020, and July 18, 2025 Potential Award $16 cap without proof of purchase. Proof of Purchase A receipt or other documentation from a third-party commercial source (i.e., a store or online retailer) that reasonably establishes the fact and date of purchase of products between Jan. 23, 2020, and July 18, 2025. 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 09/26/2025 Case Name In re: VNGR Beverage LLC Litigation, et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-03229-HSG, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division Final Hearing 11/20/2025 Settlement Website PoppiSettlement.com Claims Administrator In re VNGR Beverage LLC Litigation Settlement Administrator PO Box 301134 Los Angeles, CA 90030-1134 admin@poppisettlement.com (833) 586-8111 Class Counsel Marie A. McCrary GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP L. Timothy Fisher BURSOR & FISHER PA Defense Counsel Daniel J. O'Keefe MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP [GN] VOYAGER ACQUISITION: M&A Investigates Merger With Veraxa Biotech ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Voyager Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ: VACH) related to its merger with Veraxa Biotech AG. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, each Voyager Class A and B ordinary share will be cancelled and exchanged for one Class A ordinary share in the combined company. Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/voyager-acquisition-corp/. 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] WALT DISNEY: Court Appoints DiCello Levitt as Co-Lead Counsel ------------------------------------------------------------- On July 21, 2025, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California appointed DiCello Levitt as Interim Co-Lead Counsel in an antitrust class action lawsuit against The Walt Disney Company. DiCello Levitt, along with Lite DePalma Greenberg & Afanador, represents a proposed class of FuboTV subscribers who allege that Disney engaged in anticompetitive conduct in the market for streaming live pay television (SLPTV) services. According to the lawsuit, Disney used its control over ESPN and its contracts with SLPTV providers to drive up prices for subscribers of FuboTV, a popular live sports streaming service and competitor. These agreements allegedly required providers to include ESPN in their basic channel packages and prevented Disney from offering lower prices to one provider without matching that price for all others. The plaintiffs argue that these terms allowed Disney to keep prices artificially high for subscribers of FuboTV. The case is Heather Biddle, et al. v. The Walt Disney Company, No. 5:22-cv-07317 (N.D. Cal.). The DiCello Levitt attorneys involved in this case include Greg Asciolla, Carrie Syme, and Steve Jodlowski. About DiCello Levitt At DiCello Levitt, we're dedicated to achieving justice for our clients through class action, securities, financial services, public entity, environmental, mass tort, antitrust, business-to-business, whistleblower, personal injury, and civil and human rights litigation. Our lawyers are highly respected for their ability to litigate and win cases -- whether by trial, settlement, or otherwise -- for people who have suffered harm, global corporations that have sustained significant economic losses, and public clients seeking to protect their citizens' rights and interests. Every day, we put our reputations -- and our capital -- on the line for our clients. DiCello Levitt has achieved top recognition as Plaintiffs Firm of the Year and Trial Innovation Firm of the Year by The National Law Journal, in addition to its top-tier Chambers and Benchmark ratings. For more information about the firm, including recent trial victories and case resolutions, please visit www.dicellolevitt.com. [GN] WATERS CORP: M&A Investigates Merger With BD & Co's Biosciences --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Waters Corporation (NYSE: WAT) related to its merger with BD and Company's Biosciences and Diagnostic Solutions. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, existing Waters shareholders are expected to own approximately 60.8% of the combined company. Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/waters-corporation/. 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] WESTERN ASSET: Western PA Sues Over Misleading Company Statements ----------------------------------------------------------------- THE WESTERN PA ELECTRICAL EMPLOYEES INSURANCE TRUST FUND, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WESTERN ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, FRANKLIN RESOURCES, INC., and STEPHEN KENNETH LEECH, II, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00937 (W.D. Pa., July 3, 2025) is a securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons and entities that purchased and/or otherwise acquired shares of the "Western Asset US Core Bond Fund" mutual fund classes between January 1, 2021 and October 31, 2023, inclusive, arising under Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5(a), (b), and (c) promulgated thereunder. During the Class Period, Macro Opps invested in several different asset types, including cash securities and related derivatives, including U.S. Treasuries and U.S. Treasury derivatives, investment grade corporate bonds, high yield bonds, and mortgage-backed securities. The complaint alleges that WAMCO's statements were materially false and/or misleading and omitted material information in violation of a duty to disclose such information because they failed to state or disclose these adverse facts pertaining to WAMCO's business, operations, and financial condition, which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (a) throughout the Class Period, Defendants favored certain WAMCO strategies, like Macro Opps, over other WAMCO strategies, like Core and Core Plus; (b) throughout the Class Period, Defendants disfavored certain WAMCO strategies, like Core and Core Plus; (c) any "compliance policies and procedures" that WAMCO maintained "to result in fair allocations of investment opportunities to clients" were either insufficient to ensure that Leech and his WAMCO Team fairly allocated trades among the strategies they managed or were expressly disregarded by Defendants; and (d) any "oversight mechanisms" that WAMCO maintained were either insufficient to monitor Leech and his WAMCO Team or were expressly disregarded by Defendants in order to allow the favoring of certain WAMCO strategies at the expense of other WAMCO strategies. Plaintiff Western PA Electrical Employees Insurance Trust Fund is a multiemployer-defined benefit union pension fund based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Western Asset Management Company, LLC is a limited liability company, SEC-registered investment advisor, and specialist investment manager headquartered in Pasadena, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Richardson, Esq. Kirk B. Burkley, Esq. BERNSTEIN BURKLEY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 601 Grant Street, 9th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 456-8108 Facsimile: (412) 456-8135 E-mail: jrichardson@bernsteinlaw.com kburkley@bernsteinlaw.com - and - Donald A. Broggi, Esq. Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq. Jeffrey P. Jacobson, Esq. The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 24th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 233-6444 Facsimile: (212) 233-6334 E-mail: dbroggi@scott-scott.com tlaughlin@scott-scott.com jjacobson@scott-scott.com WK KELLOGG: Faces Harvey Suit Over Froot Loops' Deceptive Ads ------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Harvey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WK Kellogg Co and Walmart Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-03984 (E.D.N.Y., July 17, 2025) is a consumer class action lawsuit individually, and on behalf of similarly situated consumers who purchased for personal, family or household use the Kellogg's (TM) Froot Loops (TM) with Marshmallows Cereal 16.2 oz. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff purchased the 16 oz. Product in New York in reasonable reliance on the materially misleading and deceptive trade practices and advertising of WK Kellogg Co and its affiliates and Walmart Inc. and its affiliates. In addition to unjustly enriching themselves, the Defendants acted in derogation of New York law. Specifically, the Defendants violated New York General Business Law, New York's consumer protection statutes, and breached various express and implied warranties by manufacturing, marketing, promoting, and selling the Product. Kellogg is a leading manufacturer, marketer and distributor of branded ready-to-eat cereal.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ariana V. Held, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN, P.A. 305 Broadway, Suite 700 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 500-3289 E-mail: ariana@avheld.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***