250731.mbx

250731.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, July 31, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 152 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Removed Van Brunt PFAS Suit to S.D. Fla. 3M COMPANY: Seeks Oral Argument on Bids for Summary Judgment AHOLD DELHAIZE USA: De Jesus Files Suit in D. New Jersey ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Reply to Class Cert Opposition Due August 27 ALL OUT: Paiva Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Disability Discrimination AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Discovery of Class Info in Medal Suit Granted AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. AMERICAN INCOME: McAllister Sues Over Compromised Personal Info AMERICOLLECT INC: Rossi Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Wisconsin ANNE ARUNDEL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Sulkowski Says ANNE ARUNDEL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Tyson Alleges ANNE ARUNDEL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, McKernan Says AOKI GROUP: Herrera Sues Over Disability Discrimination APPADANA INVESTMENT: Wagner Sues Over Discriminative Actions ASG CONCEPTS: Cheli Sues Over Disability Discrimination ASHLYNN MARKETING: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 19 ATLANTIC UNION: Court Narrows Claims in Ray Suit AURA FRAGRANCES: Initial Case Order Entered in Klingenberg Suit AUTOLIV INC: Continues to Defend ARC Inflator Class Suit in Georgia AUTOMATIC DATA: Underpays Life Cycle Consultants, Fernandez Says AYLO USA: Adair Suit Removed to C.D. California BAKER SOLUTIONS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 17, 2026 BICKFORD SENIOR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gaines Alleges BIOHAVEN LTD: Taylor Sues Over 19.53% Drop in Share Price BISCO INDUSTRIES: Court OK's $7.6MM Settlement in Securities Suit BLACK TUX: Charges Consumers With "Junk Fees," Connolly Says BMS HOLDINGS: Failed to Protect Private Info, Gale Says BOSCOV'S DEPARTMENT: Dalton Sues Over Website Inaccessibility BRENNAN'S ROOFING: Sagastume Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages BRIDGES EXPERIENCE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Solorzano Says BRIGHTON CONVALESCENT: Penaflorida Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages CALIFORNIA CANCER ASSOCIATES: Garcia Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee CAMPISI'S INC: Saenz Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Tip Retention CANNON CORPORATION: Settlement Deal in Misso Gets Initial Nod CASHION WINDOWS: Has Until August 12 to File Complaint Response CERTUS HEALTHCARE: Compelled to Supplement Discovery Responses CGI FEDERAL INC: Yager Suit Removed to W.D. Washington CHI LIVING: Hayward Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA CIERANT CORPORATION: Shields Files Suit in D. Connecticut COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Pretrial Management Order Entered in Coney COMMONSPIRIT HEALTH: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Crowe Alleges CONTINUED.COM LLC: Court Dismisses Lovett VPPA Privacy Suit CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE: Herrera Suit Removed to C.D. California CREDIT UNION: Lucero Seeks Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement CRST INTERNATIONAL: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings Tossed as Moot CURIO EMPLOYER: Removes Sanchez Suit to S.D. Calif. CURIUM US: Court Orders Jane Doe to Disclose Identity in Cyber Case CURIUM US: Faces Castillo Suit Over Data Security Failures DIAMOND 7 ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Branch Says DIDONATO'S BOWLING: Cheli Sues Over ADA Non-Compliance DIRTY HOSPITALITY: Faces Miranda Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages ECOSHIELD PEST: Faces Nelson Suit Over Deceptive Sales Practices EFPTR LLC: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts, Monday Alleges FANDANGO MEDIA: Faces Beer and Gonzalez Suit Over Misleading Ads FASHION NOVA: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Sims Suit Claims FASHIONABLE INC: Davis Sues Over Website's Non-Compliance With ADA FAURECIA USA: Jenkins Class Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA FEDERAL EXPRESS: Underpays Package Handlers, Medina Suit Says FIDELITY NATIONAL: Leave to File Class Exhibits Under Seal Sought FINASTRA TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Nyland Says FIRST AFFINITY: Gonzalez Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation FIRST SOLAR: Gallardo Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation FORD MOTOR: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid FOUND HEALTH INC: Lewis Sues Over Unlawful Text Message FRONTIER CREDIT UNION: Betzer Suit Removed to D. Idaho GAVRIELI BRANDS: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Suit Says GEGC 2: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Cordeiro Due March 31, 2026 GEICO GENERAL: Marcelletti's Bid to Compel Discovery OK'd in Part GMRI INC: Amaya Suit Removed to C.D. California GOURMET TECH: Faces Jusuf Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. GT INDEPENDENCE: Meeks Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Under FLSA HAZEL AND OLIVE: Pittman Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind HENKEL US: Griffin Labor Suit Removed from State Ct. to N.D. Cal. HOME OF FRAGRANCES: Lucius Sues Over Disability Discrimination HOME PARTNERS: Sewall Sues Over Misleading Leases HOTEL SUNBORN: Gutierrez Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages I.AM.GIA: J'Nae Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York IMPERIAL MAINTENANCE: Rodrigues Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. INGRAM MICRO HOLDING: Ndiba Files Suit in C.D. California INGRAM MICRO: Chism Sues Over Data Breach INTEGRATED ONCOLOGY: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, McKeehan Says INTEGRATED ONCOLOGY: J.S. Balks at Unprotected Personal Info INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Parties Seek to Amend Class Cert Hearing Sched ISAAC OUAZANA: Court Excludes Goldshine as Expert Witness J & M PLUMBING: Orozco Seeks Plumbers' Unpaid Overtime Wages JEMMA GROUP INC: Bradshaw Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California JF MARKETING: Connor Files TCPA Suit in D. South Carolina JILCO INC: Website Not Accessible to the Blind, Davis Suit Claims JINHUA ZOU: Market America Suit Removed to M.D. North Carolina JOSEPH VICARI: Wagner Sues Over Discriminative Actions KAPLAN NORTH AMERICA: Vaccaro Suit Removed to C.D. California KARTON LOGISTICS: Rios Files Suit in Conn. Super. Ct. KASKAID HOSPITALITY: Bareg Files Suit in Minn. 4th Judicial Dist. KEURIG: Gives No Notice of Rights re Lie Detector Tests, Hwang Says KEYSIGHT TECHNOLOGIES: Yamamoto Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices KIMCO OF TAMPA: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property KINDER MORGAN: Continues to Defend ERISA Class Suit in Texas KISWIRE INC: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response LAKEWAY ACHIEVEMENT: Barnette Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages LEAD SHERPA: Moonsawmy Files TCPA Suit in D. Colorado LEE ENTERPRISES: Napier Suit Removed to S.D. Iowa LENOVO INC: Filing for Bid to Certify Class Due Sept. 5 LEON & GEORGE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Davis Says LISI AEROSPACE: Omorogieva Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. LIT FINANCIAL: Kirstein Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania LYNCHBURG SOAP: Faces Pittman Suit Over Website's Access Barriers MASAYA TRADING: Evans Sues Over Alleged ADA Violations MAXTACS INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Ortiz Alleges MERCURY MANAGEMENT: Bid to Approve Settlement in Caldwell Tossed METROPOLITAN LIFE: Blackoak Life Sues Over Unlawful Rate Increase MISS ROSIER: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Pittman Says MITRA-9 BRANDS: Palmer Sues Over Mislabeled Kratom Products MOTOROLA MOBILITY: Court Narrows Claims in Gabrielli Suit MRM MINING INC: Hoover Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages MULLIGAN SECURITY: Underpays Zone Supervisors, Nicholson Suit Says MY BUD LIFE: Ortiz Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind NCAA: Brantmeier Wins Class Certification Bid NEOGEN CORP: Faces Operating Engineers Over Common Stock Drop NEW HAMPSHIRE: Court Sides with Advocates, Demands Voter Database NEW PORT: Faces Fezy Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls NEXTMARVEL INC: Williams Balks at Unsolicited Text Messages NIKITA BAKER: Seeks to Hold Consideration of Class Cert Bid NIP & TUCK: Radvansky Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid ONLY WHAT: Barton Sues Over Mislabeled Protein Powder Products PAC HOUSING: Final Class Notice Submission in Hills Due August 8 PCH HOTELS & RESORTS: Smith Files FCRA Suit in N.D. Alabama PENNANTPARK INVESTMENT: Clark Sues Over Unprotected Private Info PRIORITY CARE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Turak Suit Says PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Burchett Suit Removed to E.D. Kentucky PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS: Rios Sues Over Layoff Without Advance Notice R1 RCM: Class Action Settlement in Hillbom Suit Gets Initial Nod RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES: Camire Sues Over Private Data Breach RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES: Faces Doe Suit Over Unprotected Private Info RANCO LLC: Ortiz Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind REAL HEALTH: Faces Wilson Suit Over Robocalls in N.D. Georgia REBIZ LLC: Court Refuses to Toss Fry Suit Over Standing Challenge RED ROBIN: Preminger Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts REGIONAL HEALTH: Faces Securities Class Suit in Georgia RESONANT SCIENCES: Court Allows Software Contract Suit to Proceed RHODE ISLAND: Court Tosses Most Claims in Rotondo Prisoner Suit ROBINSON NEVADA: Hansen Sues Over Labor Law Violations ROCK'S DISCOUNT: Garcia Sues Over Unwanted Text Messages ROCKY MOUNTAIN: Berens Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach ROVE LLC: Faces Young Suit Over Blind's Equal Access to Website RUGSUSA LLC: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Ho Suit Due Oct. 27 SACRAMENTO, CA: Class Certification Bid in Hood Due Feb. 18, 2026 SAFEWAY INCORPORATED: Lara Files TCPA Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SANIBEL CAPTIVA: Bilbao Sues Over Unlawful Telephonic Sales Calls SAZERAC CO: Can File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal in McKay SECRET INDUSTRIES: Tracks Web Visitors' Communications, Suit Says SHOES WEST: Hampton Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind SIMPLY DELICIOUS: Hankins & Benavidez Sue For False Product Labels SIX FLAGS: Bid to Extend Case Management Dates Tossed w/o Prejudice SIZZLING PLATTER: Garcia Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA SLI LLC: Patterson Sues Over Vapable Oils' Excessive THC Content SMARTERSWIPE INC: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due May 15, 2026 SO. CAL PETROLEUM: Cortes Suit Removed to C.D. California SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT: McKever Bid for More Time to File Reply OK'd SOUTHWOOD FINANCIAL: Le Sane Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info SPECIALTY NETWORKS: Settlement Deal in Blevins Gets Prelim. Nod SPECIALTY NETWORKS: Settlement Deal in Bryson Gets Prelim. Nod SPECIALTY NETWORKS: Settlement Deal in Cohen Gets Initial OK SPECIALTY NETWORKS: Settlement Deal in Jones Gets Prelim. Approval SPECIALTY NETWORKS: Settlement Deal in Lovell Gets Prelim. Nod SPECIALTY NETWORKS: Settlement Deal in Smith Gets Initial Nod SPLENDID HOSPITALITY: Anderson Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website SREV II PORTFOLIO: Ownby Sues Over Unwanted Telemarketing Messages STARTEK USA: Harris Seeks Initial OK of Settlement STATE FARM: Pitkin Wins Bid for Class Certification STATIONERY STUDIO: Hampton Sues Over Alleged ADA Breaches SUMMER VIBE: Young Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind SURREY REALTY: Filing for Class Cert Bid in McCammon Due August 14 SUSHI EDO: Faces Du Suit Over Alleged Labor Law Violations TARGET CORP: Faces Reese Suit Over Gift Card Scams TD BANK: Dou Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action TD BANK: Parties Seek to Postpone Class Cert Pretrial Deadlines THORNTONS LLC: Removes Montes Suit to N.D. Calif. TIMBERLINE DRILLING: Davis Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages TOYOTA OF DARTMOUTH: Faces Katzeff Over Telephonic Sales Calls TRANSDEV SERVICES: Bid to Further Amend Sched Order Partly OK'd TWG BRL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gallagher Suit Alleges TYNA COLLECTION: Lucius Sues Over Disability Discrimination UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Doe Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. UNIVERSITY UROLOGY: Court Grants Protective Order in DiAmbrose Suit USA GUNDAM: Cole Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website V SHRED: Faces Goldman Class Action Suit Over Deceptive Sales VASSAR COLLEGE: Parties Must Submit Joint Status Letter by August 8 VINTAGE BRAND: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Davis Claims VIRTUAL DINING: Germani Sues Over Telemarketing Text Messages VOLCANO STAR: Fetherolf Sues Over Wage and Hour Law Violations VOLUNTEER BEHAVIORAL: Mitchell Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA VOLVO CAR: Saleh Sues Over Defective Vehicle Batteries VPC PIZZA: Hampton Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind WALGREEN EASTERN: Monks Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts WELLS FARGO: Baird Suit Removed to N.D. California WILSHIRE LAW: Faces Young Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls WYNDHAM VACATION: Lamar Wage & Hour Suit Remanded to State Court XTO ENERGY: Court Redacts Transcript in Kriley Class Suit ZALE DELAWARE: Luis Suit Removed to S.D. California ZUMPANO PATRICIOS: Manning Files Suit in S.D. Florida ********* 3M COMPANY: Removed Van Brunt PFAS Suit to S.D. Fla. ---------------------------------------------------- In the case styled LAWRENCE VAN BRUNT, LAURA FRANCHINI, ROBERT GLICK, LINDA HAGYARI, JEFFREY HARMS, WILLIAM KLAUE, SHERMAN LINGO, JUDITH LOWMAN, ERICA MCCRURY, GERALD MOSLEY JR., MARY CHRISTINE MCCLAIN SCOTT, THOMAS SOTSUDA, GEORGE THOMAS, ROBIN WEETH, and LORI ZIEGLER, Plaintiffs v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co.); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION (f/k/a United Technologies Corporation); THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-49, Defendants, Case No. 2025-CA 008490, Defendant Chemguard, Inc. filed a notice to remove the suit from the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on July 9, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-06894-RMG to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs are individuals who seek to hold Chemguard and certain other Defendants liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and/or selling aqueous film-forming foam, which Plaintiffs allege has resulted in contamination and personal injury. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' AFFF contained per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), including perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, and that the use of these substances in AFFF caused personal injury to Plaintiffs and contamination of Plaintiffs' lands, properties, facilities, infrastructures, and resources. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] Defendant Chemguard, Inc. is represented by: Michael D. Sloan, Esq. CARLTON FIELDS, P.A. CityPlace Tower 525 Okeechobee Blvd., Ste. 1200 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 822-2979 Facsimile: (561) 659-7368 E-mail: msloan@carltonfields.com 3M COMPANY: Seeks Oral Argument on Bids for Summary Judgment ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as EARL PARRIS, JR., Individually, And on Behalf of a Class of Persons Similarly Situated, CITY OF SUMMERVILLE, GEORGIA, v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00040-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting oral argument on the motions for summary judgment, Defendants' and Plaintiffs Earl Parris, Jr. and City of Summerville, Georgia's motions to exclude proposed expert testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, and Plaintiff Parris's motion for class certification. Accordingly, the Defendants request that the Court enter an order granting oral argument, pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(E), as to the pending motions for summary judgment, motions to exclude proposed expert testimony pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, and motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs do not join in this motion but will be happy to participate if the Court orders oral argument. The Plaintiff Parris also filed a motion for class certification (Doc. 688), Defendants filed a joint response in opposition, and Plaintiff Parris filed a reply. 3M operates in the fields of industry, worker safety, and consumer goods. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vazLPw at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: James L. Hollis, Esq. Andrea L. Swartzberg, Esq. Christopher Yeilding, Esq. BALCH & BINGHAM LLP 30 Ivan Allen Jr. Blvd. N.W., Suite 700 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 261-6020 E-mail: jhollis@balch.com aswartzberg@balch.com cyeilding@balch.com - and - David E. Nahmias, Esq. Jeffrey A. Kaplan, Jr., Esq. Kurt A. Johnson, Esq. Theodore M. Grossman, Esq. Kevin P. Holewinski, Esq. Louis A. Chaiten, Esq. James R. Saywell, Esq. JONES DAY 1221 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 400 Atlanta, GA 30361 Telephone: (404) 581-8502 E-mail: dnahmias@jonesday.com jkaplan@jonesday.com kajohnson@jonesday.com tgrossman@jonesday.com kpholewinski@jonesday.com lachaiten@jonesday.com jsaywell@jonesday.com - and - Robert B. Remar, Esq. Monica P. White, Esq. SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP 1105 W. Peachtree St. NE, Suite 1000 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 815-3500 Facsimile: (404) 815-3509 E-mail: rremar@sgrlaw.com mwhite@sgrlaw.com - and – Quentin F. Urquhart, Jr., Esq. John W. Sinnott, Esq. IRWIN FRITCHIE URQUHART MOORE & DANIELS LLC 400 Poydras Street, Suite 2700 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 310-2100 Facsimile: (504) 310-2101 E-mail: qurquhart@irwinllc.com jsinnott@irwinllc.com - and – Jackson R. Sharman, III, Esq. M. Christian King, Esq. Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq. W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq. Tatum Jackson, Esq. John M. Johnson, Esq. Lana A. Olson, Esq. Adam K. Peck, Esq. R. Ashby Pate, Esq. Brian P. Kappel, Esq. LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN AND WHITE LLC The Clark Building 400 20th Street North Birmingham, AL 35203 E-mail: jsharman@lightfootlaw.com cking@lightfootlaw.com hprater@lightfootlaw.com lradney@lightfootlaw.com tjackson@lightfootlaw.com jjohnson@lightfootlsaw.com lolson@lightfootlaw.com apeck@lightfootlaw.com apate@lightfootlaw.com bkappel@lightfootlaw.com - and – Blair Joseph Cash, Esq. MOSELEY MARCINAK LAW GROUP LLC Kennesaw, GA 30156 (470) 480-7258 E-mail: blair.cash@momarlaw.com AHOLD DELHAIZE USA: De Jesus Files Suit in D. New Jersey -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ahold Delhaize USA Services, LLC. The case is styled as Christian De Jesus, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Ahold Delhaize USA Services, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-13411-GC-TJB (D.N.J., July 16, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Ahold Delhaize USA Services, LLC -- https://www.aholddelhaize.com/ -- provides support services to Ahold Delhaize USA companies, which include various grocery brands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles J. Kocher, Esq. MCOMBER MCOMBER & LUBER, P.C. 50 Lake Center Drive, Suite 400 Marlton, NJ 08053 Phone: (856) 985-9800 Email: cjk@njlegal.com ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Reply to Class Cert Opposition Due August 27 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARMIDA RUELAS; DE’ANDRE EUGENE COX; BERT DAVIS; KATRISH JONES; JOSEPH MEBRAHTU; DAHRYL REYNOLDS; MONICA MASON; SCOTT ABBEY; and all others similarly situated, v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA; YESENIA SANCHEZ, SHERIFF; ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 4:19-cv-07637-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order setting briefing schedule on motion for class certification as follows: 1. The Defendants' oppositions to the plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be due by July 30, 2025. 2. The Plaintiffs' reply shall be due by Aug. 27, 2025. 3. The hearing on the motion shall remain set for Sept. 18, 2025 at 2 p.m. or at a date set by the Court at its convenience. On April 9, 2025, the Court granted the parties' joint stipulation setting briefing schedule on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On June 18, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification. On July 2, 2025, the plaintiffs' lead trial counsel and founding partner of Siegel, Yee, Brunner & Mehta, Dan Siegel, passed away. On July 9, 2025, the sister-in-law of undersigned plaintiffs' counsel passed away resulting in the undersigned being out on bereavement leave for portions of July. In light of these recent events, the plaintiffs' counsel requested a modest modification to the briefing schedule, to which the defendants' counsel kindly agreed. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=noU6q2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anne Butterfield Weills, Esq. Emilyrose Johns, Esq. Sara Beladi, Esq. SIEGEL, YEE, BRUNNER & MEHTA 475 14th Street, Suite 500 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 839-1200 Facsimile: (510) 444-6698 E-mail: abweills@gmail.com; emilyrose@siegelyee.com; sbeladi@protonmail.com The Defendants are represented by: Cortlin H. Lannin, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP One CityCenter, 850 Tenth Street NW Washington, DC 20001-4956 - and - Gilbert J. Tsai HANSON BRIDGETT LLP 777 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 4200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 ALL OUT: Paiva Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Disability Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRE PAIVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALL OUT BUILDING LLC and WILLIAM QUINN, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-03808 (E.D.N.Y., July 9, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay wages, including overtime, and unlawful wage deductions in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act and disability discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York State Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a construction laborer in the State of New York during the period of about March 22, 2023, through December 7, 2023. All Out Building LLC is a contractor in Lake Grove, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emanuel Kataev, Esq. CONSUMER ATTORNEYS, PLLC 6829 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 412-2421 Facsimile: (718) 489-4155 Email: ekataev@consumerattorneys.com AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Discovery of Class Info in Medal Suit Granted ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as ANITA MEDAL, ESTHER YOO, GAYLE HAYES, and ANTOINETEE STANIEWICZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-01975-JHC (W.D. Wash.), Judge John H. Chun of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery production. Amazon operates an e-commerce marketplace and lists various products online for consumers to purchase, including dietary supplements. Plaintiffs allege that they purchased dietary supplements on Amazon and viewed the structure/function claims on the product labels on Amazon's site and believed that the supplements harbored therapeutic value, and/or they and the marketing claims were reviewed and approved by the FDA. The core allegations state that Amazon systematically omits and/or promotes and sells dietary supplements in its online marketplace with structure/function claims that lack mandatory disclaimers from product labels. Plaintiffs contend that dietary supplements sold on Amazon follow the identical labeling and advertising protocol -- that is they systematically lack label and package requisite disclaimers despite lack of government review and approval with respect to their efficacy and safety. In February 2025, Plaintiffs served discovery requests on Amazon seeking information related to, among other things, (1) unpurchased dietary supplements, (2) the health, safety, and efficacy of the supplements, (3) Amazon's process for document storage and retention, and (4) identification of putative class members. On April 11, 2025, the parties filed a Local Rule 37 Joint Submission regarding discovery disputes. The Court directed the parties to meet and confer and file a joint submission addressing the remaining discovery disputes in light of the Court's ruling on Amazon's request for a protective order on June 16, 2025. The Court addressed Plaintiffs' issues concerning requests for Production Nos. 24-28 and Interrogatory No. 20. Amazon argued that "the parties have not conferred about these discovery requests and asks the Court to deny the motion to allow the parties time to discuss their issues. The Court noted that "the Local Rules' meet-and-confer requirement is not a formalistic prerequisite for judicial resolution," but emphasized that "satisfying the meet and confer requirement will narrow and crystallize what is in dispute and ultimately presented to the Court for resolution." Therefore, the Court denied without prejudice Plaintiffs' motion as to these discovery requests. Plaintiffs argued they were entitled to discovery about potential class members, asserting that such discovery is relevant to the class certification requirements of numerosity, predominance, commonality, and typicality. They also contended that this information is relevant to show materiality of the misrepresentation at issue and, more generally, Amazon's advertising, labeling, and marketing practices." Amazon responded that "the information is sensitive, private and irrelevant to class certification" and argued that compliance with Plaintiffs' request would be unduly burdensome--i.e., filtering through billions of rows of transactional data. The Court observed that the Supreme Court has recognized the importance of permitting class counsel to communicate with potential class members for the purpose of gathering information, even prior to class certification. The Ninth Circuit has noted that the better and more advisable practice for district courts on precertification discovery is to afford the litigants an opportunity to present evidence as to whether a class action was maintainable. Regarding Amazon's burden arguments, the Court found that "Amazon has not provided the Court with any information about how long it would take to or how much it would cost to download and collect the customer information that Amazon possesses. The Court emphasized that just because complying with a discovery request will involve expense or may be time consuming, does not make it unduly burdensome." According to the Court "a protective order can protect the privacy rights of putative class members," noting that numerous courts in this circuit have allowed precertification discovery of putative class members' confidential information subject to a protective order. Accordingly, the Court granted this part of the motion, subject to an appropriate protective order. Regarding document storage and retention requests, Plaintiffs "have withdrawn their requests without waiving their right to request such information later in the discovery process. For discovery requests concerning unpurchased dietary supplements and product safety, Amazon has represented that it intends to comply with the Court's June 11th Order and will provide Plaintiffs with amended, supplemental discovery responses. The Court denied these motions as moot given the parties' accord. The Court also denied the motion without prejudice as to Requests for Production Nos. 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and Interrogatory No. 20. A copy of the Court's order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PD5IsY AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amazon.com Services, LLC. The case is styled as Fabian Martinez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Amazon.com Services, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0009730 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., July 17, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Amazon Logistics -- https://logistics.amazon.com/ -- is Amazon's delivery service.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER LLP 31365 Oak Crest Dr., Ste. 240 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Phone: 805-270-7100 Fax: 805-270-7589 Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com AMERICAN INCOME: McAllister Sues Over Compromised Personal Info --------------------------------------------------------------- KATELYNN MCALLISTER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN INCOME LIFE INSURANCE CO. and GLOBE LIFE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 6:25-cv-00294 (W.D. Tex., July 10, 2025) is brought by Plaintiff, on behalf of herself other members of the Class of similarly situated, whose sensitive personal information was compromised by the data breach. On or about October 17, 2024, Globe Life reported to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it had been the recipient of a hack and exfiltration of sensitive personal information involving approximately five thousand individuals who are or were its clients. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose SPI was compromised as a result of Defendants' failure to: (i) adequately protect consumers' SPI, (ii) adequately warn its current and former customers and potential customers of its inadequate information security practices, and (iii) effectively monitor its platforms for security vulnerabilities and incidents. The Defendants' conduct amounts to negligence and violates state statutes. American Income Life Insurance Co. is a life insurance company based in Waco, Texas which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Globe Life, Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 984-0000 Facsimile: (212) 686-0114 E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com - and - Kent A. Bronson, Esq. BRONSON LEGAL LLC 1216 Broadway, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (609) 255-1031 Facsimile: bronsonlegalny@gmail.com AMERICOLLECT INC: Rossi Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Wisconsin --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Americollect, Inc. The case is styled as Ashton Drake Rossi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Americollect, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-01033-BBC (E.D. Wis., July 16, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Americollect, Inc. -- https://www.americollect.com/ -- is a hospital & health care company based out of Powder Springs, Georgia, United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stefan Coleman, Esq. COLEMAN, PLLC 18117 Biscayne Blvd-Ste 4152 Miami, FL 33160 Phone: (877) 333-9427 Email: law@stefancoleman.com ANNE ARUNDEL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Sulkowski Says ---------------------------------------------------------- PEYTON SULKOWSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANNE ARUNDEL DERMATOLOGY, P.A., Case No. 1:25-cv-02282-GLR (D. Md., July 14, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected health information and personally identifying information, and the preventable data breach of Defendant's inadequately protected computer systems. According to the complaint, on February 14, 2025, and May 13, 2025, cybercriminals hacked into Defendant's computer network systems and stole Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive and confidential PHI and PII stored therein, including their date of birth, patient ID, medical record number, health history, financial information, and appointment history, (collectively, "Private Information"), causing widespread injuries to Plaintiff and Class Members (the "Data Breach"). The Defendant breached these duties owed to Plaintiff and Class Members by failing to safeguard their Private Information they collected and maintained, including by failing to implement industry standards for data security to protect against cyberattacks, which failures allowed criminal hackers to access and steal patients' Private Information from Defendant's care, says the suit. Anne Arundel Dermatology Management, LLC provides dermatological services. The Company offers general and pediatric dermatology, surgery centers, cosmetic dermatology, and skin care products. [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 Email: zhowerton@milberg.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Courtney Maccarone, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT One West Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com maccarone@kolawyers.com ANNE ARUNDEL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Tyson Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- JASON TYSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANNE ARUNDEL DERMATOLOGY, P.A., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02278-GLR (D. Md., July 14, 2025) is a class action on behalf of himself, and all other individuals similarly situated against the Defendant for its failure to secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and private health information of Plaintiff and Class Members. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, as a result of the Defendant's failure to provide reasonable and adequate data security, the Plaintiff's and the Class Members' unencrypted, non-redacted PII/PHI has been exposed to unauthorized third parties. The Plaintiff and the Class are now at much higher risk of identity theft and cybercrimes of all kinds, especially considering the highly sensitive PII/PHI stolen here and the fact that the compromised PII/PHI is likely already being sold on the dark web. Anne Arundel Dermatology Management, LLC provides dermatological services. The Company offers general and pediatric dermatology, surgery centers, cosmetic dermatology, and skin care products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Hilton Wise, Esq. WISE LAW FIRM, PLC 10640 Page Street, Ste 320 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 934-6377 Facsimile: (703) 934-6379 Email: dwise@wiselaw.pro - and - Robert Jimenez, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 201 Sevilla Ave., Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (786) 879-8200 Facsimile: (786) 879-7520 Email: RJimenez@brysonpllc.com ANNE ARUNDEL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, McKernan Says ---------------------------------------------------------- ELIZABETH MCKERNAN, On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ANNE ARUNDEL DERMATOLOGY, P.A. Case No. 1:25-cv-02336-GLR (D. Md., July 18, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted the Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information and Protected Health Information that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed in July 2025 (the Data Breach). Accordingly, the following types of PII and PHI 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. On July 14, 2025, the Defendant issued a Notice of Data Breach to individuals impacted by the Data Breach. The Notice states that Defendant recently detected unauthorized access to certain parts of its IT systems. The Data Breach is believed to have occurred between Feb. 14, 2025, and May 13, 2025, during which time an unidentified third party may have gained access to confidential files. In response to the Data Breach, the Defendant launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the incident. The Defendant's investigation concluded on June 27, 2025. The Defendant's Notice obfuscates the nature of the breach and the threat it posed -- refusing to tell its patients how many people were impacted, how the breach happened, whether Defendant paid a ransom, or why it took the Defendant so long to begin notifying victims that cybercriminals had gained access to their highly private information, says the suit. ANNE ARUNDEL DERMATOLOGY, P.A. is a dermatology practice group headquartered in Linthicum Heights, Maryland. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary E. Howerton, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 223 Duke of Gloucester Street Annapolis, MD 21401 Telephone: (410) 269-6620 Facsimile: (410) 269-1235 E-mail: zhowerton@milberg.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Facsimile: (317) 636-2593 E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com athomas@cohenandmalad.com AOKI GROUP: Herrera Sues Over Disability Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------- Oscar Herrera, on behalf of others similarly situated v. AOKI GROUP INC., d/b/a AOKI TEPPANYAKI, a foreign for-profit corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-23192-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 17, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant owns, controls, maintains, and/or operates an adjunct website, https://aokiteppanyaki.com (the "Website"). One of the functions of the Website is to provide the public information on the locations of Defendant's physical restaurants. Defendant also sells to the public its food and beverage products through the Website, which acts as a critical point of sale and ordering for Defendant's food and beverage products that are made in and also available for ordering and purchase in, from, and through Defendant's physical restaurants. The Plaintiff utilizes available screen reader software that allows individuals who are blind and visually disabled to communicate with company websites. However, Defendant's Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by blind and visually disabled individuals using keyboards and available screen reader software. These access barriers, one or more of which were experienced by Plaintiff, are severe and pervasive and, as confirmed by Plaintiff's expert, include the following (with reference to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines ("WCAG"), says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been a blind and visually disabled person who has been medically diagnosed with complete blindness as a result of trauma to both eyes. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls a chain of retail stores nationwide selling men and women's clothing, shoes, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rodenck V. Hannah, Esq. RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A. 4800 N. Hiatus Road Sunrise, FL 33351 Phone: 954/362-3800 Facsimile: 954/362-3779 Email: rhannah@rhannahlaw.com - and - Pelayo Duran, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO 6355 NW. 36th Street, Suite 307 Virginia Gardens, FL 33166 Phone: 305/266-9780 Facsimile: 305/269-8311 Email: duranandassociates@gmail.com APPADANA INVESTMENT: Wagner Sues Over Discriminative Actions ------------------------------------------------------------ Tavia Wagner, and others who are similarly situated v. APPADANA INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC, and NEW NEW YORK DELI, INC., d/b/a NEW NEW YORK DELI, Case No. 6:25-cv-01336 (M.D. Fla., July 17, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorney's fees and costs (including, but not limited to, court costs and expert fees), pursuant to the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendants' discriminative actions. The Defendants have discriminated, and continue to discriminate, against the Plaintiff, and others who are similarly situated, by denying full and equal access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations at Defendants' Subject Facilities in derogation and as prohibited by the ADA, and by failing to remove architectural barriers pursuant to the ADA, where such removal is readily achievable. The Plaintiff has been unable to, and continues to be unable to, enjoy full and equal safe access to, and the benefits of, all accommodations and services offered at Defendants' Subject Facilities, says the complaint. The Plaintiff's visit to Defendants' Subject Facilities. APPADANA INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC, and NEW NEW YORK DELI, INC., d/b/a NEW NEW YORK DELI, are authorized to conduct, and are conducting business within the State of Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony T. Litsch, III, Esq. 1368 Turnbull Bay Road, Suite 303 New Smyrna Beach, FL 32168 Phone: 386-409-7252 Email: bb_litsch4@att.net AnthonyTLitschiii@gmail.com ASG CONCEPTS: Cheli Sues Over Disability Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------- CHARLENE CHELI, an individual Plaintiff, v. ASG CONCEPTS LLC, a Pennsylvania Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-13040 (D.N.J., July 9, 2025) is a class action seeking for injunctive relief, damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers and otherwise harmful conditions that have endangered her safety, caused her inconvenience, and forced her to suffer dignitary harm at Defendant's property. These include excessive sloping, improperly designed curb ramp, an improper railing, abrupt changes of level, and a lack of wheelchair maneuvering clearance. Moreover, the Defendant has discriminated against Plaintiff, and other mobility impaired persons, by denying access to full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of its place of public accommodation or commercial facility in violation of the ADA. ASG Concepts LLC owns and operates a shopping center/plaza with several tenant spaces in Pennsauken, NJ. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon G. Shadinger Jr., Esq. SHADINGER LAW, LLC 2220 N. East Avenue Vineland, NJ 08360 Telephone: (609) 319-5399 E-mail: js@shadingerlaw.com ASHLYNN MARKETING: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 19 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.J., C.D., C.B., and D.F., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ASHLYNN MARKETING GROUP, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00311-GPC-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michael Berg entered an order granting joint motion to modify pre-trial schedule: 1. The deadline for the Defendant to file its answer to the Plaintiffs' operative Complaint is July 22, 2025. 2. The deadline for Plaintiffs to file their motion for class certification is Sept. 19, 2025. Ashlynn specializes in the marketing and distribution of tobacco products. A copy of the Court's order dated July 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2XEQWt at no extra charge.[CC] ATLANTIC UNION: Court Narrows Claims in Ray Suit ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN RAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. ATLANTIC UNION BANK, Case No. 3:25-cv-00132-JAG (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. entered an order granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss. Because Ray plausibly pleaded a violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA) based on the Opt-in Form's ambiguity about when and how the Bank calculates overdraft fees, the Court denies the motion to dismiss that claim. Additionally, because Ray has not yet moved for class certification, the Court denies without prejudice the Bank's class action waiver argument. But, because an express contract exists between the parties, the Court grants the motion to dismiss as to Ray's unjust enrichment claim with prejudice. The plaintiff, Brian Ray, brings two claims against the Bank individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. First, Ray alleges that the Bank violated the EFTA by failing to comply with 12 C.F.R. section 1005.1, et seq. ("Regulation E"). Ray also brings an unjust enrichment claim under Virginia law. In its motion to dismiss, the Bank argues that Ray fails to plead a violation of Regulation E. It also argues that Ray cannot bring an unjust enrichment claim against it because a contract exists between the parties. Further, the Bank asserts that the Court should dismiss the class action allegations because the contract between Ray and the Bank includes a class waiver that prevents Ray from representing a class in litigation against the Bank. Because Ray's complaint states a claim for a Regulation E violation, the Court will deny the Bank's motion to dismiss the EFTA claim. But an express contract exists between the parties. preventing Ray’s unjust enrichment claim. Accordingly, the Court will grant the motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim. Lastly, the Court will deny the motion to dismiss the class allegations without prejudice, with leave to re-raise that argument at the appropriate time. Ray, a customer of the Bank, alleges that the Bank violated the EFTA by failing to comply with Regulation E. Atlantic offers a wide range of financial solutions including checking accounts, savings accounts, and business loans. A copy of the Court's memorandum order dated July 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8IKTKc at no extra charge.[CC] AURA FRAGRANCES: Initial Case Order Entered in Klingenberg Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW KLINGENBERG, v. AURA FRAGRANCES OF PARIS, LLC, Case No. 6:25-cv-01235-JSS-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Julie Sneed entered an initial case order as follows: No later than 14 days from the date of this Order, Lead Counsel and any pro se plaintiff shall file a notice as to whether a related action is pending in the Middle District or elsewhere as required under Local Rule 1.07(c). The parties shall utilize the attached form Notice of a Related Action. Each party has a continuing obligation to file an amended notice within 10 days of discovering any ground for amendment. The court screens every case to identify parties and interested corporations in which any assigned judge may be a shareholder, as well as for other matters that might require consideration of recusal. When required by Local Rule 3.02, counsel and any unrepresented party shall confer and file a Case Management Report using the standard form on the court's website (1) within 40 days after any defendant appears in an action originating in this court, (2) within 40 days after the docketing of an action removed or transferred to this court, or (3) within 70 days after service on the United States attorney in an action against the United States, a United States agency, a United States officer or employee sued only in an official capacity, or a United States officer or employee sued in an individual capacity in connection with a duty performed on behalf of the United States. Aura sells genuine, brand-name perfumes. A copy of the Court's order dated July 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=owK2kW at no extra charge.[CC] AUTOLIV INC: Continues to Defend ARC Inflator Class Suit in Georgia ------------------------------------------------------------------- Autoliv Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 18, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the ARC Airbag Inflators Products Liability MDL in the Northern District of Georgia. Autoliv and some of its subsidiaries have been named as one of several defendants in a consolidated class action lawsuit in a multi-district litigation (In Re: ARC Airbag Inflators Products Liability Litigation MDL, No. 3051) in the Northern District of Georgia. The plaintiffs in the multi-district litigation (the "ARC Inflator Class Action") brought claims for fraud, breach of warranty, and violations of consumer protection and trade practices stemming from ARC inflators included in airbag modules that Autoliv or its subsidiaries allegedly supplied after Autoliv acquired certain Delphi assets (the "Delphi Acquisition") in December 2009. The Company denies these allegations. Autoliv is not aware of any performance issues regarding ARC inflators included with its airbags at the directions of its customers that it shipped following the Delphi Acquisition. The proceedings remain ongoing. The Company has determined pursuant to ASC 450 that a loss is reasonably possible with respect to the ARC Inflator Class Action. However, the Company continues to evaluate this matter, no accrual has been made, and no estimated range of potential loss can be determined at this time. The Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the ARC Inflator Class Action. Autoliv, Inc. is a US-domiciled, Swedish-headquartered automotive safety supplier with sales to all leading car manufacturers worldwide. AUTOMATIC DATA: Underpays Life Cycle Consultants, Fernandez Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- TILSA FERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-13474-CCC-JBC (D.N.J., July 18, 2025) seeks to redress ADP's systematic, companywide violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, by knowingly misclassifying the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated Life Cycle Consultants, or other similarly titled positions (LCCs), as exempt from the overtime compensation requirements of the FLSA and failing to reimburse Illinois employees expenses incurred within the scope of their employment as required by the IWPCA. ADP allegedly deprived employees of earned overtime wages for working in excess of 40 hours per workweek in violation of the FLSA and reimbursable expenses in violation of the IWPCA. The Plaintiff brings her FLSA claims on a collective basis pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) for all individuals who worked for ADP as Life Cycle Consultants, or other similarly titled positions, and were classified as exempt from overtime pay at any point during the maximum limitations period. The Plaintiff brings her IWPCA claims as a class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 for all Illinois residents who worked for ADP remotely at any point during the maximum limitations period (The Illinois Class). Plaintiff Fernandez is an adult citizen and resident of Illinois who has been employed by ADP as a full-time Life Cycle Consultant (LCC) from February 13, 2023, to the present. ADP's core business involves the provision of payroll and human resources management software and services to businesses nationwide and globally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan I. Nirenberg, Esq. RABNER BAUMGART BEN-ASHER & NIRENBERG, P.C. 135 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 230 Montvale, NJ 07645 Telephone: (201) 777-2250 Facsimile: (201) 777-2260 E-mail: JNirenberg@njemploymentlawfirm.com AYLO USA: Adair Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Scott Adair, Kent Henderson, and Tarris Wallace, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. AYLO USA INCORPORATED and AYLO GLOBAL ENTERTAINMENT, INC. Case No. 25STCV16659 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 11, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-06351. The Plaintiffs' Complaint asserts three causes of action against Defendants for Violation of California Penal Code Section 631; Violation of Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution; and Common Law Invasion of Privacy. These claims arise out of Plaintiffs' allegations that Defendants use third-party tracking technologies on their website that purportedly allow those third parties to collect information about users' engagement with the website.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Nada I. Shamonki, Esq. Nadia A. Zivkov, Esq. MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C. 2049 Century Park East, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 586-3200 Email: NIShamonki@mintz.com NAZivkov@mintz.com BAKER SOLUTIONS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 17, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Leon Weingrad, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Baker Solutions, Inc. d/b/a CreditBaker, Case No. 2:25-cv-01792-GJP (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Gerald J. Pappert entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. Fact discovery shall be completed on or before Nov. 14, 2025. 2. The Plaintiff shall produce his expert reports on or before Nov. 14, 2025. The Defendant shall produce its expert reports on or before Dec. 15, 2025. All expert discovery, including depositions, shall be completed on or before Jan. 16, 2026. 3. The Plaintiff shall submit his motion for class certification on or before Feb. 17, 2026. The Defendant shall submit its response on or before March 18, 2026. The Plaintiff shall submit his reply on or before April 1, 2026. 4. Oral argument and a hearing on class certification will take place on May 19, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 11-A. 5. All filings, conferences, and pretrial procedures shall conform to Judge Pappert's Policies and Procedures, available at www.paed.uscourts.gov. Creditbaker provides business capital solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated July 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=t7832F at no extra charge.[CC] BICKFORD SENIOR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gaines Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- REGINA GAINES, individually, and on behalf of herself and other similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiff v. BICKFORD SENIOR LIVING GROUP, LLC, BICKFORD SENIOR LIVING, LLC and 103 ARCARO OPERATIONS, LLC, d/b/a THE RIVERS AT MARYLAND FARMS, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00793 (M.D. Tenn., July 16, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages owed to Plaintiff and other similarly situated caregivers. According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay Plaintiff and those similarly situated for all hours worked over 80 within bi-weekly pay periods at one and one-half times their regular rates of pay. In addition, the Defendants have had a common practice of failing to pay Plaintiff and those similarly situated for the time they spent working during 30-minute unpaid meal breaks, and/or for the time during which they were not fully relieved from their job duties during 30-minute unpaid meal periods, Bickford Senior Living Group, LLC provides assisted living and memory care services in Brentwood, TN, and the states of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Michigan, Ohio, and Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq. Joshua Autry, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT Attorneys at Law 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com jbryant@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com jautry@jsyc.com BIOHAVEN LTD: Taylor Sues Over 19.53% Drop in Share Price --------------------------------------------------------- KAYLA TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BIOHAVEN LTD.; VLAD CORIC; and MATTHEW BUTEN, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-01120 (D. Conn., July 14, 2025) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Biohaven securities between March 24, 2023 and May 14, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) troriluzole's regulatory prospects as a treatment for SCA, and/or the sufficiency of data that Biohaven submitted in support of troriluzole's regulatory approval for this indication, were overstated; (ii) BHV-7000's efficacy and clinical prospects as a treatment for bipolar disorder were likewise overstated; (iii) all the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to have a significant negative impact on Biohaven's business and financial condition; and (iv) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Biohaven's stock price fell $3.84 per share, or 19.53%, to close at $15.82 per share on May 15, 2025. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of Biohaven's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, alleges the suit. Biohaven Ltd. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company. The Company focuses on development of therapies for neurological and immunoscience diseases that can change current treatment paradigms. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emily C. Finestone, Esq. Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 Email: efinestone@pomlaw.com jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com BISCO INDUSTRIES: Court OK's $7.6MM Settlement in Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Eaco Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q the quarterly period ended May 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 13, 2025, that the parties in a labor suit agreed in principle to settle the matter for approximately $7.5 million then increased to $7,683,000 in May 2025. In July 2025, the court approved the settlement. In January 2023, a class action lawsuit was filed with the Los Angeles County Superior Court against its wholly-owned subsidiary Bisco Industries, alleging wage and hour violations and related claims. The class action covers a class of former and current employees of Bisco who were employed between January 13, 2019 and the present time. In March 2023, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint that added claims under the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Both parties requested to stay the litigation pending mediation, which mediation commenced in April 2024. EACO Corporation is a holding company, primarily comprised of its wholly-owned subsidiary, Bisco Industries, Inc. Bisco supplies parts used in the manufacture of products in a broad range of industries, including the aerospace, circuit board, communication, computer, fabrication, instrumentation, industrial equipment and marine industries. BLACK TUX: Charges Consumers With "Junk Fees," Connolly Says ------------------------------------------------------------ CODY CONNOLLY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE BLACK TUX, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-05996 (N.D. Cal., July 16, 2025) accuses the Defendant of unlawfully charging its consumers with "junk fees" when they shopped online at its website, www.theblacktux.com. When consumers choose to review Defendant's selection of rental pieces on the website, the Defendant displays the rental price of each clothing item in the first instance that consumers view the item. However, the Defendant fails to display a hidden "Damage Waiver" Fee when it first advertises the rental price of any item, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings this action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated based on Defendant's unlawful failure to display the damage waiver fee with the initially advertised rental prices, seeking damages, restitution, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, for violation of: (1) California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act; (2) California's Unfair Competition Law; and (3) California's False Advertising Law. The Black Tux, LLC develops, manufactures, advertises, markets, makes available for rent or sale, and/or distributes formal attire to consumers in California and throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Julia K. Venditti, Esq. Ines Diaz Villafana, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com jvenditti@bursor.com idiaz@bursor.com BMS HOLDINGS: Failed to Protect Private Info, Gale Says ------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER GALE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BMS HOLDINGS, LP d/b/a BMS CAT, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-00733-O (N.D. Tex., July 10, 2025) is a class action to hold Defendant responsible for disclosing Plaintiff's and thousands of similarly situated individuals' sensitive, confidential personally identifiable information to cybercriminals in a foreseeable, preventable data breach. From about February 5 to February 24, 2025, hackers targeted and accessed Defendant's network servers without authorization and stole Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive, confidential PII stored therein, including full names and Social Security numbers, causing widespread injuries to Plaintiff and Class Members. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information, and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive data. This unencrypted, unredacted Private Information was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect its students' sensitive data. The Plaintiff and Class Members seek damages and equitable relief requiring Defendant to (a) disclose the full nature of the Data Breach and types of Private Information exposed; (b) implement data security practices to reasonably guard against future breaches; and (c) provide, at Defendant's expense, all Data Breach victims with lifetime identity theft protection services. BMS Holdings, LP d/b/a BMS CAT is a disaster recovery firm providing recovery and reconstruction services for fire, water, mold, and storm damage to customers throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 402 W Broadway, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com BOSCOV'S DEPARTMENT: Dalton Sues Over Website Inaccessibility ------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Boscov's Department Store, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-02809 (D. Minn., July 9, 2025) arises from Defendant's alleged failure to comply with the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations, as well as asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology. They have been denied full and equal access to the website and has been denied the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations offered therein on a full, independent, and equal basis, alleges the suit. Headquartered in Reading, PA, Boscov's Department Store, LLC owns and operates the website, www.boscovs.com, which offers clothing and accessories for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com BRENNAN'S ROOFING: Sagastume Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Marco Sagastume, Jose Sagastume, Daniel Sagastume, Cristian Sagastume, on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly situated v. BRENNAN'S ROOFING LLC and CHRISTOPHER BRENNAN, Case No. 2:25-cv-01424 (E.D. La., July 11, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). While working for the Defendants, the Plaintiffs were not paid one-and-a-half times their regular hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of forty hours a workweek, in violation of the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed as roofers and/or manual laborers by Defendants. BRENNAN'S ROOFING LLC is a construction company with specializes in roofing services, home improvement, repairs, cleaning.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harold E. Weiser, Esq. THE WEISER LAW FIRM, LLC 3801 Canal St., Suite 205 New Orleans, La.70119 Phone: (504) 358-2273 Fax: (888) 778-1541 Email: weiserlawfirm@gmail.com BRIDGES EXPERIENCE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Solorzano Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jesus Gonzalez Solorzano, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bridges Experience, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 7:25-cv-01309-FL (E.D.N.C., July 10, 2025) is a class action arising out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant, which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information and protected health information (collectively, the "Private Information") of Plaintiff and Class Members. According to the complaint, the Defendant learned that an unauthorized third party gained access to its information technology network on or about December 2, 2024, to on or about January 22, 2025. The Defendant began notifying individuals of the breach on June 26. Despite Defendant's awareness of both the value and sensitivity of the data it safeguarded and serious risk presented by insufficient security practices, Defendant did not take sufficient steps to ensure that its systems were secure. The Data Breach was directly and proximately caused by Defendant's failure to implement reasonable and industry-standard data security practices necessary to protect its systems from a foreseeable and preventable cyberattack, says the suit. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a nationwide class, alleges claims of (1) Negligence, (2) Negligence Per Se, (3) Breach of Implied Contract; and (4) Unjust Enrichment. The Plaintiff also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. Bridges Experience, Inc. is a clinical experience software platform that works with students, universities, and hospitals to facilitate the clinical rotations process.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jean S. Martin, Esq. Francesca K. Burne, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 559-4908 Facsimile: (813) 223-5402 E-mail: jeanmartin@forthepeople.com fburne@forthepeople.com - and - Amber L. Schubert, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union St, Ste 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 E-mail: aschubert@sjk.law BRIGHTON CONVALESCENT: Penaflorida Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- JANE MORENO PENAFLORIDA, as an aggrieved employee, and on behalf of all other aggrieved employees under the Labor Code Private Attorneys' General Act of 2004, Plaintiff v. BRIGHTON CONVALESCENT, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company doing business as BRIGHTON CARE CENTER; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV20751 (Cal. Super., July 10, 2025) is an action to recover civil penalties arising from Defendants' unlawful labor practices in violation of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' practice of failing to accurately record time; failing to pay overtime and minimum wages; failing to provide meal periods; failing to provide rest periods; and failing to provide compensation in lieu of meal or rest periods; failing to furnish itemized wage statements; failing to timely pay compensation to Plaintiff and other terminated or resigned employees; unlawfully deducting wages from Plaintiff and other Aggrieved Employees, by issuing in payment of wages due, or to become due, or as an advance on wages to be earned; and failing to reimburse employees with their costs incurred for driving personal vehicles, purchasing uniforms, providing uniform and other deposits. Plaintiff Penaflorida worked for the Defendants from approximately March of 2021 through May of 2024 as a non-exempt employee, with duties that included, but were not limited to, assisting and taking care of patients. BRIGHTON CONVALESCENT, LLC is a California-based long-term care facility licensed as a skilled nursing facility.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason W. Rothman, Esq. Saima A. Gipson, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 438-5555 Facsimile: (310) 300-1705 E-mail: jason@tomorrowlaw.com saima@tomorrowlaw.com CALIFORNIA CANCER ASSOCIATES: Garcia Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against California Cancer Associates for Research and Excellence Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jaime Garcia, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. California Cancer Associates for Research and Excellence Inc., Integrated Oncology Network, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00773 (M.D. Tenn., July 11, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. California Cancer Associates for Research and Excellence (cCARE) -- https://ccare.com/ -- is the largest full-service, private oncology practice in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cody Galaher, I, Esq. GALAHER LAW, PLLC 725 Cool Springs Blvd. Suite #600 Franklin, TN 37067 Phone: (615) 732-6168 Email: CGalaher@ForThePeople.com - and - Scott Edward Cole, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Phone: (510) 891-9800 Email: sec@colevannote.com CAMPISI'S INC: Saenz Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Tip Retention ---------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS SAENZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAMPISI'S, INC. (a/k/a Campi # 3, Inc. and/or Campisi's), Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01791-N (N.D. Tex., July 9, 2025) is a civil action brought by Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, pursuant to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the federal Portal-to-Portal Pay Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and the putative collective action members at least the FLSA minimum hourly rate by making them pay for food handling and/or TABC licenses; failed to pay minimum hourly rate by making them pay for work uniforms; and kept tips that were earned by the putative collective action members and shared same with managers. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a tipped and tip credit paid employee at its restaurant in downtown Dallas where he worked as a server. He was paid $2.13 per hour in addition to customarily and regularly receiving at least $30 per month in tips. Campisi's, Inc. is a domestic for-profit corporation with principal place of business in Dallas, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen R. Vaught, Esq. VAUGHT FIRM, LLC 1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 9150 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (972) 707-7816 Facsimile: (972) 920-3933 E-mail: avaught@txlaborlaw.com CANNON CORPORATION: Settlement Deal in Misso Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nicholas Misso, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. The Cannon Corporation d/b/a Cannondesign, Case No. 6:24-cv-06525-CJS (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Charles Siragusa entered a preliminary approval order as follows: The Settlement Agreement provides for a Settlement Class defined as: "All individuals residing in the United States whose PII was compromised in the Data Incident that occurred in January 2023, including all those individuals who received notice of the Data Incident." Cannon offers professional architectural and design services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RuKMEg at no extra charge.[CC] CASHION WINDOWS: Has Until August 12 to File Complaint Response --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSAN PARISI, v. C CASHION WINDOWS, LLC d/b/a RENEWAL BY ANDERSON OF OKLAHOMA, and (2) BMO HARRIS BANK, NA d/b/a GREENSKY, LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-00115-R (W.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge David Russell entered an order granting the Defendants' unopposed motion for extension of time to answer or otherwise respond to the Plaintiff's amended complaint and motion to certify a class action. The deadline for the Defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the Plaintiff's amended complaint and the motion to certify a class action is extended to Aug. 12, 2025. Additionally, the status/scheduling conference set for Aug. 5, 2025, is stricken and will be re-set at a later date. Renewal offers window & door replacement services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HoaooZ at no extra charge.[CC] CERTUS HEALTHCARE: Compelled to Supplement Discovery Responses -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARGIE WESEL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. CERTUS HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. :23-cv-01479-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Kimberly A. Jolson entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to compel and denying as premature the Defendant's motion to compel. The Defendant is ordered to supplement its discovery responses within 30 days of the date of this Order. Additionally, the Court expects the Plaintiffs to provide the Defendant with an alleged damages calculation no later than Aug. 1, 2025. The Court defers any consideration of fees related to these Motions until the Court addresses the Plaintiffs' separate motion for sanctions. The parties' mediation deadline of September 2025 remains in place. On this record, the Court finds that Plaintiffs met their conferral obligations under the Federal and Local Rules before they filed the instant Motion. Further, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs' discovery requests seek relevant information and "are not patently improper." In sum, the Defendant's Motion comes too soon. The Plaintiffs are actively working with its vendor to calculate their alleged damages. And until that analysis is complete, the parties cannot meaningfully confer on the Defendant's request for individualized discovery from all the Opt-In Plaintiffs. Nor can the Court determine whether such discovery is reasonable and proportionate to the needs of the case. The action concerns the Plaintiffs' allegations that they and other similarly situated employees worked overtime and were not properly compensated by their employer, Defendant Certus Healthcare Management, LLC. Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that Defendant improperly rounded their compensable hours, did not pay them for time worked during meal breaks, and did not include additional renumeration into their regular rate of pay for overtime purposes. As a result, the Plaintiffs bring claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. Certus offers skilled nursing, assisted living and long term care services. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated July 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7gozvm at no extra charge.[CC] CGI FEDERAL INC: Yager Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Zane Yager, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CGI Federal Inc., Case No. 25-2-17700-9 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on July 17, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01348. The Plaintiff asserts six claims against CGI Federal under the Washington Minimum Wage Act for purported violations of Wash. Rev. Code and certain sections of the Washington Administrative Code. The Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that Defendant engaged in a "common practice of not paying Plaintiff and Class members for all regular and overtime hours worked;" "denying rest breaks and meal breaks—and thereby wages—to its non-exempt employees" and failing to "compensate its employees for missed rest breaks and time worked during purported meal breaks." The Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and Class members "time and one half of the regular rate of pay for all work beyond 40 hours per week."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas J. Ferraro, Esq. FERRARO VEGA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS, INC. 3333 Camino del Rio South, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (619) 693-7727 Email: nick@ferrarovega.com The Defendants are represented by: Matthew R. Kelly, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4700 Seattle, Washington 98104-4041 Phone: (206) 946-4910 Email: knelson@seyfarth.com mrkelly@seyfarth.com CHI LIVING: Hayward Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- WHITNEY HAYWARD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CHI LIVING COMMUNITIES, Case No. 3:25-cv-01502 (N.D. Ohio, July 18, 2025) challenges the policies and practices of the Defendant that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act in order to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant employs many hundreds of hourly, non-exempt employees, including Mr. Hayward and the FLSA Collective in furtherance of its business purposes at its facilities in Ohio, Colorado, Iowa, Kentucky, North Dakota, Oregon, and Wisconsin. During the three years preceding the filing of this Complaint, the Plaintiff has worked as an hourly, non-exempt employee for the Defendant in the position of State Tested Nursing Assistant from July 17, 2024, until July 2025 at one of Defendant's facilities, named "Franciscan Care Center," located at 4111 N. Holland Sylvania Road, Toledo, Ohio, says the suit. The Defendant offers seniors living options, including independent and assisted living, skilled nursing, and rehabilitation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel I. Bryant, Esq. Esther E. Bryant, Esq. BRYANT LEGAL, LLC 4400 N. High St., Suite 310 Columbus, OH 43214 Telephone: (614) 704-0546 Facsimile: (614) 573-9826 E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com Ebryant@bryantlegalllc.com - and - Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Tristan T. Akers, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite No. 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com CIERANT CORPORATION: Shields Files Suit in D. Connecticut --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cierant Corporation. The case is styled as Jabria Shields, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cierant Corporation, Case No. 3:25-cv-01113 (D. Conn., July 11, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Federal Trade Commission Act. Cierant -- https://www.cierant.com/ -- is a distributed marketing software and services company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1111 Summer Street, Suite 403 Stamford, CT 06905 Phone: (203) 992-4523 Email: shopkins@zlk.com COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Pretrial Management Order Entered in Coney --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SESCILY RENEE CONEY, v. THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-05011-VSB-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management: The Court notes that on July 9, 2025, the Hon. Vernon S. Broderick, United States District Judge, granted defendants New York-Presbyterian Hospital (NYP) and Shulamit JustMichael 60 days, until Sept. 8, 2025, to answer or otherwise respond to the plaintiff's Amended Complaint, and on July 10, 2025, Judge Broderick denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to serve certain defendants (including NYP) by alternative means. The Plaintiff's reconsideration motion, which is within the scope of my referral, IS denied, both because she has not met the standards of Local Civil Rule 6.3 and because she has failed to identify any undue prejudice that would flow from affording these defendants the routine courtesy of a reasonable extension of time to respond to her 27-count, 490-paragraph Amended Complaint. In light of the length and complexity of the Amended Complaint, and in the interest of efficient case management, the Court extends the deadline to answer or respond to the amended complaint to Sept. 8, 2025, for all defendants that have been served with process to date or will be served with process prior to Aug. 18, 2025. The Plaintiff's letter, construed as a letter-motion to strike Columbia's opposition papers for untimeliness, is denied, and Columbia's Statement of Technical Difficulty, construed as a motion for an extension of time, nunc pro tunc, to file its opposition papers, is granted. The Plaintiff identifies no prejudice from Columbia's late filing, much less prejudice of the magnitude that would warrant the harsh sanction she proposes. Trustees directly supports the work of the Board of Trustees, including the staffing of quarterly board meetings, annual board retreats, and committee meetings. A copy of the Court's order dated July 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UpbCm0 at no extra charge.[CC] COMMONSPIRIT HEALTH: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Crowe Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- GREGORY CROWE, individually and as a representative of a Class of Participants and Beneficiaries of the CommonSpirit Health 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan, Plaintiff v. COMMONSPIRIT HEALTH; and COMMONSPIRIT HEALTH RETIREMENT PLANS SUB-COMMITTEE, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-08239 (N.D. Ill., July 18, 2025) alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants violated ERISA by 1) failing to govern the Plan in accordance with its governing documents and instruments, 2) breaching their fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence, 3) using plan assets for the benefit of participant employer CommonSpirit, 4) dealing with the assets of the plan in their own interest, and 4) causing the plan to engage in prohibited transactions. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' actions, the Plan's assets were decreased, and its participants and their beneficiaries incurred avoidable expense deductions to their individual accounts. These losses resulted in less money invested and lost investment returns on those retirement assets, says the suit. CommonSpirit Health is a health system based in the United States, a Catholic hospital chain and nonprofit hospital chain. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Daniel R. Ferri, Esq. Elijah G. Savage, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 Email: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com dferri@dicellolevitt.com esavage@dicellolevitt.com CONTINUED.COM LLC: Court Dismisses Lovett VPPA Privacy Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Victoria Lovett, Plaintiff v. Continued.com, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-590 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Douglas R. Cole of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint without prejudice. The defendant operates a family of websites through which consumers can, via subscription, access videos, courses, and other continuing education materials on various topics like speech pathology, audiology, and occupational therapy. One of those websites is www.speechpathology.com. On August 15, 2023, the plaintiff "purchased a subscription to that website by registering and paying for access and providing her email address, payment information, and zip code. During the term of her subscription, the plaintiff "requested and obtained prerecorded videos from the website. According to the plaintiff, her subscription came with disclosure of her personally identifiable information (PII). She alleged that the defendant, without her consent, divulged her private viewing information to Meta Platforms, Inc. (Meta)--formerly Facebook, Inc. The defendant apparently embedded Meta Pixel--a unique string of code--into its websites so it could monitor and track its subscribers' actions. The defendant then "sent certain data to Meta purportedly to build detailed customer profiles and deliver highly targeted advertising to those customers. The plaintiff claimed that whenever she or another customer requested or obtained a subscription to one of Continued's websites by clicking on it," the defendant "(1) disclosed to Meta that the consumer had requested or obtained a subscription to video materials or services, and (2) divulged the requesting subscriber's FID." She complained about "disclosure of both the subscription itself and her unencrypted FID. The plaintiff filed this "single-count, putative class action lawsuit on October 16, 2024." She asserted "that Continued violated the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) by knowingly disclosing its subscribers' PII to a third party without their informed, written consent. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing "that Lovett has not plausibly alleged most of the elements necessary to state a viable VPPA claim." Specifically, the defendant claimed "(1) it is not a video tape service provider (which also means Lovett is not a consumer), (2) the information it allegedly disclosed is not personally identifiable information, and (3) it did not knowingly disclose the information. Judge Cole noted that "the VPPA prohibits a video tape service provider from knowingly disclosing, to any person, personally identifiable information concerning any consumer of such provider." To state a VPPA claim, the plaintiff must plausibly allege "(1) that Continued is a video tape service provider, (2) that it disclosed personally identifiable information, and (3) that it did so knowingly, and (4) without authorization." The Court found that "Lovett's allegations fall short on the second element--PII. And given that deficiency, her VPPA claim fails, which means the Court need not reach the other elements." The Court examined different circuit court standards for PII under the VPPA. In the First Circuit, "PII is not limited to information that explicitly names a person, but also includes information reasonably and foreseeably likely to reveal which videos [a person] has obtained." The Third and Ninth Circuits "more narrowly circumscribe PII's scope to the kind of information that would readily permit an ordinary person to identify a specific individual's video-watching behavior. However, the Court determined that "Lovett's Complaint fails under either" standard because "both standards limit PII to information that will allow a third-party to determine what videos a person has watched." The Court noted that "courts have uniformly held [FIDs] to constitute PII under the VPPA where the plaintiff alleges that her [FID] was disclosed alongside the viewed video's URL and name. The Court found that "although Lovett alleges that Continued disclosed her FID and website subscription, she does not allege facts giving rise to a reasonable inference that Continued disclosed the URL or name of the videos she accessed by way of that subscription, or anything else that would allow Meta (or anyone else) to determine the particular videos she watched. Judge Cole explained that if Continued divulged only Lovett's website subscription, as she alleges, that alone does not indicate that Lovett requested or obtained specific video materials on the speechpathology.com website. It merely indicates that Lovett could access videos on the website. And that's not sufficient to bring Lovett within the VPPA's reach. The plaintiff argued that the complaint alleged the defendant disclosed both her FID and the URLs that identified the specific prerecorded video products or services" she "requested or obtained." However, the Court found "that reading stretches the Complaint too far. Other than one reference to a Facebook.com URL which related to the ease of finding a person's Meta profile by appending an FID to the end of that URL, Lovett's Complaint is devoid of allegations concerning URLs. The Court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, explaining that because this is a first dismissal, the Court dismisses Lovett's action without prejudice. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZIco4T CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE: Herrera Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Eric Herrera, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE, LLC, a Tennessee limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25CV467123 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 11, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-05858. On May 30, 2025, Plaintiff, Eric Herrera, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint against Defendant wherein he alleges the following causes of action: Failure to Pay Minimum and Straight Time Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to and Permit Rest Breaks; Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at Termination; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Indemnify Necessary Business Expenses; Failure to Produce Requested Employment Records; and Violation of Business and Professions Code Section.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Torey Joseph Favarote, Esq. David H. Danning, Esq. GLEASON & FAVAROTE, LLP 3646 Long Beach Blvd., Suite 203 Long Beach, CA 90807 Phone: (213) 452-0510 Facsimile: (213) 452-0514 Email: tfavarote@gleasonfavarote.com ddanning@gleasonfavarote.com CREDIT UNION: Lucero Seeks Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENDA L. LUCERO, HEATHER BARTON, ILONA KOMPANIIETS and CYNTHIA HURTADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CREDIT UNION RETIREMENT PLAN ASSOCIATION, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CREDIT UNION RETIREMENT PLAN ASSOCIATION, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF RETIREMENT PLANS, THE PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No. 3:22-cv-00208-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting renewed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The Renewed Motion addresses the Court's concerns in its March 18, 2025, Order denying without prejudice, the "parties' motion for class certification and preliminary approval." A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=c3efa3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. James A. Maro, Esq. James A. Wells, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com jamesm@capozziadler.com jayw@capozziadler.com CRST INTERNATIONAL: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings Tossed as Moot ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER CHEATHAM, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. CRST INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, LLC; CRST EXPEDITED, INC. d/b/a CRST THE TRANSPORTATION SOLUTION, INC.; and CRST SPECIALIZED TRANSPORTATION, INC. d/b/a CRST SPECIALIZED SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00109-CJW-MAR (N.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge C.J. Williams entered an order: -- denying as moot the plaintiff's motion for circulation of notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b); -- denying as moot CRST Expedited and CRST International's motion for judgment on the pleadings; and -- denying as moot defendants' motion to strike. CRST offers logistics, warehousing, distribution, shipping, supply chain management. A copy of the Court's order dated July 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IK3nIy at no extra charge.[CC] CURIO EMPLOYER: Removes Sanchez Suit to S.D. Calif. --------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of DIANA SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CURIO EMPLOYER LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego (Case No. 25CU030142C) to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on July 14, 2025. The clerk of court for the Southern District of California assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01790-AGS-DEB. The case is assigned to Andrew G Schopler and referred to Magistrate Daniel E Butcher. Curio Employer LLC owns and operates hotels and resorts. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kelsey A. Israel-Trummel, Esq. JONES DAY 555 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 626-3939 Facsimile: (415) 875-5700 Email: kitrummel@jonesday.com - and - Kassia Stephenson, Esq. JONES DAY 4655 Executive Drive, Suite 1500 San Diego, CA 92121.3134 Telephone: (858) 314-1200 Facsimile: (844) 345-3178 Email: kstephenson@jonesday.com CURIUM US: Court Orders Jane Doe to Disclose Identity in Cyber Case ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as JANE DOE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CURIUM US LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-00964-MTS (E.D. Mo.), Judge Matthew T. Schelp of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri denies the Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed under a pseudonym without prejudice. The Judge ordered Plaintiff Jane Doe to file a properly supported amended motion for leave to proceed under a pseudonym, consistent with this Memorandum and Order, or file an amended complaint that names her as the real party in interest, or file a notice of dismissal. The case stems from an alleged cyberattack that resulted in unauthorised disclosure, exfiltration, and theft of individuals' personally identifying information and protected health information. Plaintiff filed her 149-paragraph complaint in this Court a mere ten days after she alleges Defendant notified her of the data breach. The Court concluded that Plaintiff failed to show that this case is one of the limited circumstances where her need for anonymity outweighs countervailing interests in full disclosure. The Court found that Plaintiff's motion operates under the faulty premise that there is no public interest in the disclosure of her identity. However, the Court clarified that the public has an interest in knowing the names of the litigants and there is universal public interest in access to the identities of litigants. The Court noted that publicity is the soul of justice" and emphasised that "transparency has heightened value in class actions. Plaintiff's more specific arguments also missed the mark. While she maintained that identifying her would require her to admit to her private medical conditions to proceed with her suit, the Court found that nowhere in the Complaint does the Court find where Plaintiff's medical conditions are discussed. The Court determined that Plaintiff does not explain how publication of her name would place her data at further risk. The Court noted that this case does not concern Plaintiff's medical treatments. It is a case about Defendant's alleged negligence in how it handles information. The Court emphasized that Plaintiff chose to file an action that involves the data surrounding her protected health information. Indeed, she appears quite eager to "pursue her claim in a public court," and when plaintiffs do so, they generally must take "the burdens" of a public forum along with its benefits. The Court has previously held that a plaintiff's interest in anonymity does not outweigh the public interest in full disclosure. The Court required class representatives to disclose their identities so that the public, including the putative class members they seek to represent, know who is guiding and directing the litigation. The Court noted that Plaintiff's status as a class action representative requires disclosure of his identity in order to fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class, adding that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) provides that the title of the complaint must name all the parties, and Rule 17(a) requires that an action... be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. Nevertheless, Plaintiff declined to file this action under her name, instead using a pseudonym. She did not seek permission to do so before or contemporaneous with the filing of her action. The Court emphasized that when a party wishes to file a case anonymously or under a pseudonym, it must first petition the district court for permission to do so. The failure to seek permission to proceed under a pseudonym is fatal to an anonymous plaintiff's case. The Court observed that Plaintiff failed to completely remove all the references to her identity in the filings she has made up to this point, leaving some that appear to contain her full name in the public record. The Court found that where the identity of a litigant has been revealed--whether in the litigation or otherwise--courts have found that any weight in favor of pseudonymity diminishes or evaporates entirely. In sum, Plaintiff failed to meet her burden, and the Court therefore denied Plaintiff's motion. However, the Court denied the motion without prejudice. Plaintiff may refile her request for leave to proceed under a fictitious name if she provides sufficient justification, citing relevant case law, and analysis to support her request. The court ordered that the Plaintiff must start with the premise that the public does indeed have a legitimate interest in her identity and address the other points noted herein. In the alternative and added that she may file an amended complaint that identifies herself as the real party in interest, or may dismiss this action without prejudice. The Court Ordered that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed Under Pseudonym is denied without prejudice. The Court further ordered that Attorney Raina C. Borrelli's Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice is granted. A copy of the Court's order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vHb0qV CURIUM US: Faces Castillo Suit Over Data Security Failures ---------------------------------------------------------- JOHN CASTILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CURIUM US LLC d/b/a CURIUM PHARMA, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-01016-SEP (E.D. Mo., July 9, 2025) arises from Defendant Curium's failures to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. The complaint asserts that the failure to secure and monitor its network resulted in an October 2024 data breach of highly sensitive documents and information stored on the computer network of Curium. However, despite learning of the data breach on or about October 17, 2024 and determining that private information was involved in the breach beginning October 15, 2024, the Defendant did not begin sending notices of the data breach until May 30, 2025. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings this action against Defendant seeking redress for its unlawful conduct, and asserting claims for: (i) negligence, (ii) negligence per se, (iii) breach of implied contract, (iv) breach of fiduciary duty; and (v) unjust enrichment, and (vi) declaratory relief. Headquartered in St. Louis, MO, Curium US LLC develops, manufactures and distributes radiopharmaceuticals throughout the globe, including the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ra O. Amen, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: ramen@masonllp.com DIAMOND 7 ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Branch Says ------------------------------------------------------------- TREVELL BRANCH; and DEANGELO GIBSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DIAMOND 7 ENTERPRISES, INC.; and DENISE JONES, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-08238 (N.D. Ill., July 18, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs Branch and Gibson were employed by the Defendants as janitors. Diamond 7 Enterprises, Inc. is a company that provides cleaning and janitorial services to private businesses and government clients throughout Illinois and Indiana. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq. Michael J. Anderson, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Email: crodriguez@bergermontague.com manderson@bergermontague.com - and - Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 8241 La Mesa Blvd, Suite A La Mesa, CA 91942 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Email: apiazza@bergermontague.com DIDONATO'S BOWLING: Cheli Sues Over ADA Non-Compliance ------------------------------------------------------ CHARLENE CHELI, an Individual Plaintiff v. DIDONATO'S BOWLING CENTER, a New Jersey Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-13047 (D.N.J., July 9, 2025) is a class action seeking for injunctive relief, damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. The Defendant fails to provide a continuous accessible route throughout the entirety of its commercial property (including the exterior areas of the outdoor fun center); the existing routes contain excessive cross-sloping, abrupt changes of level, and a lack of wheelchair maneuvering clearance, says the suit. Headquartered in Hammonton, NJ, Didonato's Bowling Center owns and/or operates a bowling center/arcade/event space/bar and grille. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon G. Shadinger Jr., Esq. (036232017) SHADINGER LAW, LLC 2220 N. East Avenue Vineland, NJ 08360 Telephone: (609) 319-5399 E-mail: js@shadingerlaw.com DIRTY HOSPITALITY: Faces Miranda Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages ----------------------------------------------------------------- DOMINIC MIRANDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DIRTY HOSPITALITY LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-23214-KMW (S.D. Fla., July 18, 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 which has resulted in intrusion into the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal to Plaintiff and the Class members. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of themselves and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. The Plaintiff utilizes the cellular telephone number that received Defendant's telephone solicitations for personal purposes and the number is Plaintiff's residential telephone line and primary means of reaching Plaintiff at home. The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of Plaintiff individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. The class that Plaintiff seeks to represent is defined as: "All persons in the United States who from four years prior to the filing of this action through the date of class certification (1) Defendant, or anyone on Defendant's behalf, (2) placed more than one marketing text message within any 12- month period; (3) where such marketing text messages were initiated before the hour of 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Faaris K. Uddin, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street, Wilton Manor, FL 33305 Telephone: (813) 340-8838 E-mail: faaris@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com ECOSHIELD PEST: Faces Nelson Suit Over Deceptive Sales Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHEN NELSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ECOSHIELD PEST SOLUTIONS ATLANTA, LLC, ROBERT DOUGLAS CARDON, GREGORY NYGREN, THE SHIELD COMPANIES, LLC, and THE SHIELD CO MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-03988-SEG (N.D. Ga., July 18, 2025) challenges EcoShield's deceptive sales practices and breach of its contracts with thousands of consumers across the United States. According to the complaint, EcoShield is an exterminator that claims to have over 250,000 customers across 27 states. Instead of one-off extermination services, however, EcoShield sells subscriptions for recurring extermination service plans. These subscriptions are governed by a preprinted form contract containing similar pricing terms for all of EcoShield's customers. In addition to the visit fees, the Service Agreement authorizes EcoShield to charge only three additional fees. There is a delinquency fee for late payments, a recovery fee for accounts sent to collections, and a handling fee for bounced checks, says the suit. While the Service Agreement authorizes visit fees, the delinquency fee, recovery fee, and the handling fee, the Service Agreement does not mention a cancellation fee. Nevertheless, when customers like Plaintiff try to cancel their EcoShield subscription, they are charged a costly cancellation fee. For example, Plaintiff was charged an unauthorized $250 cancellation fee. When customers contest this unauthorized fee, EcoShield sends their accounts to collections, threatening to harm their credit and requiring them to deal with debt collectors. This is a deceptive practice. EcoShield disguises its cancellation fee as a supposed "discount." When customers sign up with EcoShield, they are automatically given an "Initial Discount" that purportedly reduces the cost of the initial service visit. Mr. Nelson is a citizen of Georgia and lives in Kennesaw, Georgia. He executed the Service Agreement on June 28, 2022. Plaintiff received all services in Georgia. The Defendants allegedly charged Plaintiff the improper cancellation fee on or around April 8, 2025. ECOSHIELD PEST SOLUTIONS ATLANTA provides extermination and pest control services for homes and businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Burkett McInturff, Esq. Daniel J. Brenner, Esq. Daniel J. Kieselstein, Esq. WITTELS MCINTURFF PALIKOVIC 305 BROADWAY, 7TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10007 Telephone: (914) 775-8862 E-mail: jbm@wittelslaw.com djb@wittelslaw.com djk@wittelslaw.com - and - Andrew L. Weiner, Esq. Jeffrey B. Sand, Esq. WEINER & SAND LLC 6065 Roswell Road, Suite 700-121 Sandy Springs, GA 30328 Telephone: (404) 205-5029 Telephone: (404) 254-0842 Facsimile: (866) 800-1482 E-mail: js@wsjustice.com aw@wsjustice.com EFPTR LLC: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts, Monday Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- JILL MONDAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EFPTR LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:25-cv-01774 (M.D. Fla., July 9, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of sending telemarketing text messages to the telephone numbers of consumers, including the Plaintiff, in an attempt to promote its goods and services without prior consent. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers suffered damages. EFPTR LLC is a debt settlement services provider based in Colts Neck, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 120 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 533-4092 Email: meisenband@eisenbandlaw.com FANDANGO MEDIA: Faces Beer and Gonzalez Suit Over Misleading Ads ---------------------------------------------------------------- JONATHAN BEER and THALIA CALO GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FANDANGO MEDIA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05857 (S.D.N.Y., July 16, 2025) arises from Defendant's misleading ads of "Fandango FanClub" memberships. According to Fandango, a FanClub membership includes "$10 toward a movie ticket each month -- any movie, any showtime, any format." Customers see these ads and purchase Fandango FanClub memberships believing that they will receive these $10 monthly credits, which can be used for "any movie" at "any showtime" in the future. In truth, however, the credits expire 30 days after issuance. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs now assert claims for violations of California's Gift Card Law, Washington's Gift Certificates Law, and the federal Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act. Fandango Media, LLC is a Virginia limited liability company headquartered in Universal City, CA. It sells movie tickets online, at Fandango.com, and through its mobile app. [BN] The Plaintiff are represented by: Jonas B. Jacobson, Esq. Vivek Kothari, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: jonas@dovel.com FASHION NOVA: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Sims Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- DILKHARRI SIMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FASHION NOVA LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-23228-RAR (S.D. Fla., July 18, 2025) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Fashion Nova LLC provides apparels and footwear. The Company offers dresses, matching sets, rompers, jeans, lingerie, tops, pants, leggings, skirts, sweaters, jackets, heels, boots, sneakers, graphic tees, joggers, shirts, polos, sunglasses, and accessories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariam Grigorian, Esq. Rocco Scarfone, Esq. SCARFONE LAW GROUP 2424 N. Federal Hwy #166 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 609-1200 Facsimile: (561) 609-1234 Email: mgrigorian@scarfonelawgroup.com rocco@scarfonelawgroup.com FASHIONABLE INC: Davis Sues Over Website's Non-Compliance With ADA ------------------------------------------------------------------ NICOLE DAVIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Fashionable, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08060 (N.D. Ill., July 16, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, Ableclothing.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. This case arises out of Defendant's policy and practice of denying the blind access to the goods and services offered by its website. Due to Defendant's failure and refusal to remove access barriers to its website, blind individuals have been and are being denied equal access to it. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks compensatory damages for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Based in Nashville, TN, Fashionable, Inc. owns and operates the website which offers women's clothing, leather bags, and jewelry for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 (630) 478-0856 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law FAURECIA USA: Jenkins Class Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- KIMBERLY JENKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FAURECIA USA HOLDINGS, INC., Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-12200-SJM-CI (E.D. Mich., July 18, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from February 2021 through April 23, 2025, as a non-exempt, hourly employee. The Plaintiff's base hourly rate of pay was $22.50. In addition to the base rate of pay, Defendant incorporated various types of routine and non-discretionary pay into its compensation structure. Throughout the Plaintiff's employment with the Defendant, the Defendant failed to properly calculate Plaintiff's shift differential pay, Site Bonus pay and other non-discretionary remuneration in the regular rate for proper overtime rate calculation, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all of Defendant's current and former hourly employees who worked for Defendant in the United States at any time in the past three years. The Defendant operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, manufactures and markets automotive parts and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Town Square, 17th Floor Southfield, Michigan 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com FEDERAL EXPRESS: Underpays Package Handlers, Medina Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- ANGEL LUCIO MEDINA, on behalf of himself and other individuals similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07828 (N.D. Ill., July 10, 2025) is a class action lawsuit against FedEx seeking all available relief under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act for Defendant's alleged unlawful labor practices. The complaint alleges Defendant's failure to pay overtime, all time worked, and other earned compensation for time spent on Defendant's premises at the beginning and end of the workday. The Plaintiff also raises a claim for quantum meruit under Illinois law in the alternative to the IWPCA claim. The Plaintiff worked for FedEx as an hourly, non-exempt Package Handler at the FedEx distribution center located in Chicago, Illinois from approximately January 2023 to January 2024 and October 29, 2024 through approximately February 2025. Federal Express Corporation is a provider of the delivery of packages to businesses and residences.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Salas, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 W. Washington St., Ste 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com msalas@flsalaw.com FIDELITY NATIONAL: Leave to File Class Exhibits Under Seal Sought ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re: Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:23-cv-00252-TJC-PDB (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their leave to file under seal Exhibits Q and R in support of Lead Plaintiffs' reply memorandum in further support for class certification and appointment of class representatives and class counsel, as well as redactions to portions of the motion and Exhibit F, which were filed on July 15, 2025. The Lead Plaintiffs propose that these documents remain under seal until they are de-designated as confidential by the Defendants or are made public by further order of the Court. The Lead Plaintiffs designate undersigned counsel (whose mailing address, email address, and telephone number are in the signature block below) as the persons authorized to retrieve the sealed materials pursuant to Local Rule 1.11(b). Because the documents referenced have been designated as "Confidential" by the Defendants pursuant to the Agreed Confidentiality Order, and for which the Defendants have not consented to public filing, the Lead Plaintiffs request that the Court grant this Motion and permit the Lead Plaintiffs to file the Exhibits under seal. The Lead Plaintiffs see no principled reason why these documents should continue to be treated as confidential. The Lead Plaintiffs are performing an ongoing review of the Defendants' documents and, in due course, intend to request that Defendants de-designate many of the documents produced to date. Fidelity is a global provider of financial technology solutions. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mlhylf at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael P. Canty, Esq. James T. Christie, Esq. Nicholas D. Manningham, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 8180-0477 E-mail: mcanty@labaton.com jchristie@labaton.com nmanningham@labaton.com - and - John A. Boudet, Esq. GRAY ROBINSON, P.A. 301 East Pine Street, Suite 1400 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 842-8880 Facsimile: (407) 244-5690 E-mail: john.boudet@gray-robinson.com FINASTRA TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Nyland Says -------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN NYLAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FINASTRA TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-01300 (M.D. Fla., July 14, 2025) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of the Plaintiff and the Class. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant failed to fulfill its obligation, as unauthorized cybercriminals breached Finastra's information systems and databases and stole vast quantities of Private Information belonging to Plaintiff and Class members. The Data Breach—and the successful exfiltration of Private Information—were the direct, proximate, and foreseeable results of multiple failings on the part of Finastra. The Data Breach occurred because Finastra failed to implement reasonable security protections to safeguard its information systems and databases. Thereafter, Finastra failed to timely detect this Data Breach until a week after the breach occurred. Moreover, before the Data Breach occurred, Finastra failed to inform the public that its data security practices were deficient and inadequate. Had Plaintiff and Class members been made aware of this fact, they would have taken steps to prevent Finastra from acquiring their Private Information, says the suit. Finastra Technology Inc. provides banking software and solutions. The Company offers solutions for retail and wholesale banking, treasury and capital markets, and risk management. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Daniel O. Herrera, Esq. Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 135 S. LaSalle, Suite 3210 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 782-4880 Email: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com nhagman@caffertyclobes.com FIRST AFFINITY: Gonzalez Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation ------------------------------------------------------------ PAOLA GONZALEZ, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. FIRST AFFINITY HEALTH LLC and MADISON BELLE NAHRA a/k/a MADISON BOUNAHRA, Defendants, Case No. 0:25-cv-61393 (S.D. Fla., July 10, 2025) is an action to recover money damages for unpaid minimum wages and retaliatory conduct under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff any wages for the last 5 weeks of her employment with the Defendant. Additionally, when the Plaintiff complained about not receiving wages, the Defendant terminated her. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a cleaner from March 2024 until her termination on April 4, 2025. First Affinity Health LLC provides healthcare services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Julisse Jimenez, Esq. THE SAENZ LAW FIRM, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 482-1475 E-mail: julisse@legalopinionusa.com FIRST SOLAR: Gallardo Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jose Gallardo, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. FIRST SOLAR, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-02473-MTL (D. Ariz., July 15, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and other relief permitted by law. Through a knowing and company-wide scheme, Defendant systematically underpaid overtime compensation to the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees by failing to include shift differentials in the calculation of their regular rate of pay. This practice resulted in Plaintiffs receiving less than the overtime premium than required by the FLSA for hours worked in excess of forty per workweek. Defendant's failure to include all required remuneration in the regular rate violated the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a current employee of First Solar. First Solar is a publicly traded corporation engaged in the manufacture of photovoltaic solar modules and related components for use in utility-scale solar energy systems.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris Wido, Esq. SPITZ, THE EMPLOYEE'S ATTORNEY 3 Summit Park Drive, Suite 200 Independence, OH 44131 Phone: (216) 364-1330 Fax: (216) 291-5744 Email: Chris.Wido@Spitzlawfirm.com FORD MOTOR: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES DOLAN, et al., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 3:23-cv-00512-REP (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Robert E. Payne entered an order granting the second unopposed motion for enlargement of time to file motion for class certification and the supporting memorandum. The Court further entered an order that: (1) The plaintiffs shall file their motion for class certification within 30 days of the resolution of Ford Motor Company's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Class Action Complaint; and (2) The defendant shall file its response thereto 30 days thereafter; and (3) The plaintiffs shall file their reply 14 days thereafter. Ford is an American multinational automobile manufacturer. A copy of the Court's order dated July 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sCG8Wm at no extra charge.[CC] FOUND HEALTH INC: Lewis Sues Over Unlawful Text Message ------------------------------------------------------- Adam Lewis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FOUND HEALTH, INC., Case No. CACE-25-010276 (Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., July 11, 2025), is brought for injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for violations Of the Caller ID Rules of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA"). In direct contravention of the Caller ID Rules, however, many callers, such as Defendant, make Telephonic Sales Calls a central part of their marketing strategy, and in doing so, intentionally transmit telephone numbers to recipient's Caller ID services that are not capable of receiving telephone calls. As such, Plaintiff, brings this action alleging that Defendant violated the FTSA's Caller ID Rules by transmitting a phone number that was not capable of receiving phone calls when it made Telephonic Sales Calls by text message ("Text Message Sales Calls"). Specifically, Defendant made Text Message Sales Calls that promoted Found ("Found Text Message Sales Calls") and violated the Caller ID Rules when it transmitted to the recipients' caller identification services a telephone number that was not capable of receiving telephone calls, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is the regular user of a cellular telephone number that receives Defendant's telephonic sales calls. Krewe Du Optic, LLC, is registered as a Foreign Corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. Shawn A. Heller, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Phone: (202) 709-5744 Fax: (866) 893-0416 Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com FRONTIER CREDIT UNION: Betzer Suit Removed to D. Idaho ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Judith Betzer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FRONTIER CREDIT UNION, Case No. CV10-25-3409 was removed from the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, in and for the County of Bonneville, to the United States District Court for the District of Idaho on July 11, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00376-BLW. The Plaintiff alleges violation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ("EFTA"), Regulation E, and unjust enrichment based on Defendant's alleged failure to adequately disclose its overdraft fee practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Meredith L. Thielbahr, Esq. Mark Bieter, Esq. GORDON & REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 999 W. Main Street, #100 Boise, ID 83702 Phone: (208) 472-5837 Email: mthielbahr@grsm.com mbieter@grsm.com GAVRIELI BRANDS: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- DEBBIE PITTMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GAVRIELI BRANDS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07938 (N.D. Ill., July 14, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://tieks.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Gavrieli Brands, LLC is the parent company of Tieks by Gavrieli, a luxury footwear company known for its foldable ballet flats. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (630) 478-0856 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law GEGC 2: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Cordeiro Due March 31, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cordeiro, et al., v. GEGC 2 New Street, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-12901 (D. Mass., Filed Nov. 29, 2023), the Hon. Judge Angel Kelley entered an order adopting the parties' proposed scheduling order and setting the following deadlines: -- Amendments to pleadings due no Dec. 22, 2025 later than: -- All depositions must be completed by: March 10, 2026 -- Plaintiffs' Designation of Experts and Jan. 6, 2026 Service of Rule 26(a)(2) Reports by: -- Plaintiffs' trial experts must be Feb. 9, 2026 deposed by: -- The Defendants' Designation of Experts Feb. 9, 2026 and Service of Rule 26(a)(2) Reports by: -- The Defendants' trial experts must be March 10, 2026 deposed by: -- The Plaintiff's Motion for Class March 31, 2026 Certification by: -- The Defendant's Response in Opposition: May 1, 2026 The nature of suit states Diversity-Contract Dispute. The Defendant involves in real estate, specifically managing properties, including The Eddy, an apartment building in East Boston, Massachusetts.[CC] GEICO GENERAL: Marcelletti's Bid to Compel Discovery OK'd in Part ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as John Marcelletti, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GEICO General Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 6:23-cv-06211-EAW-CDH (W.D.N.Y.), Judge Colleen D. Holland of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York issued a Decision and Order addressing multiple discovery-related motions. The Court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion to compel, denied the defendant's motion to seal, granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to file a response to the defendant's sur-replies, and denied as moot the defendant's motion for leave to file a sur-reply. The case is a putative class action, as the plaintiff, John Marcelletti, brought the suit on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, asserting a claim for breach of contract based on the defendant's failure to pay sales tax as part of the actual cash value for total loss vehicles. The court's decision addressed discovery disputes related to the plaintiff's motion for class certification, indicating that the class action status is still pending certification and had not been finalized. The plaintiff is involved in an accident while driving a leased vehicle insured under a policy issued by GEICO General Insurance Company. He alleged that GEICO breached its policy with him and other members of the putative class by failing to pay sales tax when settling claims for total loss vehicles. The instant motions primarily concerned discovery documents related to the plaintiff's motion for class certification, specifically internal GEICO documents and documents from a separate class action, Lewis v. Government Employees Insurance Co. The plaintiff's motion to compel sought unredacted copies of internal GEICO documents, including the plaintiff's claim file, eight GEICO claims adjuster handbooks, and GEICO's records retention schedule, as well as documents from the Lewis case. The defendant's motion to seal sought to seal portions of the internal GEICO documents filed as exhibits by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's motion for leave to file a response addressed the defendant's sur-replies to the plaintiff's notices of supplemental authority. The defendant's motion for leave to file a sur-reply addressed a statement made by the plaintiff's counsel in a related case. Upon careful examination, the plaintiff argued that the redactions in the internal GEICO documents interfered with his ability to identify potential witnesses and prepare for class certification. According to the plaintiff, the Lewis documents were relevant to refute the defendant's affirmative defense that the putative class is not ascertainable. The defendant contended that the redacted information is irrelevant, confidential, or protected by privilege, and that producing the Lewis documents would have been unduly burdensome and restricted by a protective order. The defendant further argued that the documents it sought to seal contained confidential and proprietary information, posing a risk of competitive harm if disclosed. The court found that the plaintiff's motion to compel as to his unredacted claim file is denied. According to the court, the defendant had adequately identified the categories of redactions made to these documents, which related to a third-party property damage claim, a personal injury claim, protected health information, and personally identifiable information. The court determined that the claim file is not so significantly redacted as to render it incomprehensible or useless as evidence. The court granted the plaintiff's motion to compel as to the unredacted copies of the eight claims adjuster handbooks. The court found that the handbooks had been so significantly redacted that they were incomprehensible and useless as evidence. Moreover, the defendant had not clearly demonstrated that it had considered the full scope of issues in this case, including those raised by its own defenses, when making its redactions. The court noted that at least two of the eight handbooks were already publicly available in unredacted form, and the plaintiff had made a showing that the defendant had likely redacted relevant information. Regarding the records retention schedule, Judge Colleen D. Holland directed the defendant to provide an unredacted copy for in camera review. The court found that the record was not developed enough to evaluate the propriety of either allowing the defendant to redact these documents or compelling their production in unredacted form. The court denied the plaintiff's motion to compel production of the Lewis documents. The court found that the plaintiff had failed to establish that the Lewis class members' claim files would have been more than marginally relevant and proportional to the needs of this case. The court determined that the relevant information would have been the claim files of the putative class members in this case, not those from Lewis, and that production of the Lewis documents would not have prevented duplicative or wasteful discovery. The court denied the defendant's motion to seal. The court found that the documents at issue were judicial documents, as they were central to the court's resolution of the plaintiff's motion to compel. The court determined that these documents were entitled to only a modest presumption of public access, but the defendant's assertions of competitive harm were too conclusory to overcome this presumption. Judge Colleen D. Holland noted that the unredacted material in the documents is generic and unlikely to cause economic harm. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to file a response to the defendant's sur-replies. The court found that the plaintiff's notices of supplemental authority included substantive commentary, effectively constituting sur-replies, and the defendant's responses raised new arguments. Therefore, the court deemed it fair to allow the plaintiff to file a response. The court denied as moot the defendant's motion for leave to file a sur-reply, as the court's decision on the Lewis documents is based on relevance and proportionality, rendering the sur-reply unnecessary. For the foregoing reasons, the court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion to compel. The defendant was ordered to produce unredacted copies of the eight GEICO claims adjuster handbooks within 14 days of the entry date of this Decision and Order. The defendant was further ordered to provide an unredacted copy of GEICO's records retention schedule for in camera review within the same timeframe. The plaintiff's motion to compel the production of the Lewis documents was denied. The defendant's motion to seal was denied. The plaintiff's motion for leave to file a response to the defendant's sur-replies was granted, and the plaintiff was ordered to file unredacted copies of his briefs within 14 days. The defendant's motion for leave to file a sur-reply was denied as moot. A copy of the Memorandum and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eVnhsN GMRI INC: Amaya Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Alfredo Perez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. GMRI, INC.; DARDEN CONCEPTS, INC.; AND DOES 1 through 100 inclusive, Case No. 25STCV12730 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 11, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-06371. The Plaintiff's Complaint contains seven causes of action alleging: failure to pay wages for all hours worked at minimum wage in violation of Labor Code; failure to pay overtime wages for daily overtime worked in violation of Labor Code; failure to authorize or permit meal periods in violation of Labor Code; failure to authorize or permit rest periods in violation of Labor Code; failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements in violation of Labor Code; failure to timely pay all earned wages and final paychecks due at time of separation of employment in violation of Labor Code, and 203; and unfair business practices in violation of Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Julie A. Dunne, Esq. Joseph J. Kim, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 4365 Executive Drive, Suite 1100 San Diego, CA 92121-2133 Phone: (858) 677-1400 Fax: (858) 677-1401 Email: julie.dunne@us.dlapiper.com joseph.kim@us.dlapiper.com - and - Stephen L. Taeusch, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 3203 Hanover St., Suite 100 Palo Alto, CA 94304-1123 Phone: (650) 833-2000 Fax: (650) 833-2001 Email: stephen.taeusch@us.dlapiper.com GOURMET TECH: Faces Jusuf Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------- FERRY JUSUF and MAXIMINO PALMA, on behalf of themselves, the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiffs v. GOURMET TECH CORP. d/b/a MARCHE MADISON, MADISON GOURMET, LTD. d/b/a MARCHE MADISON, and KYUNG HO KIM, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-05700 (S.D.N.Y., July 10, 2025) is a class action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law and Wage Theft Prevention Act seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against Defendants for their unlawful actions and to recover unpaid overtime wages, spread of-hours premiums, liquidated damages, statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff Jusuf worked as an organizer, stocker, loader, cashier, cleaner, and sandwich preparer at Marche Madison from approximately January 15, 2024 to approximately July 7, 2025. Plaintiff Palma worked as a sandwich, cold salad, and fruit preparer at Marche Madison from approximately March 18, 2024 to approximately July 7, 2025. Gourmet Tech Corp. d/b/a Marche Madison is a New York Corporation that owns, operates, and does business as Marche Madison, a deli/restaurant, in New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Younghoon Ji, Esq. AHNE & JI, LLP 45 East 34th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 594-1035 E-mail: yji@ahnejillp.com GT INDEPENDENCE: Meeks Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ ALEXIS MEEK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GT INDEPENDENCE SERVICES, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company, Case No. 1:25-cv-00803 (W.D. Mich., July 18, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, the Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from October 2022 through May 13, 2025, as a non-exempt, hourly employee. The Plaintiff's base hourly rate of pay was $17.25. In addition to the base rate of pay, Defendant incorporated various types of routine and non-discretionary pay into its compensation structure, says the suit. Throughout the Plaintiff's employment, the Defendant failed to properly calculate Plaintiff's Bonus pay and other non-discretionary remuneration in the regular rate for proper overtime rate calculation, asserts the suit. The Defendant offers financial management (FMS) services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Telephone: (269) 250-7500 E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com HAZEL AND OLIVE: Pittman Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------------- DEBBIE PITTMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. Hazel and Olive, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07791 (N.D. Ill., July 10, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.hazelandolive.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint alleges that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of navigation links, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Hazel and Olive's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Hazel and Olive, Inc. operates the website that offers women's clothing and accessories including dresses, rompers, jumpsuits, tops, skirts, shorts, jeans, pants, jackets, sweaters, graphic tees, graphic t-shirt dresses, pajamas, shoes, boots, booties, heels, accessories, bags, hair scarves, jewelry, and gift cards.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law HENKEL US: Griffin Labor Suit Removed from State Ct. to N.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDYN GRIFFIN, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. HENKEL US OPERATIONS CORPORATION and DOES 1 through 25, Inclusive, Case No. 25CV467757 (Filed June 6, 2025) was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on July 18, 2025. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-06069 to the proceeding. The complaint seeks to recover Minimum Wages and Unpaid Overtime under the Cal. Labor Code. The Complaint seeks to certify the following two classes: The proposed Class is defined as follows: "All current and former hourly-paid and/or non-exempt employees who worked for Defendants in the State of California at any time during the period from four years prior to the date of the filing of this Complaint through final judgment. The proposed "FCRA/ICRAA Class" is defined as follows: "All prospective, current and former hourly-paid and/or non- exempt employees of Defendants in the State of California on whom Defendants ran background check(s) at any time during the period from five years prior to the date of the filing of this Complaint until final judgment." Henkel manufactures adhesives, sealants, and cleaners. The Company offers laundry detergents, fabric softeners, dishwashing products. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Andrew M. McNaught, Esq. Galen P. Sallomi, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 560 Mission Street, 31st Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 397-2823 Facsimile: (415) 397-8549 E-mail: amcnaught@seyfarth.com gsallomi@seyfarth.com HOME OF FRAGRANCES: Lucius Sues Over Disability Discrimination -------------------------------------------------------------- Windy Lucius, on behalf of others similarly situated v. THE HOME OF FRAGRANCES LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, d/b/a Di'Aroma, Case No. 1:25-cv-23154-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 15, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant also owns, controls, maintains, and/or operates an adjunct website, https://aroma123.com ("Website"). One of the functions of the Website is to provide the public information on the locations of Defendant's physical stores. Defendant also sells to the public its merchandise through the Website, which acts as a critical point of sale for Defendant's merchandise that is also available for purchase in, from, and through Defendant's physical stores. In addition, the Website allows users to arrange in-store pickup of Defendant's merchandise, check in-store availability of Defendant's merchandise, book in-store appointments for a variety of services (e.g., shopping appointments, repair appointments, etc.), and sign up for a newsletter to receive exclusive offers, benefits, invitations, and discounts for use online and in the physical stores. The Plaintiff attempted to access and/or utilize Defendant's website to test for accessibility, educate herself as to "Di'Aroma" merchandise, pricing, specials, and store locations, but was unable to, and she is still unable to enjoy full and equal access to the website and/or understand the content therein because several portions of the website do not interface with the JAWS Screen Reader software, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been a blind and visually disabled person who has been medically diagnosed with complete blindness as a result of trauma to both eyes. The Defendant specializes in the manufacture and retail of exclusive aromatherapy products and owns and/or operates stores under the brand name "Di'Aroma."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Juan Courtney Cunningham, Esq. J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC 8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 220, Miami, FL 33156 Phone: 305-351-2014 Email: cc@cunninghampllc.com legal@cunninghampllc.com HOME PARTNERS: Sewall Sues Over Misleading Leases ------------------------------------------------- Barry Sewall, Shamika Gregory, Jerome Gregory, Frank Richmond, Michael McDermott, Kelley McDermott, Chance Gallo, Sheila Nasilasila, Erin Wise, Michael Curran, Christa Curran, Latrice Jones-Byrd, LaQuita Dasher, Ayoka Durham, Marcus Durham, Donna Sheard, Richard Allen, Gabrielle Todd, Gina Johnson, and Lionel Johnson each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Home Partners Holdings LLC, and OPVHHJV LLC, d/b/a Pathlight Property Management, Case No. 1:25-cv-07849 (N.D. Ill., July 11, 2025), is brought to enjoin Defendants from continuing to use their misleading or unenforceable leases and a return of the monies paid to Defendants through their illegal leases. The Defendants represent for every home that is available for lease, that the home is "professionally managed by Pathlight Property Management, the exclusive property manager for Home Partners of America, offering excellent customer service, 24/7 emergency maintenance service, online application and payments, and pet friendly options." Despite these promises, Defendants routinely require tenants to enter contracts of adhesion that purport to waive and modify the warranty of habitability through several different lease provisions found throughout Defendants' uniform contracts. In addition, Defendants, through form contracts of adhesion, require tenants to agree to take on maintenance and repair obligations that otherwise would be borne by Defendants. In their leases, Defendants falsely state that the tenants' rental rates were negotiated and would otherwise be higher but for the tenants' alleged agreement to maintain and repair. In reality, Defendants unilaterally set rental rates, without assigning any consideration for the tenants' alleged agreement or compensating the tenants for the tasks and responsibilities that tenants may be handling, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are adults residing in Minnesota, and are citizens of Minnesota. The Defendants are corporate landlords who collectively own, lease, and manage 31,000 homes in 32 states and the District of Columbia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anne T. Regan, Esq. Nathan D. Prosser, Esq. HELLMUTH & JOHNSON, PLLC 8050 West 78th Street Edina, MN 55439 Phone: (952) 941-4005 Email: aregan@hjlawfirm.com nprosser@hjlawfirm.com - and - Gary Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (865) 247-0080 Email: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Scott Harris, Esq. Michael Dunn, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 900 W. Morgan St. Raleigh, NC 27603 Phone: (919) 600-5000 Email: sharris@milberg.com michael.dunn@milberg.com - and - Joseph C. Bourne, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue S., Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-6900 Email: jcbourne@locklaw.com HOTEL SUNBORN: Gutierrez Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- PABLO GUTIERREZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. HOTEL SUNBORN LLC and RAJENDRA PATEL, Case No. 1:25-cv-04001 (E.D.N.Y., July 18, 2025) is a class action for failure to pay legally required overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. In May 2018, Hotel Sunborn offered Gutierrez the position of Housekeeper. Plaintiff Gutierrez worked from Hotel Sunborn's 100 New Jersey Ave, Brooklyn, New York. The Defendants did not provide Gutierrez with a wage notice at the time of his hiring as required by NYLL section 195(1), asserts the suit. Sunborn is a Finnish corporate group that owns and operates luxury yacht hotels and real estate.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jazly Liriano, Esq. Alex Rissmiller, Esq. RISSMILLER PLLC 5 Pennsylvania Plaza, 19th Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (646) 248-7811 E-mail: jliriano@rissmiller.com arissmiller@rissmiller.com I.AM.GIA: J'Nae Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against I.AM.GIA (US) LLC. The case is styled as Kira J'Nae, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. I.AM.GIA (US) LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-05856 (M.D. Fla., July 16, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. I.AM.GIA -- https://iamgia.com/au/ -- is a curated collection of statement wardrobe essentials in bold styles and contemporary fabrics, designed to wear trans seasonally, anywhere.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zane Charles Hedaya, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: zane@jibraellaw.com IMPERIAL MAINTENANCE: Rodrigues Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Imperial Maintenance Services, Inc. The case is styled as Jamie Rodrigues, Gloria Ramirez, Maria Andrade, on behalf of themselves, a class of similarly situated individuals v. Imperial Maintenance Services, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0009698 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., July 17, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Imperial Maintenance Service, Inc. -- https://imperial-maintenance.com/ -- is a minority-owned business providing quality cleaning services in the Colorado region since 1990.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stan S. Mallison, Esq. MALLISON & MARTINEZ ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1939 Harrison St., Ste. 730 Oakland, CA 94612-3547 Phone: 510-832-9999 Fax: 510-832-1101 Email: stanm@themmlawfirm.com INGRAM MICRO HOLDING: Ndiba Files Suit in C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ingram Micro Holding Corporation. The case is styled as Edward Ndiba, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ingram Micro Holding Corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-06479 (C.D. Cal., July 16, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Ingram Micro Holding Corporation -- https://www.ingrammicro.com/ -- is an American distributor of information technology products and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Dr. Beverly Hills, CA 92102 Phone: (858) 209-6941 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: jnelson@milberg.com INGRAM MICRO: Chism Sues Over Data Breach ----------------------------------------- Bill Chism, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INGRAM MICRO HOLDING CORPORATION, Case No. 8:25-cv-01513 (C.D. Cal., July 11, 2025), is brought arising from Defendant's failure to secure the personally identifiable information ("PII" or "Private Information") of Plaintiff and the members of the proposed Class, following a ransomware attack that occurred on or around July 5, 2025 (the "Data Breach"). The Data Breach resulted in outages to Defendant's internal systems that caused disruptions to services rendered to customers, vendor partners, and others. The ransomware group SafePay has since claimed responsibility for the Data Breach and purports to have accessed and exfiltrated individuals' Private Information maintained on Defendant's IT Network. The Defendant failed to prevent the Private Information of individuals including Plaintiff and Class Members from being stolen. Instead, Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently failing to implement reasonable measures to safeguard Private Information and by failing to take necessary steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of that information. Defendant's woefully inadequate data security measures made the Data Breach a foreseeable, and even likely, consequence of its negligence, says the complaint. The Plaintiff provided their valuable Private Information to Defendant. The Defendant is a large distributor of technology products and services, maintaining its headquarters in Irvine, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 West Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 525-4100 Email: cardoso@kolawyers.com INTEGRATED ONCOLOGY: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, McKeehan Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- FAY MCKEEHAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTEGRATED ONCOLOGY NETWORK, LLC; and LAKE CITY CANCER CARE, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00776 (M.D. Tenn., July 14, 2025) is an action against the Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard current and former patients, Personally Identifying Information and Protected Health Information. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's PII and PHI was exposed in a cyberattack that gave unauthorized parties access to Lake City Cancer's email accounts, between December 13, 2024 and December 16, 2024, caused by Defendants' collective failures to adequately safeguard that Personal Information ("the Data Breach"). Allegedly, the Defendants failed to undertake adequate measures to safeguard the Personal Information of Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members. Although the breach occurred in December 2024, Defendants failed to immediately notify and warn current and former patients, with Lake City Cancer waiting until June 27, 2025 to provide written notice to Plaintiff and the proposed Class. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' failures to protect current and former patients' sensitive Personal Information and warn them promptly and fully about the Data Breach, Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members have suffered widespread injury and damages necessitating Plaintiff seeking relief on a class wide basis, says the suit. Integrated Oncology Network, LLC provides advisory services to healthcare professionals and institutions. The Company offers business consulting services to physician groups and hospitals concerning best practices in oncology care. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com INTEGRATED ONCOLOGY: J.S. Balks at Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------ J.S., an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTEGRATED ONCOLOGY NETWORK, LLC; and RADIATION ONCOLOGY NETWORK OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-01772-JLS-DDL (S.D. Cal., July 10, 2025) arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and former patients' or customers' personal information and private health information in violation of the California Confidential Medical Information Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, and the California Consumer Privacy Act. The complaint asserts that due to Defendants' inadequate data security and inadequate or negligent training of their employees, Plaintiff's and other proposed Class members' Sensitive Information, including their names, diagnosis/clinical information, doctor name, medical procedure information, medical record number, and treatment information was accessed by unauthorized third parties on Defendants' systems. As a result of Defendants' failure to implement and follow reasonable security procedures, Class members' Sensitive Information is now exposed. The Plaintiff and Class members have spent, and will continue to spend, significant amounts of time and money trying to protect themselves from the adverse ramifications of the Data Breach and dealing with actual fraud and will forever be at a heightened risk of identity theft and fraud, says the suit. Integrated Oncology Network, LLC operates cancer treatment centers across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio S., Suite 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (866) 219-3343 Facsimile: (866) 219-8344 E-mail: josh@swigartlawgroup.com - and - Daniel G. Shay, Esq. Harrison J. Lynch, Esq. SHAY LEGAL, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 222-7429 E-mail: Dan@ShayLegal.com Harrison@ShayLegal.com INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Parties Seek to Amend Class Cert Hearing Sched ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROSE L. EPPERSON, Individually and as class representative for all similarly situated persons, v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORPORATION, KERR-MCGEE OPERATING CORPORATION, and BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-00053-JDC-CBW (W.D. La.), the Parties ask the Court granting joint motion to amend scheduling order for class certification hearing. The Defendant is an American pulp and paper company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rHNLnm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Perry R. Sanders, Jr., Esq. THE SANDERS LAW FIRM, LLC 400 Broad Street Lake Charles, LA 70601 Telephone: (719) 630-1556 E-mail: perry@perrysanders.com - and - David L. Wallace, Esq. 518 North Pine Street, P.O. Box 489 DeRidder, LA 70634 wnblawoffice@bellsouth.net Telephone: 337-462-0473 - and - Andrew K. Glenn, Esq. Trevor J. Welch, Esq. Jason Rotstein, Esq. Nathan J. Ades, Esq. GLENN AGRE BERGMAN & FUENTES LLP 1185 Avenue of the Americas, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 970-1600 E-mail: aglenn@glennagre.com twelch@glennagre.com jrotstein@glennagre.com nades@glennagre.com The Defendants are represented by: Daniel J. Mulholland, Esq. Joshua J. Metcalf, Esq. T. Joel Fyke, Esq. Taylor D. Waxley, Esq. FORMAN WATKINS & KRUTZ LLP 210 East Capitol Street, Suite 2200 Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 960-8600 Facsimile: (601) 960-8613 E-mail: LAEService@formanwatkins.com - and - Kevin M. Dills, Esq. Kyle L. Gideon, Esq. DAVIDSON, MEAUX, SONNIER, McELLIGOTT, FONTENOT, GIDEON & EDWARDS, LLP 900 South College Road – Suite 100 Lafayette, LA 70503 Telephone: (337) 237-1600 Facsimile: (337) 237-3676 ISAAC OUAZANA: Court Excludes Goldshine as Expert Witness --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Layani et al., v. Ouazana et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00420-SAG (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher entered an order granting the motion in limine to Exclude Expert Witness: -- Mr. Goldshine will not be permitted to testify as an expert at trial. -- Mr. Goldshine's report, while related to his expertise, does not form conclusions based on specialized knowledge, and to the extent it does, it does not disclose the bases. -- A juror could also assess without an expert whether a property manager's failure to maintain receipts was unreasonable. Because the Court finds the witnesses were disclosed, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1) is inapposite. As to the two never-disclosed witnesses, this Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the rules do not require disclosure of possible rebuttal witnesses. Moreover, at least as to Julien Layani, it should come as no surprise to Defendants that he has knowledge of the case and is testifying at trial—he was mentioned throughout the discovery in this case, including in documents cited by Defendants. The Plaintiffs represented at hearing that they were in the process of reviving all three LLCs. Because RDNA Investments, LLC was not a registered business at the time of the alleged harms or when this lawsuit was filed, reviving its charter would not render it a proper Plaintiff. A copy of the Court's order dated July 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NyTfGi at no extra charge.[CC] J & M PLUMBING: Orozco Seeks Plumbers' Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ JOSE ALEJANDRO VALLE OROZCO AND HANNIER ANTONIO MATAMOROS CORDOBA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. J & M PLUMBING, INC., and ZAYNA RASHED, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00496 (W.D.N.C., July 10, 2025) seeks recovery against the Defendants for their violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants carried out an unlawful payroll policy and practice by failing to pay Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated for all worked hours including overtime compensation as required by federal law. The Plaintiffs have initiated this action to recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation they have been deprived of, plus interest (pre-judgment and post-judgment), liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants in the State of North Carolina as plumbers during the period of about May 2023 through September 2024. J&M is a business entity formed under the laws of North Carolina that provides plumbing services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Leonard A. Bennett, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 1-A Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone: (757) 930-3660 Facsimile: (757) 930-3662 E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com JEMMA GROUP INC: Bradshaw Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jemma Group, Inc. The case is styled as Katlynn Bradshaw, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Jemma Group, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-01811-BAS-SBC (S.D. Cal., July 16, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. JEMMA is a direct-to-consumer handbag brand distinctly crafted for the working woman who appreciates classic elegance and sensibility.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com JF MARKETING: Connor Files TCPA Suit in D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against JF Marketing & Support LLC, et al. The case is styled as Jay Connor, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. JF Marketing & Support LLC, Rashid Awan, Areahou Diagnostics LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-07135-DCN (D.S.C., July 11, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. JF Marketing & Support LLC is a marketing and branding firm based in Wichita, Kansas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dave Maxfield, Esq. DAVE MAXFIELD, ATTORNEY, LLC PO Box 11865 Columbia, SC 29211 Phone: (803) 509-6800 Fax: (855) 299-1656 Email: dave@consumerlawsc.com JILCO INC: Website Not Accessible to the Blind, Davis Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE DAVIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Jilco, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07737 (N.D. Ill., July 9, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant failed to take actions to correct the website's access barriers in the face of substantial harm and discrimination to blind class members. The barriers prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Based in Edina, MN, Jilco, Inc. controls and operates the website, Aweinspired.com, which offers jewelry for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 (630)-478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law JINHUA ZOU: Market America Suit Removed to M.D. North Carolina -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Market America, Inc., Market America Worldwide, Inc. Estate of James Howard Ridinger, Loren Ridinger, and Marc Ashley, and others similarly v. JINHUA ZOU, Case No. 25CV012632-400 was removed from the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division for the County of Guilford, to the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina on July 11, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00593. The State Court Action arises out of a request to confirm an arbitration award involving claims that Removing Defendant originally brought in Federal Court in the Middle District of North Carolina, which were compelled to arbitration by Interlocutory Order pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Blake J. Lindemann, Esq. LINDEMANN LAW FIRM, APC 433 N. Camden Drive, 4th Floor Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: 310-279-5269 Facsimile: 310-300-0267 Email: blake@lawbl.com - and - Inez de Ondarza Simmons, Esq. DE ONDARZA SIMMONS PLLC 410 N. Boylan Ave, Suite 135 Raleigh, NC 27603 Phone: (919) 256-3736 Fax: (919) 277-7120 Email: Inez@DeOndarzaSimmons.com JOSEPH VICARI: Wagner Sues Over Discriminative Actions ------------------------------------------------------ Tavia Wagner, and others who are similarly situated v. JOSEPH VICARI, and NY TONY'S PIZZA & RESTAURANT, INC., d/b/a IL PESCATORE, Case No. 6:25-cv-01334 (M.D. Fla., July 17, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorney's fees and costs (including, but not limited to, court costs and expert fees), pursuant to the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendants' discriminative actions. The Defendants have discriminated, and continue to discriminate, against the Plaintiff, and others who are similarly situated, by denying full and equal access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations at Defendants' Subject Facilities in derogation and as prohibited by the ADA, and by failing to remove architectural barriers pursuant to the ADA, where such removal is readily achievable. The Plaintiff has been unable to, and continues to be unable to, enjoy full and equal safe access to, and the benefits of, all accommodations and services offered at Defendants' Subject Facilities, says the complaint. The Plaintiff's visit to Defendants' Subject Facilities. JOSEPH VICARI, is the lessor, operator and/or owner of the real property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony T. Litsch, III, Esq. 1368 Turnbull Bay Road, Suite 303 New Smyrna Beach, FL 32168 Phone: 386-409-7252 Email: bb_litsch4@att.net AnthonyTLitschiii@gmail.com KAPLAN NORTH AMERICA: Vaccaro Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as David Vaccaro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KAPLAN NORTH AMERICA, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 25STCV16599 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on July 17, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-06511. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts two causes of action. The First Cause of Action asserts a violation of California Penal Code § 632 arising from Defendant's alleged recording of two telephone calls with Plaintiff. The Second Cause of Action asserts a violation of California Penal Code Section 632.7 arising from Defendant's alleged recording of two telephone calls placed to Plaintiff's cellular phone.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Paul A. Rosenthal, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 600 Campus Drive Florham Park, NJ 07932 Phone: +1 973 549 7000 Facsimile: +1 973 360 9831 Email: paul.rosenthal@faegredrinker.com - and - Freddy I. Fonseca, Esq. Kaylee A. Racs, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 1800 Century Park East, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: +1 310 203 4000 Facsimile: +1 310 229 1285 Email: freddy.fonseca@faegredrinker.com kaylee.racs@faegredrinker.com KARTON LOGISTICS: Rios Files Suit in Conn. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Karton Logistics, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Anthony Rios, Benjamin Johnson, for themselves and other similarly situated employees v. Karton Logistics, LLC, Karim Choueiri, Case No. DBD-CV22-6042660-S (Conn. Super. Ct., Danbury Cty., July 17, 2025). The case type is stated as "M90 - Misc - All other." Karton Logistics LLC (KTLG) is a company that partners with Amazon to provide delivery services, operating as a Delivery Service Partner (DSP).[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: HURWITZ SAGARIN SLOSSBERG & KNUFF LLC 135 Broad Street Milford, CT 06460 KASKAID HOSPITALITY: Bareg Files Suit in Minn. 4th Judicial Dist. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kaskaid Hospitality, Inc. The case is styled as Lucianna Bareg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kaskaid Hospitality, Inc., Case No. 27-CV-25-13173 (Minn. 4th Judicial Dist., Hennepin Cty., July 15, 2025). The case type is stated as "Civil Other." Kaskaid Hospitality -- https://kaskaidevents.com/ -- is a privately held, Twin Cities based restaurant company founded in 2007.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan D. Prosser, Esq. Hellmuth & Johnson PLLC 8050 West 78th Street Edina, MN 55439 Phone: (952) 941-4005 Email: nprosser@hjlawfirm.com KEURIG: Gives No Notice of Rights re Lie Detector Tests, Hwang Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- JINSONG HWANG and GREG SACHS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KEURIG DR PEPPER INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-11966-MPK (D. Mass., July 10, 2025) seeks redress for Defendant's alleged violations of Mass. Gen. Laws. Plaintiff Hwang is a citizen of Massachusetts who resides in Boston. On January 9, 2025, while located in Massachusetts, Plaintiff Hwang applied online to work at Keurig's offices in Massachusetts. That application did not provide Plaintiff Hwang with notice of his rights concerning lie detector tests as required by the state law. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, Section 19B(2)(b) requires all applications for employment within the Commonwealth to contain a notice of job applicants' and employees' rights concerning lie detector tests. Despite this clear mandate, Defendant Keurig does not provide such written notice of rights in their applications for jobs in Massachusetts, says the suit. Keurig Dr Pepper Inc. manufactures and distributes non-alcoholic beverages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Reardon, Jr. REARDON SCANLON LLP 45 South Main Street, 3rd Floor West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 955-9455 Facsimile: (860) 920-5242 E-mail: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com - and - Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. ARISOHN LLC 94 Blakeslee Rd. Litchfield, CT 06759 Telephone: (917) 656-0569 E-mail: josh@arisohnllc.com KEYSIGHT TECHNOLOGIES: Yamamoto Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------ ERIK YAMAMOTO, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated aggrieved employees, Plaintiff v. KEYSIGHT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware corporation; SATISH DHANASEKARAN, an individual; NEIL DOUGHERTY, an individual; JEFFREY LI, an individual; MARK WALLACE, an individual; JAMES BAKER, an individual; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV20322 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 9, 2025) arises from the Defendants' unlawful wage and hour policies and practices in violation of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The complaint asserts Defendants' unlawful wage and hour policies and practices, including, but not limited to, Keysight's failure to pay Plaintiff the full amounts of his earned commission wages, as well as Keysight's unlawful retaliation against Plaintiff for engaging in protected activities related to his unpaid wages and Keysight's unlawful wage and hour policies and practices. The Plaintiff worked and continues to work for Defendants as a sales expert. As a sales expert, Plaintiff was instrumental in facilitating the purchase of various IT-related products and services by potential customers. Keysight Technologies, Inc. is an information technology company based in the state of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Morgan E. Podruski, Esq. SOCAL EMPLOYMENT LAWYER, APC 33 Brookline Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 Telephone: (949) 393-6393 E-mail: morgan@employmentlawyersocal.com KIMCO OF TAMPA: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property ----------------------------------------------------- Carlos Brito, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals v. KIMCO OF TAMPA, LLC; and AM EXXON CORP, Case No. 1:25-cv-23116-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 11, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendants' Commercial Property being inaccessible to people who are disabled. Although over 33 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendants' property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property and the businesses named herein located within the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property, and businesses named herein located within the Commercial Property, and wishes to continue his patronage and use of each of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a paraplegic (paralyzed from his T-6 vertebrae down) and requires the use of a wheelchair to ambulate. KIMCO OF TAMPA, LLC, owned and operated a commercial property located in Miami, Florida and conducted a substantial amount of business in that place of public accommodation in Miami Dade County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 553-3464 Primary Email: aquezada@lawgmp.com Secondary Email: jacosta@lawgmp.com. - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Phone: (305) 350-3103 Primary Email: rdiego@lawgmp.com Secondary Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com KINDER MORGAN: Continues to Defend ERISA Class Suit in Texas ------------------------------------------------------------ Kinder Morgan Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 18, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from an ERISA class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. On February 22, 2021, Kinder Morgan Retirement Plan A participants Curtis Pedersen and Beverly Leutloff filed a purported class action lawsuit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The named plaintiffs were hired initially by the ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) in the late 1970s. Following a series of corporate acquisitions, plaintiffs became participants in pension plans sponsored by the Coastal Corporation (Coastal), El Paso Corporation (El Paso) and the company by virtue of its acquisition of El Paso in 2012 and its assumption of certain of El Paso's pension plan obligations. The complaint, which was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Civil Action No. 4:21-3590) and amended to include the Kinder Morgan Retirement Plan B, alleges that the series of foregoing transactions resulted in changes to plaintiffs’ retirement benefits which are now contested on a class-wide basis in the lawsuit. The complaint asserts six claims that fall within three primary theories of liability. Claims I, II, and III all challenge plan provisions that are alleged to constitute impermissible "backloading" or "cutback" of benefits and seek the same plan modification as to how the plans calculate benefits for former participants in the Coastal plan. Claims IV and V allege that former participants in the ANR plans should be eligible for unreduced benefits at younger ages than the plans currently provide. Claim VI asserts that actuarial assumptions used to calculate reduced early retirement benefits for current or former ANR employees are outdated and therefore unreasonable. On February 8, 2024, the Court certified a class defined as any and all persons who participated in the Kinder Morgan Retirement Plan A or B who are current or former employees of ANR or Coastal, and participated in the El Paso pension plan after El Paso acquired Coastal in 2001, and are members of at least one of three subclasses of individuals who are allegedly due benefits under one or more of the six claims asserted in the complaint. On July 25, 2024, the Court decided the parties' respective cross-motions for summary judgment. The Court granted its motion for summary judgment with respect to Claims I and II based on the Court's determination that the formula used to calculate projected service was neither backloaded nor a violation of ERISA's anti-cutback rule. The Court granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment with respect to Claim III because the Court found that the summary plan description did not include any clarifying examples or illustrations of accrued benefits using the applicable formula. The Court granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment as to Claim IV based upon the Court's finding that an amendment to the plan in 2007 violated ERISA's anti-cutback protection by terminating the accrual of early retirement benefits in connection with the sale of ANR. The Court granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment as to Claim V because the Court found that the plan administrator used an inconsistent interpretation to calculate benefits for some retirees. The Court dismissed Claim VI without prejudice based upon its determination that the claim is moot given that the Court allowed plaintiffs' motion as to Counts IV and V. The Court's decision on partial summary judgment did not address the extent of potential plan liabilities for past or future benefits or other potential damages or equitable relief. On March 11, 2025, the case was mediated without resolution. On June 3, 2025, the Court established a briefing schedule through September 2025 to address potential remedies for Claims III, IV and V. The Company anticipates plaintiffs will seek equitable and other relief including early retirement benefits, monetary damages or other equitable relief in excess of $100 million. It intends to vigorously oppose the form and scope of relief sought by the plaintiffs. It believes it has numerous and substantial defenses to support its vigorous defense at the trial or appellate levels if necessary. Kinder Morgan, Inc. is an energy infrastructure company based in Texas. KISWIRE INC: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mitchell Bedenbaugh, individually and on behalf of all other similarly-situated individuals, v. Kiswire, Inc., Case No. 8:25-cv-04771-DCC (D.S.C.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting a 21-day extension of time to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for notice to potential Plaintiffs and for conditional certification through Aug. 6, 2025. Kiswire's current deadline to respond to the Motion is July 16, 2025. Kiswire is a global manufacturer of steel wire and related products. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ieCPKO at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Debbie Whittle Durban, Esq. Matthew A. Abee, Esq. Morgan Thompson, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP 1320 Main Street / 17th Floor Columbia, SC 29201 Telephone: (803) 799-2000 E-mail: Debbie.Durban@nelsonmullins.com Matt.Abee@nelsonmullins.com Morgan.Thompson@nelsonmullins.com LAKEWAY ACHIEVEMENT: Barnette Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- CRYSTA BROOKE BARNETTE, individually, and on behalf of herself and other similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiff v. LAKEWAY ACHIEVEMENT CENTER and BONNIE GUTHRIE, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00340 (E.D. Tenn., July 16, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages owed to Plaintiff and other similarly situated direct support professionals. The Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay Plaintiff and those similarly situated for all hours worked over 40 per week within weekly pay periods at one and one-half times their regular hourly rates of pay during Plaintiff's employment period. In addition, the Defendants failed to record all of the compensable hours of Plaintiff and those similarly situated into their timekeeping system, says the suit. Lakeway Achievement Center is a home care provider located in Morristown, TN. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq. Joshua Autry, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, HOLT, OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com jautry@jsyc.com LEAD SHERPA: Moonsawmy Files TCPA Suit in D. Colorado ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lead Sherpa, Inc. The case is styled as Nirmala Moonsawmy, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Lead Sherpa, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-02169-KAS (D. Colo., July 15, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Lead Sherpa -- https://leadsherpa.com/ -- is a digital platform that provides strategies and lead generation tools to enhance revenue for real estate investors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex Kruzyk, Esq. PARDELL KRUZYK & GIRIBALDO PLLC 7500 Rialto Boulevard, Suite 1-250 Austin, TX 78735 Phone: (737) 310-3210 Email: akruzyk@pkglegal.com LEE ENTERPRISES: Napier Suit Removed to S.D. Iowa ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Briar Napier, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LEE ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED, was removed from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa on July 15, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00082-SMR-SBJ. In the Petition, Plaintiff is asserting individual claims against Lee Enterprises arising from an alleged data breach that occurred on or about February 1, 2025. The Plaintiff also is seeking to assert claims on behalf of a putative class (the "Putative Class" or "Putative Class Members") that he defines as "all individuals in the United States whose personally identifiable information ("PII") was compromised in the Lee Enterprises Data Breach that occurred on or about February 1, 2025." In the Petition, Plaintiff alleges Lee Enterprises failed to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information it collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Joshua J. McIntyre, Esq. LANE & WATERMAN LLP 220 North Main Street, Suite 600 Davenport, IA 52801 Phone: 563.324.3246 Email: jmcintyre@l-wlaw.com - and - Angelo A. Stio III, Esq. Melissa A. Chuderewicz, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE LLP 104 Carnegie Center, Suite 203 Princeton, NJ 08540 Phone: 609.452.0808 Email: angelo.stio@troutman.com melissa.chuderewicz@troutman.com LENOVO INC: Filing for Bid to Certify Class Due Sept. 5 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW AXELROD, et al., v. LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-06770-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey White entered a scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline Deadline to file motion to certify damages Sept. 5, 2025 class if leave is granted: Deadline to exchange expert reports: Oct. 17, 2025 Deadline to exchange expert reports: Oct. 31, 2025 Deadline to exchange rebuttal expert reports: Nov. 14, 2025 Close of expert discovery: Jan. 28, 2026 Deadline to file motions for summary Feb. 25, 2026 judgment and/or to decertify Lenovo operates as a software and hardware reseller. A copy of the Court's order dated July 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CUI4EN at no extra charge.[CC] LEON & GEORGE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Davis Says ------------------------------------------------------------ NICOLE DAVIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. Leon & George, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07821 (N.D. Ill., July 10, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://leonandgeorge.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inadequate focus order, unclear labels for interactive elements, the lack of navigation links, the lack of adequate labeling of form fields, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Leon & George's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Leon & George, Inc. operates the website that offers indoor plants and accessories, including ceramic planters with home delivery services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 E-mail: achan@ealg.law LISI AEROSPACE: Omorogieva Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lisi Aerospace North America, Inc. The case is styled as Osarumen Thomas Omorogieva, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lisi Aerospace North America, Inc., The Monadnock Company, Case No. 25STCV20668 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 11, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." LISI AEROSPACE -- https://www.lisi-aerospace.com/fr/ -- manufactures fasteners and structural assembly components for the world's leading aerospace companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah Hannah Cohen, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 8484 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 500 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3243 Phone: 310-438-5555 Email: sarah@tomorrowlaw.com LIT FINANCIAL: Kirstein Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lit Financial Corporation. The case is styled as Nicolette Kirstein, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. Lit Financial Corporation, Case No. 5:25-cv-03531-CH (E.D. Pa., July 17, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. LitFinancial -- https://litfinancial.com/ -- provides expert mortgage solutions, helping you secure the best home loans with competitive rates and personalized service.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeremy C. Jackson, Esq. BOWER LAW ASSOCIATES, PLLC 403 South Allen Street, Suite 210 State College, PA 16801 Phone: (814) 234-2626 Fax: (814) 237-8700 Email: jjackson@bower-law.com LYNCHBURG SOAP: Faces Pittman Suit Over Website's Access Barriers ----------------------------------------------------------------- DEBBIE PITTMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LYNCHBURG SOAP COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07741 (N.D. Ill., July 9, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://lynchburgsoapcompany.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inaccurate heading hierarchy, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible dropdown menus, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Lynchburg Soap Company, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law MASAYA TRADING: Evans Sues Over Alleged ADA Violations ------------------------------------------------------ JAMES EVANS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Masaya Trading Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07745 (N.D. Ill., July 9, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff. According to the complaint, the Defendant's contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. Then barriers prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for the American with Disabilities Act of 1990. Headquartered in Nashville, TN, Masaya Trading Company provides to the public a website known as Masayacompany.com, which offers handcrafted furniture for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 (630)-478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law MAXTACS INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Ortiz Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH ORTIZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. MAXTACS, INC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00649 (W.D.N.Y. July 18, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://maxtacs.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 MERCURY MANAGEMENT: Bid to Approve Settlement in Caldwell Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACOB CALDWELL, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. MERCURY MANAGEMENT LLC, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-02210-DDC-RES (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Daniel D. Crabtree entered an order that the parties' joint motion to approve settlement, conditionally certify collective action, notice of collective action settlement, and award of attorneys' fees and costs is denied. The Court further entered an order that the parties amended joint motion to approve settlement, conditionally certify collective action, notice of collective action settlement, and award of attorneys' fees and costs is granted in part and denied in part -- as set forth in this Order -- without prejudice to refiling. The court also grants in part and denies in part the Second Settlement Motion. The court grants the motion to the extent it seeks conditional certification of a collective action. It denies the motion in all other respects. The case's carts and horses are out of sequence. The Plaintiff filed a Complaint (Doc. 1)—on behalf of himself and others similarly situated -- alleging defendants had failed to pay overtime compensation correctly. And he alleged the purported class was entitled to unpaid compensation and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The parties negotiated a proposed settlement agreement. They agreed to a class defined as: "All Tower Technicians who were eligible for the $5.00 per hour of Hazard Pay and who worked overtime from May 1, 2022 to June 30, 2023." The settlement agreement further proposes: -- A total settlement amount of $40,747.78, comprising settlement payments to eligible employees and attorneys’ fees and costs The Plaintiff worked as a non-exempt, hourly employee for Mercury Management from September 2022 to March 2024. Mercury "is a rural broadband internet provider [who] also installs and maintains the equipment needed for its high-speed broadband and fiber internet." A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated July 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=U1rcfH at no extra charge.[CC] METROPOLITAN LIFE: Blackoak Life Sues Over Unlawful Rate Increase ----------------------------------------------------------------- Blackoak Life Limited as general partner to Blackoak Investors LP, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:25-cv-05749 (S.D.N.Y., July 11, 2025), is brought on behalf of Plaintiff and similarly situated owners of MetLife life insurance policies, seeking to represent a class of MetLife policyholders who have been subjected to an unlawful cost of insurance rate increase. The policies at issue in this case are flexible premium universal life policies issued, insured, or assumed by MetLife or its predecessor(s) in interest that were subjected to an increase in COI rates announced in 2024 (collectively, the "Policies"). The principal benefit of universal life policies generally, and the Policies specifically, is that, unlike other kinds of whole life insurance that require fixed monthly premium payments, the premium payments required for universal life policies are flexible and need only be sufficient to cover the cost of insurance charges and certain other specified expenses, which are typically levied each month. The cost of insurance charge, often called a COI charge, is typically the highest charge that a policyholder pays. Because the COI charge is a function of the COI rate, the policy provision explaining how the COI rates are calculated, and whether they can be changed and how, is one of the most important parts of the contract. The size of the COI increases was enormous. After Plaintiff's policy had been in force for over 20 years, with all due premiums paid, the letter announced a variable hike in Plaintiff's future COI rates ranging from 96% to 117% increase for each year. And this is in addition to the administrative fees, premium expense charge, and other charges levied on the policy. As a direct result of MetLife's actions, Plaintiff has been required to pay and has paid the exorbitant and unjustified new COI charges, says the complaint. The Plaintiff BlackOak Life Limited, acting as General Partner to BlackOak Investors LP, is the owner of a group variable universal life insurance policy (Policy No. 0001878344) issued by MetLife in 2002. MetLife is incorporated under the laws of the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth Ard, Esq. Ryan Kirkpatrick, Esq. Zach Savage, Esq. Max Straus, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. One Manhattan West New York, NY 10001 Phone: (212) 336-8330 Facsimile: (212) 336-8340 Email: sard@susmangodfrey.com rkirkpatrick@susmangodfrey.com zsavage@susmangodfrey.com mstraus@susmangodrey.com - and - Steven G. Sklaver, Esq. Glenn Bridgman, Esq. Kimberly Page, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 789-3100 Facsimile: (310) 789-3150 Email: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com gbridgman@susmangodfrey.com kpage@susmangodfrey.com MISS ROSIER: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Pittman Says --------------------------------------------------------------- DEBBIE PITTMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MISS ROSIER HOLDING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07945 (N.D. Ill., July 14, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://miss-rosier.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Miss Rosier Holding, Inc. is a women's luxury online boutique known for its contemporary, practical, and timeless designs. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (630) 478-0856 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law MITRA-9 BRANDS: Palmer Sues Over Mislabeled Kratom Products ----------------------------------------------------------- SHELAH PALMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MITRA-9 BRANDS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00250 (E.D. Wash., July 14, 2025) is an action against the Defendant for false, misleading, deceptive, and negligent sales practices regarding its kratom seltzers, powders, and shots (the "Products"). According to the complaint, Kratom is a dried leaf that is sold as a loose powder, packaged into capsules, or made into an extract. However, what reasonable consumers do not know, and Defendant fails to disclose, is that the "active ingredients" in kratom are similar to opioids. That is, kratom works on the exact same opioid receptors in the human brain as morphine and its analogs, has similar effects as such, and critically, has the same risk of physical addiction and dependency, with similar withdrawal symptoms. The Defendant and its officers have engaged in a systemic effort to peddle an addictive substance to unsuspecting and oftentimes vulnerable consumers. The Plaintiff seeks relief in this action individually, and as a class action on behalf of similarly situated purchasers of Defendant's Products. Mitra-9 Brands LLC offers kava extract beverages and kratom extract seltzers. They provide flavors like dragon fruit, black cherry, and tangerine. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Wright A. Noel, Esq. CARSON NOEL PLLC 20 Sixth Avenue NE Issaquah, WA 98027 Telephone: (425) 395-7786 Facsimile: (425) 837-5396 E-mail: wright@carsonnoel.com - and - Ryan Brooks Martin, Esq. Neal J. Deckant, Esq. Luke Sironski-White, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: rmartin@bursor.com ndeckant@bursor.com lsironski@bursor.com MOTOROLA MOBILITY: Court Narrows Claims in Gabrielli Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN GABRIELLI, v. MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-09533-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon S. Tigar entered an order granting in part and denying in part motion to dismiss and denying motion to strike. In sum, the Court dismisses Gabrielli's claims for breach of contract, good faith and fair dealing, and trespass to chattels with leave to amend. It denies the remainder of Motorola's motion to dismiss. The Court also denies Motorola's motion to strike. Within 21 days from this order, Gabrielli may file an amended complaint solely to cure the deficiencies identified in this order. The Plaintiff Jonathan Gabrielli brings this proposed class action against Motorola based on allegations that Motorola violated his privacy rights through deceptive tracking practices on its website involving the use of cookies. Motorola is a consumer electronics manufacturer. A copy of the Court's order dated July 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=x330Y6 at no extra charge.[CC] MRM MINING INC: Hoover Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Hoover, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MRM Mining Inc., Case No. 7:25-cv-00045-KKC (E.D. Ky., July 15, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Portal-to-Portal Act (collectively, the "FLSA") seeking damages for Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff time and one half-the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in each seven-day workweek. Specifically, Defendant requires Plaintiff and other hourly paid mining employees to suit into protective clothing and safety gear (personal protective equipment, hereafter "PPE") necessary to safely perform their job duties and travel into the mines also known as "donning," while on mining premises without compensation, prior to being "clocked in." Similarly, Defendant requires Plaintiff and other hourly paid mining employees to remove and store PPE and wash up, also known as "doffing," without compensation, or while "clocked out." This pre/post shift off the clock work policy of Defendant's violates the FLSA by depriving Plaintiff and other hourly paid mining employees of overtime wages when they work in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Furthermore, Defendant did not pay Plaintiff and similarly situated hourly paid mining employees for any hours worked over forty at a rate of time and one half their respective hourly rates of pay. Rather, Defendant paid for all hours worked at the hourly rate, regardless of how many hours worked in a workweek, in violation of the FLSA ("straight time for overtime"), says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a scoop operator in connection with its mineral extraction business operations. The Defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Kentucky.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Garrison, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, PLLC 200 31st Avenue North Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: 615/244-2202 Fax: 615/252-3798 Email: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com - and - Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. WAGE AND HOUR FIRM 5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75254 Phone: (214) 489-7653 Facsimile: (469) 319-0317 Email: marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com MULLIGAN SECURITY: Underpays Zone Supervisors, Nicholson Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ SHAV-VAUGHN NICHOLSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MULLIGAN SECURITY LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03820 (E.D.N.Y., July 9, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay proper minimum wages and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Zone Supervisor from approximately July 2024 until approximately March 2025. Mulligan Security LLC is a security and fire safety services provider, headquartered in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Winebrake, Esq. Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 Email: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com - and - William "Jack" Simpson, Esq. SIMPSON, PLLC 100 S. Main Street Booneville, MS 38829 Telephone: (662) 913-7811 MY BUD LIFE: Ortiz Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH ORTIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MY BUD LIFE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00616 (W.D.N.Y., July 14, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://mybudvase.com/, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. My Bud Life, LLC features bud vases transformed into fine smoking implements. [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 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal NCAA: Brantmeier Wins Class Certification Bid --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brantmeier v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Case No. 1:24-cv-00238 (M.D.N.C., Filed March 18, 2024), the Hon. Judge Catherine C. Eagles entered a memorandum that the Court will grant the motion for class certification. To move things along while the Court finalizes its review, the plaintiffs shall present a draft proposal about class notice to the defendant within five business days. The proposal shall include a proposed notice to both the injunctive and damages class members, a method for its distribution, a schedule for opting out of the damages class, and any and all other matters requiring resolution related to notice. No later than July 29, 2025, the parties SHALL meet and confer and thereafter exchange revised drafts. If and when the Court grants the motion for class certification, the parties can expect to be required to promptly file a Joint Submission on Class Notice containing their joint proposal or, if they do not agree in full, dueling proposals with short briefs directed to items of disagreement. The nature of suit states Antitrust Litigation. National is a nonprofit organization that regulates student athletics.[CC] NEOGEN CORP: Faces Operating Engineers Over Common Stock Drop ------------------------------------------------------------- OPERATING ENGINEERS CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY AND MISCELLANEOUS PENSION FUND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. NEOGEN CORPORATION, JOHN ADENT, and DAVID NAEMURA, Case No. 1:25-cv-00802 (W.D. Mich., July 18, 2025) is a federal securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of Neogen common stock from Jan. 5, 2023, through June 3, 2025, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Defendants. In December 2021, it was announced that Neogen would merge with the Food Safety Division of the 3M Company. The deal closed in September 2022. Upon closing, Neogen commenced what would become a lengthy and complicated integration process. During the Class Period, Defendants issued a series of materially false and misleading statements which led investors to believe that the integration was progressing much better that it actually was. In addition, even when the Company was forced to reveal that certain "inefficiencies" arose as a result of the integration, Defendants downplayed them and assured investors that they were fully aware and committed to resolving them quickly. Investors slowly learned the truth through a series of disclosures beginning on January 10, 2025. That day, the Company revealed, among other things, 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. Neogen also updated its full year outlook, cutting its fiscal year 2025 revenue and EBITDA guidance. In addition, the Company 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. One financial quarter later, on April 9, 2025, Neogen announced that quarterly revenue fell 3.4% to $221 million, in part, due to integration issues. Finally, on June 4, 2025, Neogen shocked investors when it 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. Overall, during the Class Period, from the Company's August 15, 2023, high of $23.84 per share through its June 4, 2025 closing price of $4.96 per share, Neogen's stock price dropped an astonishing $18.88 per share, or 79%, erasing more than $4 billion of the Company's market capitalization. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the large decline in the market value of the Company's common stock, Plaintiff and other class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. Neogen is a food safety company that manufactures and markets products and services dedicated to food and animal safety. Neogen operates through two main business segments: Food Safety and Animal Safety. The Food Safety segment provides diagnostic test kits and other products to test for dangerous substances in human and animal food. The Animal Safety segment develops and supplies pharmaceuticals and medical instruments in the veterinary market.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc L. Newman, Esq. Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq. Gregory A. Mitchell, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 West University Drive Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 E-mail: mln@millerlawpc.com dal@millerlawpc.com gam@millerlawpc.com - and - Karin E. Fisch, Esq. Vincent J. Pontrello, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 485 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 722-8500 Facsimile: (610) 722-8500 E-mail: kfisch@gelaw.com vpontrello@gelaw.com NEW HAMPSHIRE: Court Sides with Advocates, Demands Voter Database ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Samantha D. Elliott of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire grants the Plaintiff's motion to compel in the case captioned as Coalition for Open Democracy, et al. v. David Scanlan, et al., Case No. 24-cv-312-SE (D.N.H.). The Court ordered the defendant to produce a copy of the New Hampshire statewide voter database and all documents concerning the use of the database on or before May 27, 2025. On September 12, 2024, then-New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu signed into law HB 1569, which went into effect on November 11, 2024. The law made several changes to New Hampshire's voter registration and identification requirements that plaintiff allege violate their rights under the United States Constitution. Before HB 1569 became effective, a prospective voter could register to vote on Election Day by establishing her citizenship, identity, and age, either by presenting documentary evidence or, if she did not possess the necessary documentation, by executing at her polling location what is commonly known as the Qualified Voter Affidavit. Voters who submitted the Qualified Voter Affidavit attested to their qualifications under penalty of voter fraud and perjury. HB 1569 eliminated the Qualified Voter Affidavit. The plaintiff also contested the constitutionality of HB 1569's elimination of the Challenged Voter Affidavit. Before HB 1569 became effective, if the moderator determined that the challenge was more likely than not well grounded, the prospective voter could cast an eligible ballot through a Challenged Voter Affidavit, sworn under the penalties of voter fraud and perjury. HB 1569 eliminated the right to vote by Challenged Voter Affidavit. Count I alleges that HB 1569's elimination of the Qualified Voter Affidavit constitutes an unjustifiable burden on the right to vote in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Count II alleges that HB 1569's elimination of the Challenged Voter Affidavit constitutes an unjustifiable burden on the right to vote. Count III alleges that it violates the plaintiff's right to procedural due process, and Count IV alleges that it violates their right to equal protection under the law. In the plaintiff's second request for the production of documents, they requested: "A copy of the New Hampshire statewide voter database and all documents concerning the use of the statewide voter database, including instruction manuals or other guides concerning the data fields contained in the database and their correct interpretation." Defendant objected, stating the voter database shall be private and confidential and shall not be subject to RSA 91-A and RSA 654:31, nor shall it or any of the information contained therein be disclosed pursuant to a subpoena or civil litigation discovery request. They further responded that "neither the Secretary's nor Attorney General's Offices has the statutory authority to produce the SVRS. Indeed, they have a statutory obligation to resist production of the database." Defendant argued that disclosure of the database and accompanying documents is improper for three reasons. First, the New Hampshire legislature has decided to prohibit disclosure in exercise of its legislative power under the cooperative federalism required by the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). Second, even if HAVA does not prevent disclosure, the SVRS is critical infrastructure that cannot be disclosed to third parties. Third, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure prohibit disclosure of the SVRS. The court found that plaintiff bear the initial burden of showing that the requested discovery is relevant. Plaintiff argued that the SVRS and accompanying documents are relevant because they will aid the plaintiff in demonstrating HB1569's unconstitutional burden on the right to vote by illustrating the character and magnitude of the injury caused by the law. The court determined that defendant have waived their relevance argument because they did not object to the plaintiff's second request for production of documents on relevancy grounds. Even if the court considered the defendant's relevancy objections, they would not carry the day. Where, as here, the plaintiff challenge a statute for placing an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, the court is not limited to the burden placed on the named plaintiff. The court found that defendant's argument is a red herring. Defendant does not explain how Congress's direction to New Hampshire to implement a statutory scheme related to voting absolves the state of its discovery obligations in federal court. The court concluded that cooperative federalism does not release the defendant from complying with their discovery obligations in this case. Defendant argued that they cannot produce the database in discovery in this case because the Secretary "cannot satisfy his obligation to protect critical election infrastructure from cybersecurity threats if the SVRS is disclosed to third parties." The court found they offer no support for that statement, and they point to no caselaw supporting the notion that the designation of election systems as critical infrastructure absolves them of their discovery obligations in a case in federal court. The court noted that defendant previously produced the SVRS, or an older legacy system, in discovery in a case in this court after DHS designated election systems as critical infrastructure to plaintiff represented by the same attorneys who have appeared in this case. Therefore, DHS's designation of election systems as critical infrastructure does not shield the SVRS from discovery in this case. Defendant contended that the plaintiff's request for the SVRS exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. They argued that disclosure is not proportionate to the needs of the parties in this case because the burden on the defendant to produce the SVRS substantially outweighs the likely benefit to the plaintiff. The court found that defendant's representations as to the burden of production focus largely on their concerns regarding confidentiality and cybersecurity, which the court has already addressed. These arguments do not demonstrate that the burden and expense of producing the SVRS outweigh its likely benefit to the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant has not shown that the plaintiff can obtain the same information in less burdensome ways. The court granted the plaintiff's motion to compel on May 20, 2025. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7JL1l9 NEW PORT: Faces Fezy Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls ------------------------------------------------------ JOHN FEZY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW PORT RICHEY AUTOMOTIVE MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:25-cv-01773 (M.D. Fla., July 9, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. To promote its goods and services, the Defendant engages in unsolicited phone calls and continues to call consumers after they have opted out of Defendant's solicitations. Moreover, the Defendant's failure to (1) maintain the required written policies and procedures, (2) provide training to its personnel engaged in telemarketing, (3) maintain a standalone do-not-call list, and (4) honor consumer opt-out requests caused Plaintiff and the class members harm as they continued to receive phone call solicitations after asking for those messages to stop. New Port Richey Automotive Management, LLC is an automotive service provider in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW P.A. 515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 732-2792 E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com - and - Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com NEXTMARVEL INC: Williams Balks at Unsolicited Text Messages ----------------------------------------------------------- JAZMINE WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEXTMARVEL INC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07733 (N.D. Ill., July 9, 2025) is a putative class action pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. To promote its goods and services, the Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging and continues to text message consumers after they have opted out of Defendant's solicitations. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. NextMarvel Inc. is a Texas corporation whose principal office is located in Austin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com NIKITA BAKER: Seeks to Hold Consideration of Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as D.N.N. and V.R.G., on behalf themselves and all others similarly situated, v. NIKITA BAKER, in her official capacity as Field Office Director of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Enforcement and Removal Operations Baltimore Field Office, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01613-JRR (D. Md.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting opposed motion to hold consideration of the Plaintiffs' motions for class certification and preliminary injunction in abeyance until after the Court's ruling on defendants' forthcoming responsive pleading to the Plaintiff's second amended complaint. On May 9, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a "Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Class Complaint" against the Defendants. On May 12, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On June 6, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, requesting this Court to: certify this case as a class action consisting of: "All persons who are now or in the future will be detained at the Baltimore Hold Rooms," appoint the Plaintiffs as class representatives, and appoint Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jY64Bb at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Brett A. Schumate, Esq. Devin Barrett, Esq. Brendan T. Moore, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Telephone: (202) 880-0330 NIP & TUCK: Radvansky Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ETHAN RADVANSKY, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. NIP & TUCK PLASTIC SURGERY, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-03502-MLB (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting consent motion to extend the time to file a motion for class certification. The Plaintiff filed this class action complaint, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act on behalf of a national class. The Defendant has not yet responded to the complaint and the Plaintiff will need to conduct discovery and secure expert testimony before a motion for class certification can be filed. The Court has "broad discretion over the management of pre-trial activities, including discovery and scheduling." Nip is a medical group practice that specializes in Cosmetic, Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BMTqyR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com ONLY WHAT: Barton Sues Over Mislabeled Protein Powder Products -------------------------------------------------------------- ALLISON BARTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ONLY WHAT YOU NEED, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01849-BAS-KSC (S.D. Cal., July 18, 2025) alleges that the Defendant violated California consumer protection law in the labeling of its Chocolate flavor Plant Protein Powder (the "Products") by representing that the Products are an "ELITE" protein powder containing "ONLY WHAT YOU NEED" and "NOTHING YOU DON'T" but failing to disclose that the Products contain lead. Only What You Need, Inc. retails nutritional supplement products. The Company offers protein drinks and powers, meal replacement shakes, plant based dairy milk. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Naomi Spector, Esq. KAMBERLAW, LLP 3451 Via Montebello, Ste. 192-212 Carlsbad, CA 92009 Telephone: (310) 400-1053 Facsimile: (212) 202-6364 Email: nspector@kamberlaw.com PAC HOUSING: Final Class Notice Submission in Hills Due August 8 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALVIN HILLS, et al., v. PAC HOUSING GROUP, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-05740-BWA-KWR (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Barry W. Ashe entered an order that the following class certification deadlines are extended as follows: Item Deadline Defendants' New Response Deadline July 22, 2025 for Class Discovery: Final Class Notice Submission to Court: Aug. 8, 2025 Deadline to Send Class Notice (to those who Within 30 days can reasonably be identified through of the Court Defendants' discovery responses) and to Post approving the Class Notice (via the supplemental notice Class Notice provisions set forth in the CMO): PAC provides high-quality housing. A copy of the Court's order dated July 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XYHW7k at no extra charge.[CC] PCH HOTELS & RESORTS: Smith Files FCRA Suit in N.D. Alabama ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against PCH Hotels & Resorts Inc. The case is styled as Hunter Sheffield Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PCH Hotels & Resorts Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-01117-NAD (N.D. Ala., July 11, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. PCH Resort Hotels -- https://pchresorts.com/ -- is a Management & Development Company with Brand Partnerships including Marriott and the Robert Treat Jones Trail based in Mobile, Alabama.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David I. Schoen, Esq. 2800 Zelda Road, Suite 100-6 Montgomery, AL 36106 Phone: (334) 395-6611 Fax: (917) 591-7586 Email: DSchoen593@aol.com - and - Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC 701 Cookman Avenuem Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Phone: (845) 367-7146 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com PENNANTPARK INVESTMENT: Clark Sues Over Unprotected Private Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- RANDY CLARK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PENNANTPARK INVESTMENT ADVISORS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-23062-JB (S.D. Fla., July 9, 2025) arises from a recent cyberattack resulting in a data breach of the sensitive information belonging to at least 3,655 victims, in the possession and custody and/or control of Defendant. The data breach occurred between December 22, 2024 and March 7, 2025--or continuously for approximately ten weeks. The Defendant reported to the Attorney General of Maine that it did not discover the breach until June 12, 2025--an appalling six months after the breach first occurred, underscoring its grossly inadequate cybersecurity measures. On or about June 30, 2025, the Defendant finally began notifying Class Members about the data breach. However, Defendant's Breach Notice obfuscates the nature of the breach and the threat it posed--refusing to tell victims how many people were impacted, how the breach happened, who perpetrated the breach, whether a ransom was demanded or paid, whether data was published on the dark web, exactly when Defendant discovered the breach, or why it took the Defendant six months to finally begin notifying victims that cybercriminals had gained access to their highly private information, says the suit. Headquartered in Miami Beach, FL, PennantPark Investment Advisors, LLC is an investment management firm. The company provides capital to middle-market companies in the form of senior secured debt, subordinated debt, and equity investments. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua R. Jacobson, Esq. JACOBSON PHILLIPS PLLC 478 E. Altamonte Dr., Ste 108-570 Altamonte Springs, FL 32701 Telephone: (407) 720-4057 E-mail: joshua@jacobsonphillips.com - and - Carly Roman, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: croman@straussborrelli.com PRIORITY CARE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Turak Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ KARALENE TURAK, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRIORITY CARE GROUP, LLC, d/b/a PRIORITY HEALTHCARE GROUP, Defendant, Case No. 250701009 (Pa. Com. Pl., Philadelphia Cty., July 9, 2025) is a class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, to recover unpaid overtime wages, penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and others similarly situated regularly worked 40 or more hours per workweek for Defendant. The Plaintiff and others similarly situated were often interrupted during their meal breaks or were unable to take their full 30-minute meal breaks due to work duties. Despite these interruptions and incomplete meal breaks, the Defendant continued to deduct, or cause to be deducted, 30 minutes from Plaintiff's and other similarly situated employees' time worked. As a result, the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and those similarly situated for all hours worked, including overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, says the suit. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt hourly employee at its Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania location from approximately 2018 to June 2024. Priority Care Group, LLC owns and operates rehabilitation and nursing center facilities in multiple states, including Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Goodley, Esq. GOODLEY MCCARTHY LLC One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 394-0541 E-mail: james@gmlaborlaw.com - and - Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7034 Braucher Street, N.W., Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 1360 E 9th St, Suite 808 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 230-2955 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Scott D. Perlmutter, Esq. TITTLE & PERLMUTER 4106 Bridge Ave. Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 308-1522 Facsimile: (888) 604-9299 E-mail: scott@tittlelawfirm.com PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Burchett Suit Removed to E.D. Kentucky ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Wilbur Burchett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 25-CI-00191 was removed from the Circuit Court of Johnson County, Kentucky, 24th Judicial District, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky on July 11, 2025, and assigned Case No. 7:25-cv-00044-REW-EBA. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he was insured by Progressive Casualty, that he was in an automobile accident on or about September 4, 2024, and that Progressive Casualty determined that his vehicle was a total loss. The Plaintiff alleges that Progressive Casualty improperly valued his total loss claim because it used a valuation system provided by Mitchell International, Inc. ("Mitchell") that applies a Projected Sold Adjustment ("PSA") to determine the value of his total loss vehicle.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Daniel E. Danford, Esq. Chadwick A. McTighe, Esq. STITES & HARBISON, PLLC 250 West Main Street, Suite 2300 Lexington, KY 40507 Phone: (859) 226-2292 Email: ddanford@stites.com cmctighe@stites.com - and - Jeffrey S. Cashdan, Esq. Zachary A. McEntyre, Esq. J. Matthew Brigman, Esq. Allison Hill White, Esq. Logan R. Hobson, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1180 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (404) 572-4600 Fax: (404) 572-5100 Email: jcashdan@kslaw.com zmcentyre@kslaw.com mbrigman@kslaw.com awhite@kslaw.com lhobson@kslaw.com PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS: Rios Sues Over Layoff Without Advance Notice ----------------------------------------------------------------- ONIL RIOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS LLC, TAG MEDSTAFFING, and ATLANTIC RESOURCE PARTNERS HC LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-03812 (E.D.N.Y., July 9, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and the New York State WARN Act. The case arises from the Defendants' action of terminating the employment of the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees as a result of a mass layoff ordered by the Defendants on May 13, 2025, without providing adequate advance notice as required by the WARN Act. Public Partnerships LLC is a limited liability company, with its principal place of business in Boston, Massachusetts. Tag MedStaffing is a staffing agency with offices in New York, New York. Atlantic Resource Partners HC LLC is a staffing and recruiting company, with an office in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed Gangat, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT 675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (718) 669-0714 Facsimile: (646) 556-6112 Email: mgangat@gangatpllc.com R1 RCM: Class Action Settlement in Hillbom Suit Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HEATHER HILLBOM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. R1 RCM INC. and DIGNITY HEALTH d/b/a DIGNITY HEALTH - ST. ROSE DOMINICAN HOSPITAL, ROSE DE LIMA CAMPUS, Case No. 2:24-cv-00664-JAD-EJY (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement: 1. The Settlement Agreement provides for a Settlement Class defined as follows: " All individuals whose PII and/or PHI was potentially impacted in the Data Incident who were sent notice of the Data Incident by Defendants." Specifically excluded from the Settlement Class are the Defendants, the Released Parties, and their officers and directors; (ii) all Settlement Class Members who timely and validly request exclusion from the Settlement Class; (iii) any judges assigned to this case and their staff and family; and (iv) any other person found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be guilty under criminal law of initiating, causing, aiding or abetting the criminal activity occurrence of the Data Incident or who pleads nolo contendere to any such charge. 2. The Court finds that Plaintiff Heather Hillbom will likely satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(e)(2)(A) and should be appointed as the Class Representative. Additionally, the Court finds that Abbas Kazerounian, Mona Amini, and Gustavo Ponce of Kazerouni Law Group, APC will likely satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(e)(2)(A) and should be appointed as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g)(1). 3. Upon preliminary review, the Court finds the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate to warrant providing notice of the proposed Settlement to the Settlement Class and accordingly is preliminarily approved 4. A Final Approval Hearing shall be held on Nov. 14, 2025 at 10 a.m. at the United States District Court, District of Nevada, at 333 Las Vegas Blvd South, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89101. The Defendant is an American 'revenue cycle management' company servicing hospitals, health systems and physician groups across the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated July 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6Iq2L6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mona Amini, Esq. Gustavo Ponce, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 6940 S. Cimarron Road, Suite 210 Las Vegas, NV 89113 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: mona@kazlg.com gustavo@kazlg.com RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES: Camire Sues Over Private Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT CAMIRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES OF RICHMOND, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00528 (E.D. Va., July 9, 2025) arises out of a recent cyberattack and data breach resulting from Defendant's failure to implement reasonable and industry-standard data security practices to protect its patients' private information. According to the complaint, the data breach compromised and exposed patients' private information such as names, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, government-issued ID numbers, financial information, account numbers, credit/debit card numbers, medical information, and health insurance information. According to the Defendant, a cybersecurity incident occurred between April 2, 2024 and April 6, 2024, during which time an unauthorized actor gained access to Defendant's network environment. The Plaintiff now brings this class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. Radiology Associates of Richmond, Inc. is a private radiology practice that provides a full range of imaging services. [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 - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 Facsimile: (513) 345-8294 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 - and - 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 RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES: Faces Doe Suit Over Unprotected Private Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ JANE DOE, on behalf of herself and her minor child J.C. and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES OF RICHMOND, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00523 (E.D. Va., July 9, 2025) arises from a recent cyberattack resulting in a data breach of sensitive information in the possession and custody and/or control of Defendant. The data breach resulted in unauthorized disclosure, exfiltration, and theft of current and former patients' highly personally identifying information and protected health information, including their full names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, medical information, and health insurance information. The data breach occurred between April 2, 2024, and April 6, 2024. However, the Defendant took fifteen months before informing Class Members even though Plaintiff and Class Members had their most sensitive personal information accessed, exfiltrated, and stolen. In addition, the Defendant's Breach Notice obfuscated the nature of the breach and the threat it posed--refusing to tell its patients how the breach happened, when the breach was discovered, why it took Defendant until July 1, 2025 to begin notifying victims that hackers had gained access to highly private sensitive information, says the suit. Based in North Chesterfield, VA, Radiology Associates of Richmond, Inc. offers a range of imaging services. [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 - Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com RANCO LLC: Ortiz Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind --------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH ORTIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RANCO, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00617 (W.D.N.Y., July 14, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://bigchiefdelta.com/, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Ranco, LLC operates the Big Chief Delta online retail store, as well as the Big Chief Delta interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States selling vape and cannabis products. [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 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal REAL HEALTH: Faces Wilson Suit Over Robocalls in N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------------- ERIN WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REAL HEALTH ROOTS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03808-SEG (N.D. Ga., July 9, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of sending telemarketing text messages to the telephone numbers of consumers, including the Plaintiff, in an attempt to promote its goods and services without prior consent. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers suffered damages. Real Health Roots, LLC is a limited liability company in Midland County, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Valerie Chinn, Esq. CHINN LAW FIRM, LLC 245 N. Highland Ave., Suite 230 #7 Atlanta, GA 30307 Telephone: (404) 955-7732 Facsimile: (404) 745-8605 Email: vchinn@chinnlawfirm.com - and - Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com REBIZ LLC: Court Refuses to Toss Fry Suit Over Standing Challenge ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as ZECHARIAH FRY, an Illinois resident, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff v. REBIZ, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01020-SLD-RLH, Chief District Judge Sara Darrow of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss based on lack of standing and denies the Plaintiff's motion to stay briefing for jurisdictional discovery. Plaintiff Zechariah Fry asserts that Defendant ReBiz, LLC violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) ReBiz is an unincorporated association, specifically a limited liability company, headquartered in Ohio that provides "management tools and software to gain insight on customer traffic, sales conversion, employee tracking, fraud prevention, and compliance for several businesses in the retail industry. The case centers on ReBiz's proprietary Datacam product, which uses videos and images from clients retail stores to monitor interactions between the client's employees and customers. Fry was employed by Arch Telecom, Inc. (ATI) beginning in October 2022 as a sales representative in Moline, Illinois. ATI contracted with ReBiz to utilize ReBiz's Datacam technology, which was installed at ATI's store in Moline. Fry alleges that "ATI required him to upload a 'clear' photograph of himself that did not contain any filters" and that he "was never asked for, nor did he provide, his consent to allow ReBiz to collect, store, or use his biometric data." About a year into his employment, Fry's manager "confirmed that ReBiz, in fact, was obtaining biometric information from employees and customers through Datacam. Fry filed suit in Illinois state court on December 4, 2024, asserting three claims under BIPA: 1. ReBiz failed to establish, maintain, and comply with a publicly available policy regarding the retention and deletion of biometric data in violation of Section 15(a); 2. ReBiz failed to adequately inform and receive a "written release" from Fry and the Class prior to collecting, capturing, purchasing, receiving through trade, or otherwise obtaining those persons' biometric data in violation of Section 15(b); and 3. ReBiz, being in possession of biometric data, disclosed, redisclosed, or otherwise disseminated Fry and the Class's biometric data without consent in violation of Section 15(d). ReBiz was served on December 20, 2024, and timely removed the case to federal court on January 17, 2025. The Defendant "invoked the Court's jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d), asserting that the parties are minimally diverse, the proposed class contains at least 100 members, the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, and that none of CAFA's exceptions apply. ReBiz filed a Motion to Dismiss asserting seven grounds for dismissal, including that "Fry lacks standing to maintain his claims." In response, Fry requested that the Court "order the parties to conduct jurisdictional discovery and to stay briefing on ReBiz's Motion to Dismiss. Judge Darrow noted that Article III of the Constitution confines the federal judicial power to 'Cases' and 'Controversies.' Under Article III, a case or controversy can exist only if a plaintiff has standing to sue. Standing requires three components: "(1) an injury in fact that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; (2) the injury was likely caused by the defendant; and (3) the injury would likely be redressed by judicial relief. Judge Darrow observed a significant contradiction in ReBiz's position: Despite invoking CAFA to remove this case to federal court, thereby representing that this Court had subject matter jurisdiction over the case, ReBiz now asserts that the Court in fact does not have subject matter jurisdiction because Fry lacks standing. ReBiz relied on an affidavit from its president, Chris Hogan, asserting that "Datacam did not scan Fry's facial geometry while he was employed at ATI. Accordingly, ReBiz argued that there is no BIPA-related injury-in-fact that can be fairly traceable to ReBiz's actions. The Court found that "ReBiz's standing argument is intertwined with the merits of Fry's BIPA claims." The Court explained that where the determination of standing is 'intertwined with the merits of the case courts are permitted to postpone the determination of standing. The Court cited precedent from the BIPA context, noting that "resolving factual challenges to subject matter jurisdiction should only be resolved on a motion under Rule 12(b)(1) if the facts necessary to assess jurisdiction do not implicate the merits." Judge Darrow concluded that "ReBiz's assertion that Fry lacks standing is intertwined with the merits of Fry's BIPA claims, such that dismissal on that basis would be inappropriate at this stage of the case." The Court entered the following orders: 1. The unredacted Motion to Stay Briefing on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in Order to Conduct Jurisdictional Discovery and unredacted Motion for Leave to File Reply are terminated as pending motions. 2. The Redacted Motion to Stay Briefing on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in Order to Conduct Jurisdictional Discovery is denied. 3. The Redacted Motion for Leave to File Reply and the Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Out of Time Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Reply are moot. 4. ReBiz's Motion to Dismiss is denied to the extent that it asserts that dismissal is appropriate due to a lack of standing. 5. Fry's response to the remainder of ReBiz's Motion to Dismiss was due on July 15, 2025. A copy of the Court's order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DiYQ7v RED ROBIN: Preminger Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts -------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL PREMINGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RED ROBIN GOURMET BURGERS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00772 (M.D. Fla., July 9, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of sending telemarketing text messages to the telephone numbers of consumers, including the Plaintiff, in an attempt to promote its goods and services without prior consent. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers suffered damages, says the suit. Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc. is a restaurant company doing business in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 120 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 732-2792 Email: meisenband@eisenbandlaw.com REGIONAL HEALTH: Faces Securities Class Suit in Georgia ------------------------------------------------------- Regional Health Properties Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report for May 18, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 18, 2025, that the Company faces a securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On July 11, 2025, a putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), was filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia, against Regional, its Chief Executive Officer and certain current directors of the Regional Board (the "Shareholder Lawsuit"). Additionally, on July 11, 2025, an emergency motion for preliminary injunction was filed in connection with disclosures and shareholder voting leading up to the Merger. Regional believes that the claims asserted in the Shareholder Lawsuit are without merit and supplemental disclosures are not required or necessary under applicable laws. Regional Health Properties, Inc. (NYSE American: RHE) (NYSE American: RHEpA) -- http://www.regionalhealthproperties.com-- is a self-managed healthcare real estate investment company that invests primarily in real estate purposed for senior living and long-term healthcare through facility lease and sub-lease transactions. RESONANT SCIENCES: Court Allows Software Contract Suit to Proceed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Bedford Signals Corporation, Plaintiff v. Resonant Sciences LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-223 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Michael J. Newman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. The Court denied as moot the parties' joint motion to stay. Discovery will proceed forthwith. The lawsuit is a civil class action case, premised on diversity jurisdiction, in which Plaintiff Bedford Signals Corporation, through counsel, seeks damages, attorneys' fees, and costs against Defendant Resonant Sciences LLC for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment (in the alternative), and tortious interference under Ohio law. The Plaintiff alleges Defendants used its software to obtain contracts with other parties, then cut Plaintiff out of the parties' contracts in violation of Plaintiff and Defendant's agreements. The Court explained that "Rule 12(b)(6), like all other Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, should be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding." At the motion to dismiss stage, all well-pleaded material allegations of the pleadings of the opposing party must be taken as true, and the motion may be granted only if the moving party is nevertheless clearly entitled to judgment. The Court further noted it must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accept its allegations as true, and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff." However, the Court "need not accept as true legal conclusions or unwarranted factual inferences. Judge Newman emphasized that a complaint will not suffice if it offers only labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." Instead, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." A plaintiff must plead "factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Having carefully and thoroughly considered the pleadings and briefing in support of, and in opposition to, Defendant's motion, along with the procedural posture of this case, the efficient and appropriate way forward is to permit discovery to occur and consider the parties' arguments on summary judgment, not earlier at the motion-to-dismiss phase of litigation. Judge Newman acknowledged that at least one claim--Plaintiff's breach of contract claim--would go forward, and the Court believes it will be better to decide the remaining preemption issues on summary judgment." The Court determined that proceeding in this manner will ensure that the Court reviews these arguments only after appropriate discovery has been completed and will guarantee that the Court's consideration of the parties' arguments is not premature. A copy of the order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XVlAW3 RHODE ISLAND: Court Tosses Most Claims in Rotondo Prisoner Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as GINO ROTONDO, SR.; FERNANDO LOPEZ; DERRICK CEDENO; DEVONTE TEIXEIRA; MAMADON NDOYE; MARCUS LOPES; SCOTT LINDSAY; CHRISTOPHER PILATO; J'KIAH A. THOMAS; and IBRAHEEM ALTEKREETI, Plaintiffs v. GOV. MCKEE, Individual Capacity and Official Capacity; A.C.L.U. (RI), Individual Capacity and Official Capacity; UN-NAMED R.I. INDEMNITY INSURANCE CO., Individual Capacity and Official Capacity; UN-NAMED DOC DIETICIAN, Individual Capacity and Official Capacity; DEPUTY VICINI, Individual Capacity and Official Capacity; CATHY LYONS, Individual Capacity and Official Capacity, DIR. SALISBURY, Individual Capacity and Official Capacity; FRED SPECHT, Acting Associate Director of Food Service, Defendants, Case No. 25-159-JJM, Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island dismisses most claims with leave to amend the complaint within 30 days. The Court concluded that the complaint "does not state a plausible federal claim for relief under the standard of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 667 (2009)." The Court rejected the purported class action status, noting that "as a pro se litigant (and non-attorney), he may not represent the interests of any other person simply by styling his Complaint a 'class action' (which, the Court notes, includes none of the pleadings required by a class action)." The Court emphasized that pro se persons who have not signed the Complaint may not be joined to it as Plaintiffs. Therefore, "the case is dismissed with respect to all named 'Plaintiffs' other than Mr. Rotondo." The Court identified multiple defects in Plaintiff's standing, stating that "Mr. Rotondo has not in the Complaint alleged that he in fact is Muslim, an omission that leads to questions about his standing." Additionally, regarding allegations about inmates in Medium Security and at the Intake Service Center, the Court noted that "unless Mr. Rotondo was transferred between those facilities during Ramadan, he is not a member of one of those groups and as to that group has no standing to complain of deficiencies." The Court dismissed claims against high-ranking officials, namely Gov. McKee, Director Salisbury, Warden Lyons, and Deputy Warden Vicin explaining that Mr. Rotondo has sued several persons with no allegations about their participation in the purported constitutional and statutory violations. Judge McConnell, Jr. stated that he relies on their positions as 'in charge' (the Governor, he pleads, is 'responsible' for everything) and top management (defendants Salisbury, Lyons, and Vicini). However, without factual allegations of acts committed by them that are connected to the alleged violations, there is no plausible claim for relief. The Court dismissed the Rhode Island Affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union, noting that Plaintiff sued the organization for not sufficiently engaging with inmates and for establishing a 'stringent' list of qualifications that must allegedly be met before the organization will speak to inmates. Judge McConnell stated that Mr. Rotondo's dissatisfaction with the responsiveness of the RIACLU is not a basis for a federal lawsuit and that the organization owes him no duty. Therefore, "the RIACLU is dismissed from the action." Regarding the unnamed insurance entity, the Court explained that Plaintiff sued to "try to preclude any defendant found liable for monetary damages from seeking insurance coverage or indemnification to satisfy a judgment." However, the Court ruled that the issue would be between the Department of Corrections and its insurer (if any), and Mr. Rotondo may not insert himself into any such relationship or sue for what he considers poor public policy. The unnamed insurer was "dismissed from the action. The Court noted that only two defendants presumably connected to the dietary regime remain: the unnamed DOC dietitian and Fred Specht, identified in the Amended Complaint as the Acting Associate of Food Services." The complaint "asserts that Muslim inmates were not fed sufficient nutrition during Ramadan 2025 because there were too few meals and too many were inedible and 'forced' inmates to throw them in the garbage." However, the Court found "no further factual information about nutrition in the Complaint--neither nutrition needs nor data about the meals offered." The Court granted Plaintiff 30 days, on or before July 31, 2025, in which to remedy the many defects in this Complaint with an Amended Complaint filed in accordance with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. The Court warned that if no Amended Complaint is filed, or one is filed but it does not satisfy 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the case will be dismissed. The Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is deferred. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=x5BuiJ ROBINSON NEVADA: Hansen Sues Over Labor Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------ DAKOTA HANSEN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROBINSON NEVADA MINING COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01237 (D. Nev., July 9, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid wages and other damages from Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law. The Defendant employed Plaintiff Hansen from approximately July 2020 until March 2024. The Defendant also classified Plaintiff as non-exempt and paid him by the hour. However, throughout their employment, the Defendant has not paid Plaintiff and the other hourly employees for all their hours worked. Instead, the Defendant subjects Plaintiff and the other hourly employees to its pre/post shift off the clock pay scheme, which do not compensate them with wages for all hours worked, including overtime wages for all overtime hours worked. Robinson Nevada Company operates the Robinson Mine, which is located in White Pine County, Nevada. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Esther C. Rodriguez, Esq. RODRIGUEZ LAW OFFICES, P.C. 10161 Park Run Drive, Suite 150 Las Vegas, NV 89145 Telephone: (702) 320-8400 Facsimile: (702) 320-8401 E-mail: info@rodriguezlaw.com - and - Alyssa J. White, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: awhite@mybackwages.com ROCK'S DISCOUNT: Garcia Sues Over Unwanted Text Messages -------------------------------------------------------- TAMARA GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROCK'S DISCOUNT VITAMINS INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-00784 (W.D. Tex., July 9, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. On May 20, 2025 and May 21, 2025, the Defendant began sending telemarketing text messages to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number, after Plaintiff had asked Defendant to stop. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Rock's Discount Vitamins Inc. is an online vitamins retailer based in Corpus Christi, TX. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1400 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (305) 336-7466 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com ROCKY MOUNTAIN: Berens Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ WALTER BERENS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROCKY MOUNTAIN ONCOLOGY CENTER, LCC, and INTEGRATED ONCOLOGY NETWORK LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00798 (M.D. Tenn., July 16, 2025) arises from a recent cyberattack resulting in a data breach of sensitive information in the possession and custody and/or control of Defendants. The data breach occurred between December 13, 2024, and December 16, 2024, but was not discovered by Defendants until several months later. Following an internal investigation, the Defendants learned the data breach resulted in unauthorized disclosure, exfiltration, and theft of current and former patients' personally identifying information and protected health information including but not limited to names, Social Security numbers, addresses, dates of birth, financial account information, diagnosis, lab results, medication, treatment information, health insurance and claims information, provider names, and/or dates of treatment. On or around June 13, 2025--six months after the data breach began--Defendants finally began mailing notice letters to affected parties. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendants' unlawful conduct and asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Headquartered in Nashville, TN, Integrated Oncology Network, LLC, oncology network that provides practice management and advisory services to physicians, groups, hospitals, and investors throughout the country. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com ROVE LLC: Faces Young Suit Over Blind's Equal Access to Website --------------------------------------------------------------- LESHAWN YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROVE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05642 (S.D.N.Y., July 9, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://rovebrand.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Rove LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal RUGSUSA LLC: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Ho Suit Due Oct. 27 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNA HONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RUGSUSA, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-08799-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín entered an order that the Class Certification Schedule be extended as follows: Event Proposed Deadline Close of discovery on issues related to class certification: Oct. 27, 2025 Motion for class certification: Oct. 27, 2025 Opposition to motion for class certification: Dec. 12, 2025 Reply in support of motion for class Certification: Jan. 16, 2025 Hearing on class certification: March 26, 2026 Mediation date: 60 days after class cert. order On Feb. 12, 2025, the Defendant's filed their motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint. On July 10, 2025, the Court held a hearing on the Defendant's motion to dismiss and indicated a ruling would be forthcoming. RugsUSA provides flooring products. A copy of the Court's order dated July 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gQGc8w at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Simon Franzini, Esq. Christin Cho, Esq. Grace Bennett, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: simon@dovel.com christin@dovel.com grace@dovel.com The Defendant is represented by: Thomas N. McCormick, Esq. Jeahyun Ahn, Esq. VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP 2211 Michelson Drive, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 526-7903 Facsimile: (949) 526-7903 E-mail: tnmccormick@vorys.com jahn@vorys.com SACRAMENTO, CA: Class Certification Bid in Hood Due Feb. 18, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hood et al v. City of Sacramento, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00232 (E.D. Cal., Filed Feb. 7, 2023), the Hon. Judge Dena M. Coggins entered an order modifying scheduling order as follows: -- Fact discovery shall be completed by Nov. 14, 2025 -- Expert disclosures shall be completed by: Dec. 12, 2025 -- Rebuttal expert disclosures shall be Jan. 9, 2026 completed by: -- Expert discovery shall be completed by: Jan. 23, 2026 -- Any motion for class certification shall Feb. 18, 2026 be filed no later than: -- All motions, except for motions for May 27, 2026 continuances, temporary restraining orders or other emergency applications shall be filed no later than: The suit states Civil Rights -- Discrimination. Sacramento lies at the confluence of the Sacramento River and American River.[CC] SAFEWAY INCORPORATED: Lara Files TCPA Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Safeway Incorporated. The case is styled as Gilma Elizabeth Lara, on behalf of herself, and those similarly situated v. Safeway Incorporated, Case No. 25CV131263 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., July 11, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Safeway, Inc. -- https://www.safeway.com/ -- is an American supermarket chain founded by Marion Barton Skaggs in April 1915 in American Falls, Idaho.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cody A. Bolce, Esq. Hector Rodriguez Martinez, Esq. Stanley Scott Mallison, Esq. MALLISON & MARTINEZ 1939 Harrison St., Ste. 730 Oakland, CA 94612-3547 Phone: 510-832-9999 Email: cbolce@themmlawfirm.com hectorm@themmlawfirm.com stanm@themmlawfirm.com SANIBEL CAPTIVA: Bilbao Sues Over Unlawful Telephonic Sales Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- Axel Bilbao, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SANIBEL CAPTIVA BEACH RESORTS, LLC, Case No. CACE-25-010328 (Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., July 13, 2025), is brought for injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for violations Of the Caller ID Rules of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA") as result of the Defendant's unlawful Telephonic Sales Calls by text message. In direct contravention of the Caller ID Rules, however, many callers, such as Defendant, make Telephonic Sales Calls a central part of their marketing strategy, and in doing so, intentionally transmit telephone numbers to recipient's Caller ID services that are not capable of receiving telephone calls. As such, Plaintiff, brings this action alleging that Defendant violated the FTSA's Caller ID Rules by transmitting a phone number that was not capable of receiving phone calls when it made Telephonic Sales Calls by text message ("Text Message Sales Calls"). Specifically, Defendant made Text Message Sales Calls that promoted Sanibel Captiva Beach Resorts ("Sanibel Captiva Beach Resorts Text Message Sales Calls") and violated the Caller ID Rules when it transmitted to the recipients' caller identification services a telephone number that was not capable of receiving telephone calls, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is the regular user of a cellular telephone number that receives Defendant's telephonic sales calls. Sanibel Captiva Beach Resorts, LLC, is registered as a Limited Liability Company, which sells various goods to persons throughout the country through its online Store.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. Shawn A. Heller, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Phone: (202) 709-5744 Fax: (866) 893-0416 Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com SAZERAC CO: Can File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal in McKay -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER McKAY, TERRY MYERS, and DAWN OUTLAW, as individuals, on behalf of themselves, the general public, and those similarly situated, v. SAZERAC COMPANY, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00522-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward M. Chen entered an order granting the Defendant's administrative motion to file materials under seal in support of the Defendant's opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Based on the evidence presented, if sales and pricing data, internal and external market research, and confidential client communications were disclosed to the public rather than sealed, Defendant’s competitors could obtain an unfair advantage in the marketplace. For this reason, the Court grants Defendant's motion to seal in its entirety. The Court has considered Defendant's Administrative Motion to File Materials Under Seal in Support of the Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and the papers in support thereof. The Court rules this request for administrative relief is as follows. Sazerac is a privately held American alcoholic beverage company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kaioyC at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Kent J. Schmidt, Esq. Creighton R. Magid, Esq. DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 2000 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 800-1400 Facsimile: (714) 800-1499 E-mail: schmidt.kent@dorsey.com magid.chip@dorsey.com SECRET INDUSTRIES: Tracks Web Visitors' Communications, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID KAAUWAI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SECRET INDUSTRIES PTY LTD. d/b/a FATSECRET, Case No. 3:25-cv-01840-BAS-SBC (S.D. Cal., July 18, 2025) alleges that Unbeknownst to users of the App, including Plaintiff, FatSecret aids, agrees with, employs, and otherwise permits third parties such as CleverTap and RudderStack (Third Parties) to intercept and record communications sent and received by the Plaintiff and Class Members, including personal health information, in real time. The Third Parties, which are separate and distinct entities from the parties to these communications, eavesdrop upon and record the communications on the App without consent from all parties to the communications, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action to prevent FatSecret from further violating the privacy rights of California residents, and to recover statutory damages from FatSecret for failing to comply with the California Invasion of Privacy Act. FatSecret owns and operates a web-accessible version of the Calorie Counter application (the Web App). The functionality of the Web App is largely identical to the App, with the exception that the discussion forum is not available on the Web App, the suit adds. The Defendant owns and operates a mobile application called Calorie Counter by FatSecret. The App allows users to track their calorie intake, diet goals, weight, and fitness levels as well as interact with other users of the App by commenting on their activities or interacting in a discussion forum.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Julia K. Venditti, 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: jvenditti@bursor.com pfraietta@bursor.com SHOES WEST: Hampton Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------ PHYLLIS HAMPTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Shoes West Distribution, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07808 (N.D. Ill., July 10, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://taosfootwear.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate heading hierarchy, inadequate focus order, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, inaccessible drop-down menus, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. Due to Taosfootwear.com's inaccessibility, the Plaintiff and blind customers must in turn spend time, energy, and/or money to make their purchases at traditional brick-and mortar retailers, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Shoes West Distribution's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Shoes West Distribution, LLC operates the website that offers orthopedic and supportive shoes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law SIMPLY DELICIOUS: Hankins & Benavidez Sue For False Product Labels ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHRISTINA HANKINS and DIMARI BENAVIDEZ, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIMPLY DELICIOUS, INC. dba Bobo's, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01758-AGS-BLM (S.D. Cal., July 9, 2025) accuses the Defendant of unjust enrichment, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and of violating the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant's strawberry and grape flavored "PB&Js" oat bars, which are manufactured, packaged, labeled, advertised, distributed, and sold by Defendant, are misbranded and falsely advertised because Defendant implies that they are healthy and conducive to health and physical well-being, despite containing between 15 and 16 grams of added sugar per serving. The Defendant prominently makes the claim on these products' label that they are made with "wholesome" and "simple" ingredients, and are "nutrient dense" The claims, along with the description of these products as being "Non-GMO," "Dairy Free," "Vegan," "Plant Based," and the depictions of fruits on the front label, convey that these products are healthy or are conducive to good health and physical activity and well-being, which is misleading because that representation is incompatible with the dangers of excessive sugar consumption to which these products contribute. Headquartered in Loveland, CO, Simply Delicious, Inc. dba Bobo's designs, manufactures, markets, distributes, and/or sells several food products, including flavored baked oat bars. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Charles C. Weller, Esq. CHARLES C. WELLER, APC 11412 Corley Court San Diego, CA 92126 Telephone: (858) 414-7465 Facsimile: (858) 300-5137 E-mail: legal@cweller.com SIX FLAGS: Bid to Extend Case Management Dates Tossed w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as I.L., et al., v. SIX FLAGS ENTERTAINMENT CORP., et al. Case No. 1:23-cv-01769-KES-CDB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order denying without prejudice the parties' joint stipulated request to extend case management dates. Accordingly, the parties failed to file in support of their stipulated request any attorney affidavit or declaration, as required by the operative scheduling order. Furthermore, the parties filed their stipulated request on the first date they seek to extend -- deadline for completing nonexpert discovery. Thus, the parties' request violates Local Rule 144 as any such extension will be nunc pro tunc. The Court disfavors granting relief nunc pro tunc and admonishes the parties to exercise better care and to adhere to this Court's Local Rules in all future filings. Finally, the unattested representations contained in the parties' stipulation fall short of demonstrating good cause for the requested extension -- the parties provide scarce details about their undertaking of discovery to date that prevents the Court from assessing their diligence. For the foregoing reasons, the Court will deny the request without prejudice. The Defendant was an American amusement park corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated July 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lM2xeK at no extra charge.[CC] SIZZLING PLATTER: Garcia Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- REYNA MARCIAL GARCIA, on behalf of herself and the putative Collective v. SIZZLING PLATTER, LLC d/b/a WINGSTOP; SIZZLING WINGS, LLC d/b/a Wingstop, Case No. 3:25-cv-01847-BAS-DEB (S.D. Cal., July 18, 2025) challenges the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay Plaintiff and Collective members overtime wages. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals have worked for Sizzling Platter as non-exempt, as hourly employees. Sizzling Platter is a restaurant franchise growth platform that owns and operates multiple restaurant brands, such as Wingstop, Cinnabon, Jamba, Sizzler, Little Caesars, Jersey Mike’s, Red Robin, and Dunkin' Donuts, and is headquartered in Murray, Utah.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq. Ori Edelstein, Esq. Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KIM LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, California 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com rmorelli@schneiderwallace.com SLI LLC: Patterson Sues Over Vapable Oils' Excessive THC Content ---------------------------------------------------------------- BENJAMIN PATTERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SLI, LLC, SLI HOLDINGS, LLC, SLTI, LLC, SLI INVESTORS, LLC, and BC BRANDS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-07719 (N.D. Ill., July 9, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of their Vapable Oil products, potent cannabis-infused products. The Defendants represent their Vapable Oil products as safe for consumption, but they actually contain excessive high tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content, which is well above the applicable safety limits imposed under Illinois law for consumers' health and safety. The Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers would not have purchased these Vapable Oils had they known they were not safe, misrepresented as a different product, did not have appropriate warnings and information on the packaging and product, and did not have any appropriate safe dosing instructions. SLI, LLC is a cannabis infuser based in Chicago, Illinois. SLI Holdings, LLC is a cannabis infuser based in Westchester, Illinois. SLTI, LLC is a cannabis infuser based in Hinsdale, Illinois. SLI Investors, LLC is a cannabis infuser based in Westchester, Illinois. BC Brands, LLC is a limited liability company based in Troy, Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kyle Shamberg, Esq. CARROLL SHAMBERG, LLC 111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (872) 215-6205 Email: kyle@csclassactions.com - and - Laura Luisi, Esq. Jamie Holz, Esq. LUISI HOLZ LAW 777 W Wacker Dr., Suite 4500 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 639-4478 Email: LuisiL@luisiholzlaw.com HolzJ@luisiholzlaw.com SMARTERSWIPE INC: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due May 15, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAREM ARRHIMI, ET AL., v. SMARTERSWIPE INC., ET AL., Case No. 2:25-cv-01377-DJC-CKD (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Daniel J. Calabretta entered a scheduling order as follows: If not already completed, all parties appearing shall make initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(a)(1) no later than Aug. 8, 2025. All fact discovery shall be completed1 no later than Mar. 19, 2027. The parties shall disclose initial experts and produce reports in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) by no later than Jan. 15, 2027. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification, shall be filed on or before May 15, 2026 and shall be noticed for hearing before Judge Calabretta no later than Oct. 8, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. The Defendants' opposition shall be filed no later than July 10, 2026. The Plaintiffs' reply, if any, shall be filed no later than Sept. 4, 2026. All dispositive motions, except motions for continuances, temporary restraining orders, or other emergency applications, shall be filed on or before Apr. 16, 2027 and shall be noticed for hearing before Judge Calabretta no later than June 10, 2027 at 1:30 p.m. The final pretrial conference is set for Aug. 26, 2027 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 7 before District Court Judge Daniel J. Calabretta. SmarterSwipe is a fintech company that provides payment solutions and POS systems for digital marketplaces. A copy of the Court's order dated July 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=I3XEFG at no extra charge.[CC] SO. CAL PETROLEUM: Cortes Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Eulalio Cortes, an individual, on behalf of Plaintiff, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. SO. CAL PETROLEUM TRANSPORT, INC. d.b.a SUPERIOR TANK LINES, a California corporation; SUPERIOR TANK LINES NORTHWEST DIVISION, INC.; and DOES 1 - 50, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2513097 was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 11, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-01750. The Plaintiff brings various wage and hour claims on a class basis, in particular: Unfair Competition in Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code; Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code and the Applicable IWC Wage Order; Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code and the Applicable IWC Wage Order; Failure to Provide Accurate itemized Statements in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code; Failure to Provide Wages When due in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code; Failure to Reimburse Employees for Required Expenses in Cal. Lab. Code; Failure to Permit Inspection of Employee Records in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kalley R. Aman (SBN: 217337) Graham G. Lambert (SBN: 303056) BUCHALTER A Professional Corporation 1000 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90017-2457 Phone: (213) 891-0700 Fax: (213) 896-0400 Email: kaman@buchalter.com glambert@buchalter.com SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT: McKever Bid for More Time to File Reply OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as McKever, et al., v. Southeastern Freight Lines Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-06170 (D.S.C., Filed Oct. 23, 2024), the Hon. Judge Sherri A. Lydon entered an order granting motion for extension of time. -- The Plaintiffs unopposed motion for two-week extension of time to file reply as to motion to certify class. The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (E.R.I.S.A.). Southeastern provides transportation services.[CC] SOUTHWOOD FINANCIAL: Le Sane Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- NASIR LE SANE, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHWOOD FINANCIAL LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00533 (E.D. Va., July 10, 2025) is a class action arising from Southwood Financials' failure to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. According to the complaint, the Defendant's data security failures allowed a targeted cyberattack in March 2025 to compromise Defendant's network that contained personally identifiable information of Plaintiffs and other individuals. The Defendant launched an investigation into the Data Breach and confirmed that an unauthorized actor accessed its system on March 25, 2025, and may have copied and exfiltrated certain files containing Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. As a result of Southwood's Data Breach, the Plaintiff and thousands of Class Members suffered ascertainable losses in the form of financial losses resulting from identity theft, out-of-pocket expenses, the loss of the benefit of their bargain, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack. Through this Complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was accessed during the Data Breach. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief, seeking redress for Southwood's unlawful conduct. Southwood Financial LLC is a financial services company with two distinct branches: Southwood Financial Planning, which focuses on holistic financial life planning, and Southwood Financial, which focuses in managing distressed private student loan receivables.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Hilton Wise, Esq. Dylan S. Graham, Esq. Robert D. Witte, Esq. WISE LAW FIRM, PLC 10640 Page Street, Ste 320 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 934-6377 Facsimile: (703) 934-6379 E-mail: dwise@wiselaw.pro dgraham@wiselaw.pro rwitte@wiselaw.pro - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. Danielle L. Perry, Esq. Ra O. Amen, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com dperry@masonllp.com ramen@masonllp.com SPECIALTY NETWORKS: Settlement Deal in Blevins Gets Prelim. Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLEVINS, et al., v. SPECIALTY NETWORKS, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00288 (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Curtis L. Collier entered an order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement agreement. The Court will appoint Kroll Settlement Administration LLC as settlement administrator. The Court will approve the proposed settlement notice plan and direct the settlement administrator to provide notice of the proposed settlement to the class members. The Court will confirm Mr. Stranch as lead class counsel and will appoint Plaintiffs as class representatives. The Court will hold a final approval and fairness hearing on Thursday, Nov. 13, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time at the federal courthouse in Chattanooga, Tennessee. An appropriate order will enter. Specialty is a company that provides information services to its clients, which are medical facilities. A copy of the Court's memorandum dated July 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Akx27P at no extra charge.[CC] SPECIALTY NETWORKS: Settlement Deal in Bryson Gets Prelim. Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bryson v. Specialty Networks, LLC et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00319 (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Curtis L. Collier entered an order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement agreement. The Court will appoint Kroll Settlement Administration LLC as settlement administrator. The Court will approve the proposed settlement notice plan and direct the settlement administrator to provide notice of the proposed settlement to the class members. The Court will confirm Mr. Stranch as lead class counsel and will appoint Plaintiffs as class representatives. The Court will hold a final approval and fairness hearing on Thursday, Nov. 13, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time at the federal courthouse in Chattanooga, Tennessee. An appropriate order will enter. Specialty is a company that provides information services to its clients, which are medical facilities. A copy of the Court's memorandum dated July 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WQ4J5a at no extra charge.[CC] SPECIALTY NETWORKS: Settlement Deal in Cohen Gets Initial OK ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cohen v. Speciality Networks LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00287 (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Curtis L. Collier entered an order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement agreement. The Court will appoint Kroll Settlement Administration LLC as settlement administrator. The Court will approve the proposed settlement notice plan and direct the settlement administrator to provide notice of the proposed settlement to the class members. The Court will confirm Mr. Stranch as lead class counsel and will appoint Plaintiffs as class representatives. The Court will hold a final approval and fairness hearing on Thursday, Nov. 13, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time at the federal courthouse in Chattanooga, Tennessee. An appropriate order will enter. Specialty is a company that provides information services to its clients, which are medical facilities. A copy of the Court's memorandum dated July 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oC0n9F at no extra charge.[CC] SPECIALTY NETWORKS: Settlement Deal in Jones Gets Prelim. Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jones v. SPECIALTY NETWORKS, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00291 (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Curtis L. Collier entered an order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement agreement. The Court will appoint Kroll Settlement Administration LLC as settlement administrator. The Court will approve the proposed settlement notice plan and direct the settlement administrator to provide notice of the proposed settlement to the class members. The Court will confirm Mr. Stranch as lead class counsel and will appoint Plaintiffs as class representatives. The Court will hold a final approval and fairness hearing on Thursday, Nov. 13, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time at the federal courthouse in Chattanooga, Tennessee. An appropriate order will enter. Specialty is a company that provides information services to its clients, which are medical facilities. A copy of the Court's memorandum dated July 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZCitzV at no extra charge.[CC] SPECIALTY NETWORKS: Settlement Deal in Lovell Gets Prelim. Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lovell v. Specialty Networks, LLC et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00305 (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Curtis L. Collier entered an order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement agreement. The Court will appoint Kroll Settlement Administration LLC as settlement administrator. The Court will approve the proposed settlement notice plan and direct the settlement administrator to provide notice of the proposed settlement to the class members. The Court will confirm Mr. Stranch as lead class counsel and will appoint Plaintiffs as class representatives. The Court will hold a final approval and fairness hearing on Thursday, Nov. 13, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time at the federal courthouse in Chattanooga, Tennessee. An appropriate order will enter. Specialty is a company that provides information services to its clients, which are medical facilities. A copy of the Court's memorandum dated July 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MbzeSq at no extra charge.[CC] SPECIALTY NETWORKS: Settlement Deal in Smith Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Daniel Smith, et al., v. Specialty Networks LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00286 (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Curtis L. Collier entered an order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement agreement. The Court will appoint Kroll Settlement Administration LLC as settlement administrator. The Court will approve the proposed settlement notice plan and direct the settlement administrator to provide notice of the proposed settlement to the class members. The Court will confirm Mr. Stranch as lead class counsel and will appoint Plaintiffs as class representatives. The Court will hold a final approval and fairness hearing on Thursday, Nov. 13, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time at the federal courthouse in Chattanooga, Tennessee. An appropriate order will enter. Specialty is a company that provides information services to its clients, which are medical facilities. A copy of the Court's memorandum dated July 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8Yhnu7 at no extra charge.[CC] SPLENDID HOSPITALITY: Anderson Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ DERRICK ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SPLENDID HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03992 (E.D.N.Y., July 18, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.toastcoffeehouse.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Splendid Hospitality Group, LLC is engaged as operator of hotels, restaurants and care homes. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8706 Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com SREV II PORTFOLIO: Ownby Sues Over Unwanted Telemarketing Messages ------------------------------------------------------------------ JUSTIN OWNBY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SREV II PORTFOLIO LLC d/b/a SOUTHGATE VENTURES, Defendant, Case No. 8:25-cv-01772 (M.D. Fla., July 9, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of sending telemarketing text messages to the telephone numbers of consumers, including the Plaintiff, in an attempt to promote its goods and services without prior consent. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers suffered damages. Srev II Portfolio LLC, doing business as Southgate Ventures, is a limited liability company based in Washington. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Benjamin W. Raslavich, Esq. KUHN RASLAVICH, P.A. 2110 West Platt Street Tampa, FL 33606 Telephone: (813) 422-7782 Facsimile: (813) 422-7783 Email: ben@theKRfirm.com STARTEK USA: Harris Seeks Initial OK of Settlement -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAKAYLA HARRIS, COLLEEN LEWIN, TIFFANY WILLIAMS, DANIELLE COLWILL MAUCH, KRISTOPHER FLAGG, MATTHEW BERG, ALICIA JENKINS, ANISSA BATES, BRITTANY YOUNG, KIMBERLY PITNEY, DAWN BADGER, PAULA KEMP, RHONDA DAVIS, TIFFANY PATTERSON, BRITTNEY CHRISTIAN, PHANTHASIA KING, TAURI SCHULER-BONNER, AMELIA KURTZ, MATTHEW PAVEY, RACHEL DUBOSE, LEXUS RANSOM, CLAUDINE MIUDO, RICHARD DEAN, STEPHANIE ST. GEORGE and SASHA RANSEY individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. STARTEK USA, INC., a corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-00437-RM-TPO (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for preliminary approval of settlement, appointment of class representatives and class counsel, and certification of settlement class. Specifically, Plaintiffs request entry of an order: (1) preliminarily certifying a class for settlement purposes only under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and conditionally certifying a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective for settlement purposes only under 29 U.S.C. section201., et seq. (as defined in the Parties’ Joint Stipulation of Class Action Settlement." (2) preliminarily approving the Parties' Settlement Agreement and all its terms; (3) preliminarily appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives for the Class Members and Sommers Schwartz, P.C. as Class Counsel; (4) approving the form, content, and dissemination of the Parties’ proposed Notice of Settlement; (5) approving the appointment of the Settlement Administrator; and (6) scheduling a hearing on the final approval of the Settlement and approval of the application of Class Counsel and Plaintiffs for their requested attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and service awards. On April 11, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their Pre-Discovery Motion for Conditional Collective Certification, asking the Court to conditionally certify a collective of customer service representatives. On May 23, 2022, the Defendant responded to the Plaintiffs' motion and on June 6, 2022, the briefing on the Plaintiffs' Motion concluded with the Plaintiffs' reply. On March 31, 2023, then-Magistrate Judge Crews issued his Report and Recommendation that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Conditional Certification be granted in part and denied in part, with the following collective being conditionally certified for purposes of Plaintiffs’ FLSA claim(s): "All current and former hourly customer service representatives (CSRs) who worked for Defendant at any time during the three years preceding the filing of this Complaint up through and including judgment." The case is a FLSA and state law wage-and-hour hybrid collective/class action. The Plaintiffs settled this litigation on behalf of approximately 24,000 hourly Customer Service Representatives of Defendant Startek USA, Inc. StarTek provides computer software. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ye4rus at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Alana Karbal, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com akarbal@sommerspc.com STATE FARM: Pitkin Wins Bid for Class Certification --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA PITKIN, et al., v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Case No. 3:23-cv-00924-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick entered an order granting Pitkin's motion for class certification. The following class is certified: "All persons who, between March 1, 2019, and the present, were or are a named insured under a property insurance policy issued in California by the Defendant, who suffered a covered loss to real or personal property for which they received payment of actual cash value (ACV) benefits that were reduced due to depreciation of sales tax, and who were paid or are reasonably certain to be paid benefits in an amount that is less than the applicable policy limits." The motion to strike portions of plaintiff's reply and new expert reports is denied as moot. State Farm concedes that its practice is to depreciate sales tax when calculating ACV but insists that the practice is lawful. It opposes class certification, arguing that the plaintiffs’ experts’ opinions should be disregarded as unreliable and that individual issues predominate over common ones both as to class ascertainability and damages calculations. But the plaintiffs have offered a feasible methodology for calculating damages classwide, have demonstrated that the class is identifiable, and have shown that the common issue of whether State Farm’s method of calculating ACV for personal property insurance policies like those held by the putative Class Members predominates over whatever individualized issues may arise. In short, the plaintiffs have satisfied the Rule 23 requirements for class certification. 1 The motion to certify the class is granted. The Plaintiffs bring this class action complaint against the defendant, alleging that State Farm has a common practice of depreciating sales tax when calculating actual cash value ("ACV") benefits payments to policyholders, which the plaintiffs claim violates California Insurance Code section 2051(b). On Aug. 20, 2020, the Walbridge Fire burned down the plaintiffs' home. State offers automobile, property, casualty, health, disability, and life insurance services. State Farm Fire and Casualty serves customers in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated July 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dOc9bx at no extra charge.[CC] STATIONERY STUDIO: Hampton Sues Over Alleged ADA Breaches --------------------------------------------------------- PHYLLIS HAMPTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Stationery Studio, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07750 (N.D. Ill., July 9, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of party invitations on the Defendant's website. Despite her efforts, however, the Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Based in Buffalo Grove, IL, The Stationery Studio, LLC owns and operates the website, Thestationerystudio.com, which offers gifts, note cars, notepads, stamps, invitations, napkins and party supplies for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 (630)-478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law SUMMER VIBE: Young Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------- LESHAWN YOUNG, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUMMER VIBE INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05641 (S.D.N.Y., July 9, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.cupshe.com/, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on July 1, 2025, in an attempt to purchase a Bold Beat Striped Jumpsuit from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied her a shopping 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. She was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's 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. Summer Vibe Inc. operates the website that provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about its apparel.[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 SURREY REALTY: Filing for Class Cert Bid in McCammon Due August 14 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as McCammon et al., v. Surrey Realty Associates LLC, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-03292-VSB-RWL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Robert Lehrburger entered a Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order: Initial Disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) will be exchanged no later than July 29, 2025. Expert discovery shall be completed by Dec. 31, 2025. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, expected to be filed by Aug. 14, 2025. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants unlawfully failed to comply with New York City's Displaced Hotel Workers' Ordinance, NYC Code 22-510, by failing to offer positions to employees of the Surrey Hotel. A copy of the Court's order dated July 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AcZjQM at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph Farelli, Esq. Barry N. Saltzman, Esq. 120 Broadway, 28th Floor New York, NY 10271 Telephone: (212) 652-3827 E-mail: jfarelli@pittalaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Paul E. Wagner, Esq. John R. Hunt, Esq. 903 Hanshaw Road Ithaca, NY 14850 Telephone: (607) 257-5165 E-mail: pwagner@stokeswagner.com SUSHI EDO: Faces Du Suit Over Alleged Labor Law Violations ---------------------------------------------------------- GOUMAN DU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUSHI EDO, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08116 (N.D. Ill., July 16, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. From November 2024 until April 2025, the Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a server at its restaurant. Allegedly, the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff one and one-half times her regular rate for hours worked over 40 hours in a given week; failed to post the mandated notice requirements prior to taking a tip credit; and forced Plaintiff and other hourly employees to share their tips with it and other employees with no customer interaction, says the suit. Sushi Edo, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant in Rolling Meadows, IL. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan Richards, Esq. JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 1800 SE 10th Ave. Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com TARGET CORP: Faces Reese Suit Over Gift Card Scams -------------------------------------------------- ROBERT REESE; CAROL YANNONE; FRANCINE KONOWALOW; and DYANNE WALLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-02838-JWB-SGE (D. Minn., July 14, 2025) seeks to challenge Target's uniform practice of failing or refusing to refund or compensate victims of gift card scams involving Target gift cards. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and the Class are consumers who were tricked into purchasing Target gift cards and providing the access codes to scammers. They follow a pattern whereby a scammer will claim to be someone they are not, such as a representative of a company or a governmental entity, and inform the victim that they are required to make a payment or reimburse an overpayment using Target gift cards. The victim is led to believe that time is of the essence and that the Target gift cards must be purchased, and the codes to redeem the amounts on the gift cards be shared, expeditiously, alleges the suit. Target Corporation operates general merchandise discount stores. The Company focuses on merchandising operations which includes general merchandise and food discount stores and a fully integrated online business. Target also offers credit to qualified applicants through its branded proprietary credit cards. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Gudmundson, Esq. Michael J. Laird, Esq. Rachel K. Tack, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 Email: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com michael.laird@zimmreed.com rachel.tack@zimmreed.com - and - Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. Amanda M. Rolon, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 24th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Email: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com arolon@scott-scott.com - and - Anthony F. Fata, Esq. Sarah E. Flohr, Esq. Marko Radisavljevic, Esq. Cormac Broeg, Esq. KIRBY McINERNEY LLP 211 West Wacker Drive, Suite 550 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 767-5180 Email: afata@kmllp.com sflohr@kmllp.com mradisavljevic@kmllp.com cbroeg@kmllp.com - and - Nyran Rose Rasche, Esq. Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 135 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3210 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 782-4880 Email: nrasche@caffertyclobes.com nhagman@caffertyclobes.com - and - Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR., P.C. 1575 McFarland Road, Suite 305 Pittsburgh, PA 15216 Telephone: (412) 391-5164 Email: yateslaw@aol.com TD BANK: Dou Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lina Dou, Tingyang Shao, Yixun Tao, Xiuqin Xing, Emmy Go, Yanming Wang, Shiyang Xiao, Lihong Zhan, Geli Shi, and Ying Yao, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and Lina Dou as limited partner of Carillon Tower/ Chicago, L.P., v. TD Bank N.A., Case No. 1:23-cv-04880-JPO (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court for an order certifying case as a class action, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3), for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. TD is an American national bank and the United States subsidiary of the Canadian multinational TD Bank Group A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7FPotc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. Jason Mizrahi, Esq. LEVIN EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2458 New York, NY 10170 Telephone: (212) 792-0046 - and - Glenn Dunn Jr., Esq. GLEN J. DUNN & ASSOCIATES 1 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2510 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 546-5056 TD BANK: Parties Seek to Postpone Class Cert Pretrial Deadlines --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dou et al., v. TD Bank N.A., Case No. 1:23-cv-04880-JPO (S.D.N.Y.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting request for postponement of pretrial deadlines pending decision on class certification. On July 9, the Court denied the parties' motions and cross-motions for summary judgment, triggering default deadlines to submit various pretrial papers and motions. The parties request that those pretrial deadlines be postponed until Plaintiffs' forthcoming motion for class certification has been resolved. The case is a putative class action that is proceeding according to a staged schedule that sequences class certification after summary judgment. The parties believe that class certification should be resolved before proceeding to pretrial matters because the decision on class certification will shape the parties' approaches to trial and pretrial submissions by extension. The parties request that the current deadlines to submit pretrial papers and motions be vacated and reset from the Court's decision on the Plaintiffs' forthcoming motion for class certification. The parties thank the Court for its attention to this matter and remain available for a conference at the Court's convenience. TD is an American national bank and the United States subsidiary of the Canadian multinational TD Bank Group. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UUCQky at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua D. Levin-Epstein, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 792-0046 E-mail: joshua@levinepstein.com - and - Glen J. Dunn, Esq. GLEN J. DUNN & ASSOCIATES LTD. 1 East Wacker Dr., Suite 2510 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 880-1010 E-mail: gdunn@gjdlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Lynn K. Neuner, Esq. Patrick K. Barry, Esq. SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 455-2000 E-mail: lneuner@stblaw.com patrick.barry@stblaw.com THORNTONS LLC: Removes Montes Suit to N.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of ALEXANDER MONTES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THORNTONS LLC; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25CV462168, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on July 14, 2025. The clerk of court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-05895 to the proceeding. Thorntons LLC operates a chain of gasoline and convenience stores. The Company provides fuels, gift cards, money orders, lottery, beverages, and fresh foods. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Barbara Antonucci, Esq. Stacy Lall, Esq. Dongying Zhang, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 350 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 918-3000 Email: bantonucci@constangy.com slall@constangy.com dzhang@constangy.com - and - Kenneth D. Sulzer, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 909-7775 Email: ksulzer@constangy.com TIMBERLINE DRILLING: Davis Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- LAWRENCE DAVIS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TIMBERLINE DRILLING, INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00340 (D. Nev., July 9, 2025) is a class and collective action to recover unpaid wages and other damages from Timberline Drilling for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law. According to the complaint, Plaintiff Davis and the other hourly employees regularly work more than 40 hours. However, Timberline does not pay him and the other hourly employees for all their hours worked, including overtime hours. Rather, Timberline requires Davis and the other hourly employees suit out in protective clothing and safety gear fundamentally necessary to safely perform their job duties and gather tools and other equipment fundamentally necessary to performing their job duties, "off the clock" prior to the start of their shifts. Likewise, Timberline's pre/post shift off the clock policy violates Nevada Law by depriving Davis and other hourly employees of timely payment of earned wages for all hours worked upon termination of their employment. In addition to failing to pay Davis and the other hourly employees for all their hours worked, Timberline also fails to pay them overtime at the required premium rates, says the suit. Plaintiff Davis was employed by the Defendant as a driller assistant at its client's Granite Creek Mine near Winnemucca, Nevada, from approximately April 2023 until November 2023. Timberline Drilling, Incorporated is an underground and surface core drilling contractor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Esther C. Rodriguez, Esq. RODRIGUEZ LAW OFFICES, P.C. 10161 Park Run Drive, Suite 150 Las Vegas, NV 89145 Telephone: (702) 320-8400 Facsimile: (702) 320-8401 - and - Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: rschreiber@mybackwages.com TOYOTA OF DARTMOUTH: Faces Katzeff Over Telephonic Sales Calls -------------------------------------------------------------- JODI KATZEFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TOYOTA OF DARTMOUTH, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-12022-JEK (D. Mass., July 18, 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 is an individual and the sole subscriber of the residential telephone number ending in 0457 (the 0457 Number) that received the Defendant's telephonic sales calls and text messages. The Defendant is Toyota vehicle dealership that offers a variety of services related to Toyota vehicles, based out of Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (508) 221-1510 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. Christopher Berman Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com cberman@shamisgentile.com TRANSDEV SERVICES: Bid to Further Amend Sched Order Partly OK'd --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHERISHA LOVEJOY, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00380-AJB-MMP (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michelle M. Pettit entered an order granting in part the parties' joint motion to further amend scheduling order regulating discovery and other pre-trial proceedings. Specifically, the Court grants the parties' request to continue certain deadlines but denies the parties' alternative request to vacate deadlines pending the Court's ruling on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court sets the following deadlines: 1. The parties must disclose the identity of their respective experts in writing by Aug. 29, 2025. The date for the disclosure of the identity of rebuttal experts must be on or before Sept. 12, 2025. 2. On or before Oct. 10, 2025, each party must comply with the disclosure provisions in Rule 26(a)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 3. Any party shall supplement its disclosure regarding contradictory or rebuttal evidence under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(c) by Oct. 24, 2025. 4. All fact discovery must be completed by all parties on or before Dec. 5, 2025. All expert discovery must be completed by all parties on or before Dec. 5, 2025. 5. All other dispositive motions, including those addressing Daubert issues, must be filed on or before Jan. 16, 2026. 6. A Mandatory Settlement Conference will be conducted on April 3, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Michelle M. Pettit. 7. Counsel must comply with the pre-trial disclosure requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) on or before April 16, 2026. 8. The parties must meet and confer on or before April 23, 2026 and prepare a proposed pretrial order in the form as set forth in Civ. L. R. 16.1.f.6. 9. Objections to Pre-trial disclosures must be filed no later than April 30, 2026. Transdev provides passenger transportation services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PnEIeI at no extra charge.[CC] TWG BRL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gallagher Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- MELISSA GALLAGHER, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TWG BRL, LLC d/b/a BIG RED LIQUORS, d/b/a CAP N' CORK, d/b/a CROWN LIQUORS, d/b/a GAY'S HOPS-NSCHNAPPS, d/b/a THE BEV SHOP, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01362-MPB-MG (S.D. Ind., July 9, 2025) arises from Defendants' failure to pay employees' overtime and regular wages. Plaintiff Gallagher has been employed by Defendant an hourly, non-exempt employee from July 14, 2022 and continuing to the present. The Plaintiff and other store managers and assistant store managers were misclassified by Plaintiff as exempt from the overtime premium requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act. As a result, the Defendant paid Plaintiff no wages or overtime premium at all for those hours in excess of 80 hours in that bi-weekly pay period. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks all available relief under the FLSA and the Indiana Wage Payment Act. TWG BRL, LLC owns and operates approximately 100 liquor stores in Indiana under various brand names, including "Big Red Liquors", "Cap N' Cork", "Crown Liquors", "Gay's Hops-NSchnapps", and "The Bev Shop". [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Hunt, Esq. Robert F. Hunt, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. HUNT, LLC 1905 South New Market Street, Suite 168 Carmel, IN 46032 Telephone: (317) 743-0614 (317) 743-0615 E-mail: rob@indianawagelaw.com rfh@indianwagelaw.com TYNA COLLECTION: Lucius Sues Over Disability Discrimination ----------------------------------------------------------- Windy Lucius, on behalf of others similarly situated v. TYNA COLLECTION, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-23165-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 15, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant also owns, controls, maintains, and/or operates an adjunct website, https://tynacollection.com ("Mobile Website"). One of the functions of the Website is to provide the public information on the locations of Defendant's physical stores. Defendant also sells to the public its merchandise through the Website, which acts as a critical point of sale for Defendant's merchandise that is also available for purchase in, from, and through Defendant's physical stores. In addition, the Website allows users to arrange in-store pickup of Defendant's merchandise, check in-store availability of Defendant's merchandise, book in-store appointments for a variety of services (e.g., shopping appointments, repair appointments, etc.), and sign up for a newsletter to receive exclusive offers, benefits, invitations, and discounts for use online and in the physical stores. The Plaintiff attempted to access and/or utilize Defendant's mobile website to test for accessibility, browse through the online information to educate herself as to "Tyna Collection" location, hours of operation, merchandise, and any specials being offered, at the brick and-mortar locations, but was unable to, and she is still unable to enjoy full and equal access to the mobile website and/or understand the content therein because several portions of the mobile website do not interface with the VoiceOver screen reader software, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been a blind and visually disabled person who has been medically diagnosed with complete blindness as a result of trauma to both eyes. Tyna Collection, LLC, is a Florida limited liability company authorized and doing business in the State of Florida, which upon information and belief owns and operates an elegant and feminine fashion designer store, named "Tyna Collection."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Juan Courtney Cunningham, Esq. J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC 8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 220, Miami, FL 33156 Phone: 305-351-2014 Email: cc@cunninghampllc.com legal@cunninghampllc.com UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Doe Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Doe Jewish USC Faculty Member 2004 and Doe Jewish USC Student 1987, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, a private public-benefit nonprofit corporation; JEWISH VOICES FOR PEACE ("JVP"), a business organization, form unknown; STUDENTS FOR JUSTICE IN PALESTINE ("SJP"), a business organization, form unknown; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 24STCP01592 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angele, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 11, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-06375. In particular, in the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs asserted claims for violations of the Bane, Unruh and Ralph civil rights acts, as well as claims for negligence, breach of contract, assault, battery, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Rasha Gerges Shields, Esq. Tyler J. Scott, Esq. JONES DAY 555 South Flower Street, 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: +1.213.243.2719 Facsimile: +1.213.243.2539 Email: rgergesshields@jonesday.com tscott@jonesday.com - and - Jeffrey D. Baltruzak, Esq. Daniel Paul Johnson, Esq. JONES DAY 500 Grant Street Suite 4500 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: +1.412.391.3939 Facsimile: +1.412.394.7959 Email: jbaltruzak@jonesday.com dpjohnson@jonesday.com UNIVERSITY UROLOGY: Court Grants Protective Order in DiAmbrose Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Joseph DiAmbrose and Andres Vivas, Plaintiffs v. Jed C. Kaminetsky, M.D., P.C. d/b/a University Urology, Defendant, Case No. 23-CV-6484 (LTS) (BCM) (S.D.N.Y.), United States Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the parties' joint request for a protective order governing confidential information in this class action data security litigation. Judge Moses found "good cause" shown under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) and granted the parties' joint request. The court recognised that "protection of the identified categories of confidential information is necessary because this case involves a data-security incident where the personal information of various individuals may have been compromised, as well as the files and confidential information of Defendant University Urology. The protective order applies to "all documents and materials produced in the course of discovery of this case, including initial disclosures, Electronically Stored Information, responses to discovery requests, all deposition testimony and exhibits, and information derived directly therefrom." The court emphasized that "as there is a presumption in favor of open and public judicial proceedings in the federal courts, this Order will be strictly construed in favor of public disclosure and open proceedings wherever possible. The court authorized protection for seven specific categories of confidential information: 1. The personal information of any person affected by the data-security incident that is the subject of this action (excluding documents that only have a person's name); 2. University Urology's non-public business records, including, but not limited to any documents related to University Urology's computer system, contracts/agreements, clients proprietary business records, trade secrets; 3. Medical records; 4. Personnel files; 5. Tax returns and related tax records and forms, including, but not limited to, W-2 forms; 6. Financial statements and related records; and 7. Any records whose disclosure is restricted or prohibited by statute. The order specifically states that "information or documents that are available to the public may not be designated as Confidential Information." Parties may designate confidential documents "by marking or placing the words 'CONFIDENTIAL' on the document and on all copies in a manner that will not interfere with the legibility of the document." The court established that applying the marking to a document does not mean that the document has any status or protection by statute or otherwise except to the extent and for the purposes of this Order. The court restricted access to confidential information to eleven categories of authorized persons, including the parties and their counsel, court personnel, court reporters, mediators, expert witnesses, fact witnesses and their counsel, document authors or recipients, litigation service providers, insurers, and other persons with consent of the producing party. All authorized persons must complete the certification contained in Attachment A acknowledging their obligations under the order. When filing confidential information with the court, parties must take "appropriate action to ensure that the document receives proper protection from public disclosure" through redaction, in camera review, or seeking permission to file under seal. The court noted that the Parties understand that the requested documents may be filed under seal only with the permission of the Court after proper motion. Judge Moses established procedures for challenging confidentiality designations, requiring that before filing any motion or objection to a confidential designation, the objecting Party must meet and confer in good faith to resolve the objection informally without judicial intervention. The burden of proving the necessity of a confidentiality designation remains with the Party asserting confidentiality. The protective order will remain in effect and continue to be binding after conclusion of the litigation. Within 30 days after litigation concludes, confidential documents must be returned or destroyed unless they were offered into evidence, the parties agree to destruction, or counsel elects to destroy documents containing mental impressions while certifying destruction to the producing party. The court allowed counsel to retain attorney work-product, including an index which refers or relates to designated Confidential Information, so long as that work-product does not duplicate verbatim substantial portions of the text or images of designated documents. Judge Moses extended the protective order's provisions to confidential information produced by third parties "if timely requested by the third party." The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the protective order until final disposition of the case, though parties may seek leave to reopen the case for enforcement purposes. The order is subject to modification by the court on its own motion or on motion of any Party or any other person with standing concerning the subject matter." The order was jointly moved by counsel Thomas A. Gentile of Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP for defendant University Urology, and Thiago M. Coelho of Wilshire Law Firm, PLC, along with counsel from Schlanger Law Group LLP and Siri & Glimstad LLP for the plaintiffs, all dated July 2, 2025. A copy of the protective order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xkv3JL USA GUNDAM: Cole Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------- MORGAN COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. USA Gundam, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08056 (N.D. Ill., July 16, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website contains significant access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Based in Daytona Beach, FL, USA Gundam, Inc. owns and operates the website, Usagundamstore.com, which offers plastic model kits, paints, tools, accessories, action figures, collectibles, and mecha kits for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 (630)-478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law V SHRED: Faces Goldman Class Action Suit Over Deceptive Sales ------------------------------------------------------------- Josh Goldman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. V Shred, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-06582 (C.D. Cal., July 18, 2025) alleges that Shred tricks consumers into thinking they are getting a discount when they are really just paying the regular price. According to the complaint, when a product is advertised as being on sale, this drives purchases. And there is nothing wrong with a legitimate sale. But some companies-- like V Shred -- allegedly take advantage of consumers with fake sales: deceptive sales that are not really discounts off the true regular price. To protect consumers, the law prohibits such deceptive sales. On its website, V Shred advertises discounts off its regular prices. These seem like great deals. But the truth is that V Shred's discounts are always available, asserts the suit. California consumer, Plaintiff Goldman, bought products from V Shred's website and was deceived by its fake sales. He brings this case to protect California consumers who purchased "discounted" V Shred products. Plaintiff Goldman is domiciled in Los Angeles, CA. The proposed Class includes citizens of California. V Shred makes, markets, and sells online fitness programs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonas Jacobson, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: jonas@dovel.com simon@dovel.com VASSAR COLLEGE: Parties Must Submit Joint Status Letter by August 8 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Graham et al., v. Vassar College, Case No. 7:23-cv-07692-CS-VR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Victoria Reznik entered an order directing the parties to submit a joint status letter, by no later than Aug. 8, 2025, updating the Court on the status of discovery and proposing a revised briefing schedule for the motion for class certification. Vassar is a private liberal arts college in Poughkeepsie, New York. A copy of the Court's order dated July 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ymbqrh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michelle A. Lamy, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 The Defendant is represented by: Maria Papasevastos, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2323 Ross Ave. Suite 1660 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (469) 608-6700 Facsimile: (713) 225-2340 VINTAGE BRAND: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Davis Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE DAVIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Vintage Brand, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08058 (N.D. Ill., July 16, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Plaintiff also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Vintage Brand, LLC owns and operates the website, Vintagebrand.com, which offers men's and women's vintage sports clothing. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law VIRTUAL DINING: Germani Sues Over Telemarketing Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHANIE S. GERMANI, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VIRTUAL DINING CONCEPTS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01761-GPC-JLB (S.D. Cal., July 10, 2025) is a putative class action brought pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. To promote its goods and services, the Defendant engages in telemarketing text messages to phone numbers on the Do-Not-Call list. Specifically, the Defendant was authorized to contact Plaintiff by text message for Pardon My Cheesesteaks restaurant related communications. However, Plaintiff later revoked her consent to be contacted by Defendant when she requested that Defendant stop contacting her. Despite this, Defendant continued to contact Plaintiff by text message with advertisements and solicitations for business, says the suit. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct toward 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. Virtual Dining Concepts, LLC operates many restaurant brands that offer pick-up or delivery services only.[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 - Daniel G. Shay, Esq. Harrison J. Lynch, Esq. SHAY LEGAL, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 222-7429 E-mail: Dan@ShayLegal.com Harrison@ShayLegal.com VOLCANO STAR: Fetherolf Sues Over Wage and Hour Law Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- KATELYN FETHEROLF, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VOLCANO STAR, LLC d/b/a VOLCANO JAPANESE FUSION, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01851-S (N.D. Tex., July 16, 2025) accuses the Defendant of failing to pay Plaintiff in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid server employee since approximately May 2024. Allegedly, the Plaintiff was not paid time-and-one-half of her regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. In addition, the Defendant allegedly required its employees to perform uncompensated work "off-the-clock" before and after their scheduled shifts. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks to recover back wages and other relief including attorneys' fees. Volcano Star, LLC owns and operates a Japanese restaurant in Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew R. McCarley, Esq. Colby Qualls, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 11300 N Central Expy, Suite 550 Dallas, TX 75243 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 Facsimile: (214) 346-5909 E-mail: mccarley@foresterhaynie.com cqualls@foresterhaynie.com VOLUNTEER BEHAVIORAL: Mitchell Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- EDWARD MONTRELL MITCHELL, individually, and on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated current and former employees v. VOLUNTEER BEHAVIORAL FLSA Multi-Plaintiff Action HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, Case No. 1:25-cv-00232 (E.D. Tenn., July 18, 2025) seeks to recover overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and those similarly situated worked more than 40 hours per week within weekly pay periods during all times material to this action. The Defendant had a common plan, policy, and practice of working Plaintiff and those similarly situated "off the clock" within weekly pay periods without compensating them for such hours at the applicable FLSA overtime compensation rates of pay during all times material to this lawsuit, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated are current or former hourly-paid employees of the Defendant. The Defendant provides integrated services to meet the needs of individuals with mental illness, addiction, and co-occurring disorders.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq. Joshua Autry, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, HOLT, OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com jautry@jsyc.com VOLVO CAR: Saleh Sues Over Defective Vehicle Batteries ------------------------------------------------------ BURHAAN SALEH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VOLVO CAR USA, LLC; and VOLVO CAR CORPORATION Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-13300 (D.N.J., July 14, 2025) is an action against the Defendants regarding the Volvo plug-in hybrid models that were recalled and manufactured from the years 2020 through 2022. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Class Vehicles have malfunctions regarding the possibility of the high-voltage battery experiencing a short circuit within the battery module when the battery is fully charged, and the vehicle is parked (the "Defect"). The Plaintiff suffered economic loss in reference to the value of his vehicle. As a result of Volvo's Recall, Plaintiff's Vehicle's resale value is now diminished. When Plaintiff intends to sell his Vehicle, the reputation of being a faulty vehicle will harm the resale value and place Plaintiff in a much worse bargaining position compared to if Defendant had properly manufactured, designed, produced, distributed, and advertised Class Vehicles with safe functioning batteries, says the suit. Volvo Car USA, LLC is an automotive company based in Mahwah, NJ, specializing in the distribution and sale of Volvo vehicles in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip J. Furia, Esq. FURIA LAW, LLC 880 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (646) 780-1915 Email: furiap@furiafirm.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com VPC PIZZA: Hampton Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------- PHYLLIS HAMPTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VPC PIZZA MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07934 (N.D. Ill., July 14, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://giordanos.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Vpc Pizza Management LLC is a food service company based in Morton Grove, IL, specializing in the management and operation of pizza establishments. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (630) 478-0856 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law WALGREEN EASTERN: Monks Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jamie Monks, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WALGREEN EASTERN CO., INC., Case No. 2581-CV-01458 was removed from the Massachusetts Superior Court, Middlesex County, to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on July 15, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-12004. The Complaint asserts a claim for late payment of wages under the Massachusetts Wage Act (the "Wage Act"). The Complaint alleges that Defendant maintains a policy of paying its salaried employees, including Plaintiff, once a month, and further alleges these employees did not elect to be paid monthly in violation of the Wage Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Barry J. Miller, Esq. Molly C. Mooney, Esq. Beth L. Sherwood, Esq. Emily C. Ehl, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP Seaport East Two Seaport Lane, Suite 1200 Boston, MA 02210-2028 Phone: (617) 946-4800 Facsimile: (617) 946-4801 Email: bmiller@seyfarth.com mmooney@seyfarth.com bsherwood@seyfarth.com eehl@seyfarth.com WELLS FARGO: Baird Suit Removed to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Lance Baird, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY; and WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Case No. CGC-25-626061 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, in the County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on July 15, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-05959. The Complaint in the State Court Action contains causes of action for alleged violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") California Penal Code Section 496, conversion, unjust enrichment, and an accounting, brought on behalf of a proposed class of persons.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Mark D. Lonergan, Esq. Rebecca S. Saelao, Esq. Erik Kemp, Esq. SEVERSON & WERSON A Professional Corporation 595 Market Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, California 94105 Phone: (415) 398-3344 Facsimile: (415) 956-0439 Email: mdl@severson.com rss@severson.com ek@severson.com - and - Elizabeth C. Farrell, Esq. SEVERSON & WERSON A Professional Corporation The Atrium 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 700 Irvine, CA 92612 Phone: (949) 442-7110 Facsimile: (949) 442-7118 Email: ecf@severson.com WILSHIRE LAW: Faces Young Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- Derrick Young, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Wilshire Law Firm, P.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-01724 (C.D. Cal., July 9, 2025) is a putative class action pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Defendant operates as a personal injury law firm. To promote its services, the Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Wilshire Law Firm, P.L.C. is a Public Limited Company whose principal office is located in Los Angeles, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Ave., Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com - and - Ryan L. McBride, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio S., #101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ryan@kazlg.com WYNDHAM VACATION: Lamar Wage & Hour Suit Remanded to State Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as SALINDA LAMAR, Plaintiff v. WYNDHAM VACATION RESORTS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 25-cv-04191-JST, Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants the Plaintiff's motion to remand. The putative class action is remanded back to state court because Defendants have not met their burden of establishing that more than $75,000 is in controversy. Plaintiff Salinda Lamar brings this wage-and-hour putative class action against Defendants Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc.; Wyndham Destinations; Wyndham Vacation Ownership; and Wyndham Vacation Ownership Inc. The plaintiff filed her complaint in the Superior Court of California for the County of Lake, asserting 13 claims for relief: (1) failure to pay minimum wages; (2) failure to pay wages and overtime under California Labor Code Section 510; (3) meal-period liability under Labor Code Section 226.7; (4) rest-break liability under Labor Code Section 226.7; (5) failure to pay vacation wages; (6) failure to comply with Labor Code Sections 245 et seq. and 246, which concern sick time; (7) reimbursement of necessary expenditures under Labor Code Section 2802; (8) violation of Labor Code Section 226(a), which concerns accurate wage statements; (9) failure to keep required payroll records under Labor Code Sections 1174 and 1174.5; (10) violation of Labor Code Section 221, regarding unlawful receipt or collection of wages; (11) failure to pay wages due, negotiable, and payable in cash on demand under Labor Code Sections 212 and 225.5; 12) penalties pursuant to Labor Code Section 203; and (13) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq.; and (13) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. Defendants timely removed on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, and Lamar has moved to remand the case back to state court. The Court explained that courts should strictly construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction. Furthermore, where doubt regarding the right to removal exists, a case should be remanded to state court. The Court noted that diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity of citizenship; each of the plaintiffs must be a citizen of a different state than each of the defendants. Additionally, the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. Where, as here, the Court said it is unclear or ambiguous from the face of a state-court complaint whether the requisite amount in controversy is pled, the removing defendant bears the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. Court noted that Lamar does not dispute that the parties are completely diverse, but she does argue that Defendants have failed to meet their burden to establish the minimum amount in controversy. According to the Court "even considering the material submitted with Defendants' opposition, the Court concludes that Defendants have not met their burden." Regarding attorney's fees, the Court noted that defendants calculate a blended hourly rate for Lamar's counsel of 822.50 dollars and cite authority for the conclusion that 100 hours is a conservative estimate of how much time attorneys spend to litigate individual wage and hour employment cases. However, this case is a putative class action, not an individual wage-and-hour case, and Defendants include no analysis on what a reasonable attorney's fee in this class case might be. The Court explained that the relevant sections of the California Labor Code do not authorize awards of attorneys' fees solely to the named plaintiffs in a class action, but rather to an employee or any employee who prevails on their claim," and therefore "any potential attorneys' fees award in this class action cannot be attributed solely to the named plaintiff for purposes of amount in controversy. The complaint alleges that there are more than 100 class members. Distributing Defendants' unsupported high estimate of 150,000 dollars in attorney's fees among the low estimate of 100 class members yields a maximum of only 1,500 dollars in attorney's fees attributable to Lamar. The Court found that "Defendants' damages calculations must be rejected because they rest on unreasonable assumptions." The Court noted that "the amount in controversy does not reach the required threshold even without any reductions. Defendants calculate a total of 71,324.58 dollars in potential damages. Adding that amount to 1,500 dollars in attorney's fees results in 72,824.58 dollars--below the required 75,000 dollars threshold." The Court criticized several of defendants' assumptions, noting that "Defendants have provided no justification for their assumption that Lamar's unreimbursed expenses claim should be valued at 25 dollars per pay period, for each of the 101 pay periods for which she worked during the class period." Similarly, "they unreasonably calculate the amount in controversy for Lamar's meal and rest period claims by assuming one meal period violation per day, and one rest period violation per day, for each day that Lamar worked during the class period. The Court addressed defendants' assumption of a 100% violation rate, explaining that "When a complaint alleges a policy or practice of labor law violations, that does not, without more, make it reasonable to assume a 100% violation rate." The Court cited precedent stating that "Because the complaint does not allege that Manheim universally, on each and every shift, violates labor laws by not giving rest and meal breaks, Manheim bears the burden to show that its estimated amount in controversy relied on reasonable assumptions." The Court noted that other courts have found a 20% violation rate to be reasonable when the complaint alleges that the plaintiff regularly missed meal breaks and that defendants maintained a policy or practice of both meal and rest break violations. The Court concluded that "There is no support, however, for assuming that a 100% violation rate based on the allegations in this case is reasonable." A copy of the order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YgJ62O XTO ENERGY: Court Redacts Transcript in Kriley Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRILEY et al v. XTO ENERGY INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00416 (W.D. Pa., Filed March 25, 2020), the Hon. Judge Christopher B. Brown entered an order granting motion to redact transcript. The following portions of the June 17, 2025, Class Certification Hearing transcript shall be redacted: -- Each of the four numerical values stated on page 20, line 12 through page 20, line 15; -- The numerical value stated on page 20, line 23; the numerical value stated on page 21, line 12; -- Each of the three numerical values stated on page 25, line 24 through page 26, line 1; -- The numerical value stated on page 48, line 23; the numerical value stated on page 49, line 4; and -- The numerical value stated on page 49, line 8. The nature of suit states Diversity-Other Contract. XTO is an American energy company.[CC] ZALE DELAWARE: Luis Suit Removed to S.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Anakaren Luis, individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ZALE DELAWARE, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 25CU025823N was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for Southern District of California on July 17, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01819-CAB-MSB. The Plaintiffs first cause of action is for the alleged failure to pay for all ours worked, including overtime. The Plaintiffs third cause of action is for the alleged failure to pay minimum wages for all hours worked. In the fifth and sixth causes of action, Plaintiff alleges that she and others were not provided legally compliant meal and rest breaks.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Thomas N. McCormick, Esq. Krystal V. Campos, Esq. VORYS SATER SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP 2211 Michelson Dr., Suite 500 Irvine CA 92612 Phone: (949) 526-7903 Facsimile: (949) 526-7903 Email: tnmccormick@vorys.com kvcampos@vorys.com ZUMPANO PATRICIOS: Manning Files Suit in S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zumpano Patricios, P.A. The case is styled as William Manning, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Zumpano Patricios, P.A., Case No. 1:25-cv-23184-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 16, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Zumpano Patricios -- https://www.zplaw.com/ -- is a national law firm focused on the delivery of high impact value oriented legal services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy L. Kahn, Esq. BERMAN FINK VAN HORN P.C. 3475 Piedmont Road, Suite 1640 Atlanta, GA 30305 Phone: (404) 261-7711 Email: jkahn@bfvlaw.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 ***