250804.mbx

250804.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, August 4, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 154 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Britt Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Brooks Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Bunn Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Calcaro Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Cheng Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Cochran Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Hall Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Hickman Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: McCallum Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals 8901 RIVERVIEW: Property Inaccessible to Disabled, White Says ACADEMIA INC: Uses Identities in Ads Without Consent, Judge Alleges ADM INVESTOR: Kumaran Appeals Overruled Objections to 2nd Circuit AFLAC INC: M.D. Georgia Consolidates 24 Data Breach Class Suits AFLAC INCORPORATED: Court Consolidates 24 Data Breach Suits ALDI INC: Fed Court Tosses Graham Cracker Class Suit ALLY FINANCIAL: Sheridan Wins Class Cert Bid ALPHA ANALYTICAL: Filing for Class Cert. Due Nov. 20, 2026 AMERICAN INCOME: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Varela Says ANAVEX LIFE: Huey Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit ANNA JAQUES: Court Grants Sewell's Bid to Remand Data Breach Case ANSWERNET INC: Aguilar Suit Alleges ADA Violations ANTHROPIC PBC: Judge Certifies Authors' Copyright Class Action APPLE INC: Wins Appeal Over Misleading iCloud Storage Class Action ARCHERY TRADE: Conspired w/ Others to Fix Prices, Simcik Says ARIZONA: Appeals Approved Staffing Analysis & Plan to 9th Circuit ARTIVION INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Benson Alleges ASPEN DENTAL: Agrees to Settle Pixel Tracking Suit for $18.7-Mil. AT&T INC: Court Denies Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony AV NOW: Faces Pittman Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BARNES & NOBLE: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims BELK INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach BODY CONTOUR: Court Allows T.S. to Proceed Under Pseudonym CALIBER COMPLETION: Faces Perez Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Appeals Tossed Arbitration Bid in Saige Suit CARGILL INC: Claim Assignees' Bid to Opt-Out Denied CARGO THERAPEUTICS: M&A Investigates Sale to Concentra Biosciences CERNER CORPORATION: Fails to Protect Sensitive Info, Sanders Says CHRISTIAN DIOR: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Bhatt Alleges CHUBBIES INC: Martinez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website CITY OFFICE: M&A Investigates Merger With MCME Carell CITY VIEW: Gamble Appeals BIPA Class Cert. Order to 7th Circuit COLIMA TAQUERIA: Jacinto Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA, NYLL COMMUNITY CLINIC: Curimao Suit Remanded to Hawaii State Court COMMUNITY CLINIC: Jackson Suit Remanded to Hawaii State Court COMMUNITY CLINIC: Jones Suit Remanded to Hawaii State Court COMMUNITY CLINIC: Parry Suit Remanded to Hawaii State Court COMPUMEDICS USA: Faces Ward Suit Over Compromised Health Info CONNECTICUT GENERAL: Vida Appeals Final Settlement in Glover Suit CORTEVA INC: Appeals Final Judgment in Cockerill Suit to 3rd Cir. CREATED WEALTH: Bethea Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida CVS HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Unwanted Telemarketing Texts D.R. HORTON: Class Action Case Moves Forward in District Court DESERT FIRE: Court Grants Collective Class of Strip Club Workers DIAMOND BRACES: Court Grants FLSA Collective Certification EASTERLY ROCMUNI: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Statements EASTERN MICHIGAN: M&A Probes Merger With Mercantile Bank FAVORITE DAUGHTER: Partial Default Judgment Granted in ADA Suit FINASTRA TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Polak Suit Says FINASTRA TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, West Says FIRST GUARDIAN: Slater and Gordon Probes Investment Schemes Suit FISERV INC: Faces Securities Class Suit for Misleading Investors FLORIDA: Plaintiffs in Medicaid Eligibility Suit Seek Revisions FREESTYLE SNACKING: Faces Trippett Over Blind-Inaccessible Website FRESNO COMMUNITY: Court Stays PAGA Claims Pending Arbitration FRL AUTOMOTIVE: Loses Bid to Bifurcate Discovery in Karpiel Suit GEO GROUP: Class Cert Hearing Continued to August 25 GO MACRO: Faces Class Suit Over Falsely Advertised Snack Bars GO NEW: Continues to Finalize Settlement of Balderramo Case GOLDBELY INC: Faces Mackey Suit Over Telephonic Sales Calls GOURMET TECH: Kim Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA GRANT MONEY: Revell Suit Removed to N.D. Calif. HANOVER LIMITED: Faces Moz Class Suit Over Wage-Theft Scheme HEARTLAND PAYMENT: 33 Taps Appeals Suit Dismissal to 3rd Circuit HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Final Court Hearing for $18.25M Deal Set Sept 25 HNTB CORP: $490K Class Settlement in Morel Suit Has Final Approval HP INC: Hall Appeals 2nd Amended Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit HYATT CORPORATION: Jimenez's Bid to Compel Production OK'd in Part HYDE SCHOOL: Faces Fuller Suit Over Child Exploitation Scheme IDEXX LABORATORIES: 16-Month Delay Forfeits Class Action Bid ILLINOIS: Golbert Appeals Suit Dismissal Order to 7th Circuit JAMES ALPHA: Victorson Sues Over Risk of Share Price Drop JBS SOUDERTON: Partial Bid to Dismiss Edwards' Claims OK'd in Part JEMMA GROUP: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Pittman Says JOHN PAUL: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Heagney Suit to 9th Circuit JOHNSON & JOHNSON: S.A.S.B. Appeals Suit Dismissal to 3rd Circuit JOHNSON CONTROLS: Wins Bid to Transfer Greenberg Case to Wisconsin KIMCO REALTY: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Pardo Suit Alleges KVDAR INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Ortiz Says LEDGER SAS: Baton Appeals Denied Motion for Entry of Judgment LEDGER SAS: Court Denies Baton's Bid for Partial Final Judgment LVNV FUNDING: Shaw Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Reply MARTIN MARIETTA: Torre Suit Removed to N.D. California MAX INSURANCE: Allegedly Recording Calls, Wilson Suit Alleges MCKESSON MEDICAL-SURGICAL: Kramer Suit Removed to W.D. Washington MEDAMERICA BILLING: Fite Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MEDICINENET INC: Penning Privacy Suit Removed to N.D. Calif. MEDSTAR HEALTH: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $1.35-Mil. META PLATFORMS: D'Ambrosio Appeals Court Order to 7th Circuit META PLATFORMS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Deepfake Scams METAL TRANSPORT: Loses Bid to Dismiss Guimaraes, et al. Lawsuit MOHAWK GAMING: Light & Wonder Appeals Court Order in Civil Suit NATIONAL COLLECTION : Court Dismisses FDCPA Class Action Claim NATIONAL EWP: Adams Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages NATIONAL HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Tate Alleges NATIONAL INDEMNITY: Wins Bid to Dismiss Coleman, et al. Lawsuit NEW BRUNSWICK: Supreme Court Won't Stop Moncton Mothers' Class Suit NEW YORK SCHOOL: Patel Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info NICE KICKS: C.D. California Dismisses Jackson Suit W/o Prejudice PATREON INC: Court Refuses to Reconsider Decision in Stark Suit PENNEY OPCO: Appeals Denied Arbitration Bid to 9th Circuit PENNYMAC MORTGAGE: Appeals Denied Suit Dismissal Bid to 9th Circuit PLANET HOME: Class Cert Bid Filing in Gleespen Due June 5, 2026 POSTMEDS INC: Court Finalizes Settlement in Data Breach Suit PROGRESSIVE PALOVERDE: 7th Cir. Reverses Class Action Ruling PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: 3rd Cir. Reverses Class Cert. in Drummond REEL HOSPITALITY: Appeals Court Affirms Judgment in Anderson Suit REGAL CINEMAS: Cohen Suit Remanded to State Court REGIONAL HEALTH: Grossman Suit Balks at Merger Deal With SunLink REPLIMUNE GROUP: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit REVOLUTION TRUCKING: Court Okays Settlement in Loweth FLSA Suit RIVER CITY: Faces Gardner Suit Over Wage-and-Hour Violations ROCKETREACH LLC: Appeals Arbitration Order in Sant Suit to 9th Cir. SAGORA SENIOR: Seibert Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages SAZERAC COMPANY: Appeals Amended Class Cert. Order to 2nd Circuit SENIOR HEALTHCARE: Faces Griffin Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages SIMPLY DELICIOUS: Faces Class Suit Over Bobo's PB&Js Oat Bars SIMULATIONS PLUS: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Monahan Appeals Suit Dismissal to 5th Circuit SPEARMINT RHINO: Plymer Class Suit Seek Unpaid Wages Under FLSA SUPERIOR PRODUCTS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Sriqui Claims SUSQUEHANNA COMMUNITY: M&A Probes Merger With Citizen & Northern SWEET OAK: Oh Sues Over Mislabeled Allulose Zero-Calorie Sweetener SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY: Becerra-Paez Appeals Dropped Case to 2nd Cir. TAMIAMI CENTRAL: Property Inaccessible to Disabled, Pardo Says TC BANCSHARES: M&A Investigates Merger With Colony Bankcorp TCGPLAYER INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hampton Alleges TEACHERS INSURANCE: Carfora Seeks to Compel Production of Docs TESTMAX INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hilbert Alleges TEXAS: Appeals Writ of Habeas Corpus & Injunction Order to 5th Cir. THEUBEAUTY.COM LLC: Ortiz Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind THINKING LSAT: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hilbert Alleges TIMBERLINE PARTNERS: Fails to Timely Pay OT Wages, Lopez Alleges TOMPKINS FOOD: Faces Rosendo Suit Over Wage & Hour Violations TORMENTER FISHING: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Martinez Says TRANSPERFECT TRANSLATIONS: Must Defend Against Metcalf-Lawson Case TYSON FOODS: Seventh Circuit Upholds Reduced Attorney Fee Award UDER HEALTH: Yost Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL UNION PACIFIC: Waldschmidt Must File Reply Brief by August 11 UNITED STATES: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Thakur Suit to 9th Cir. UNITED STATES: Appeals Preliminary Injunction Order in A.S.R. Suit UNITED STATES: Court Stays Fogg Suit Pending Settlement Approval UNITED STATES: Immigration Detention Injunction vs. N.S. Vacated UNITED STATES: Vera Appeals Suit Dismissal to D.D.C. VIRGINIA EAGLE: Court Refuses to Allow John Doe to Use Pseudonym WALGREEN CO: Settlement in Naro Suit Has Preliminary Approval WALMART INC: 7th Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Honey Labeling Suit WALMART INC: Castillo Preservative Labeling Case Allowed to Proceed WELLNESS PHARMA: Ghabour Seeks OT, Minimum Wages Under FLSA, NYLL WELLS FARGO: Sued Over Allegedly Inadequate Compensation Efforts WEST COAST WOUND: Sued Over Fraudulent Medicare Billing Scheme WOOPLA INC: Removes Bishop Suit to N.D. Alabama YONKERS, NY: Taylor Sues Over Impounded Vehicle Disposal Policy ZIP CO US: Withrow Consumer Class Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. ********* 3M COMPANY: Britt Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams ----------------------------------------------------------- Andre Britt, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-06272-RMG (D.S.C., June 26, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products and/or PFAS chemicals. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 3M COMPANY: Brooks Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- Janet Brooks, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-06229-RMG (D.S.C., June 26, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use and was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Phone: 540-672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com 3M COMPANY: Bunn Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams --------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin R. Bunn, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba, Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successorin interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; and WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-06218-RMG (D.S.C., June 26, 2025), is brought for damages stemming from personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during their firefighting career and diagnosed with Thyroid Cancer as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Y. Shenkar, Esq. MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS, LLP 101 West Elm St., Suite 520 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: (803) 315-3357 Fax: (610) 941-9880 Email: jshenkar@bernllp.com 3M COMPANY: Calcaro Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- Raffaele Calcaro, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-06275-RMG (D.S.C., June 26, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with testicular cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products and/or PFAS chemicals. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 3M COMPANY: Cheng Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dara Cheng, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-06232-RMG (D.S.C., June 26, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use and was diagnosed with liver cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Phone: 540-672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com 3M COMPANY: Cochran Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Chemicals ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kenneth Cochran, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-06233-RMG (D.S.C., June 26, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use and was diagnosed with testicular cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Phone: 540-672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com 3M COMPANY: Hall Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams --------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Hall, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-06234-RMG (D.S.C., June 26, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or the Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use and was diagnosed with thyroid cancer and thyroid disease as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF product. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Phone: 540-672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com 3M COMPANY: Hickman Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ------------------------------------------------------------------ Cornell Hickman, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba, Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successorin interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; and WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-06238-RMG (D.S.C., June 26, 2025), is brought for damages stemming from personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during their firefighting career and diagnosed with liver cancer as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James C. Ferrell, Esq. FERRELL LAW GROUP, PC 6226 Washington Avenue, Suite 200 Houston, TX 77007 Phone: 713-337-3855 Facsimile: 713-337-3856 3M COMPANY: McCallum Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ---------------------------------------------------------- Christopher McCallum, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba, Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successorin interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; and WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-06215-RMG (D.S.C., June 26, 2025), is brought for damages stemming from personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during their firefighting career and diagnosed with Thyroid Disease as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Y. Shenkar, Esq. MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS, LLP 101 West Elm St., Suite 520 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: (803) 315-3357 Fax: (610) 941-9880 Email: jshenkar@bernllp.com 8901 RIVERVIEW: Property Inaccessible to Disabled, White Says ------------------------------------------------------------- JOHNNY WHITE IV, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 8901 RIVERVIEW, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-01124 (E.D. Mo., July 28, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants' commercial property located at 8901 Riverview Dr., St. Louis, MO 63137, is not accessible to mobility-impaired individuals in violation of ADA. 8901 Riverview, LLC owns and operates commercial properties in Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michelle M. Funkenbusch, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MICHELLE M. FUNKENBUSCH 2901 Dougherty Ferry Rd., Suite 100 St. Louis, MO 63122 Telephone: (314) 338-3500 Cell: (314) 799-6602 Facsimile: (314) 270-8103 Email: FunkenbuschADA@saintlouislegal.com ACADEMIA INC: Uses Identities in Ads Without Consent, Judge Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- RAJBIR SINGH JUDGE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ACADEMIA, INC., an Oregon corporation, Case No. 3:25-cv-05857 (N.D. Cal., July 11, 2025) contends that Academia uses the identities of unsuspecting academics and researchers to market its services to non-paying or prospective users. For example, a person who creates a non-paying account will be sent emails or shown webpages with teasers that encourage them to sign up for a paying subscription. The people appearing in Academia's advertisements never provided Academia with their consent to use their identities for its marketing and commercial purposes. By knowingly using Plaintiff and the Class members' identities in its advertisements without consent and for commercial gain, Academia violated -- and continues to violate -- the right of publicity statutes of Alabama, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, Ohio, South Dakota, and Washington, asserts the suit. Academia operates a commercial platform for sharing academic research and which allows researchers and academics to create profiles featuring their work on its website, Academia.edu. The website also has social networking features, allowing users to create profiles, connect with and follow other researchers, and track materials that cite or reference their own work. While some of Academia's features are free, many are only available to registered and paying users. Plaintiff Rajbir Singh Judge is a natural person and a resident of the State of California. Dr. Judge is a scholar of South Asia, Postcolonial Theory, and Modern World History. The Defendant has allegedly used Dr. Judge's identity in advertisements delivered to other people without his consent. Academia, Inc. is, according to its registration with the California Secretary of State, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Oregon with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. It owns and operates the Academia.edu website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaman Salahi, Esq. Nicole Cabanez, Esq. SALAHI PC 505 Montgomery St., 11th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 236-2352 E-mail: yaman@salahilaw.com nicolec@salahilaw.com ADM INVESTOR: Kumaran Appeals Overruled Objections to 2nd Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- SAMANTHA SIVA KUMARAN, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Samantha Siva Kumaran, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ADM Investor Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-3873, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, common law fraud, fraud and deceptive business practices, fraudulent inducement of contract, aiding and abetting in fraud, civil conspiracy, misappropriation of trade secrets, interference in economic advantage, unjust enrichment, recission, breach of contract, gross negligence, and breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing. On June 27, 2025, Ms. Kumaran filed objections to Judge Aaron's June 13, 2025 Order. Ms. Kumaran filed a number of objections to Judge Aaron's recitation of the relevant procedural history, and ultimately objects to the decision to set a new deadline of July 7, 2025 for filing an amended pleading. This case has proceeded for over five years. Over five years into the action, Ms. Kumaran has been given over a month and a half to file an amended pleading. The Court is unconvinced by Ms. Kumaran's objection that after five years of litigation, it is impossible for her to file an amended pleading stating her claim against the lone defendant in that amount of time. It is Ms. Kumaran's choice to use that time to file multiple motions addressed to Judge Aaron, lengthy briefs in support, and multiple sets of objections addressed to this Court, including objections to individual sentences in the "Background" sections of Judge Aaron's orders. Judge Aaron's decision to set a deadline of July 7, 2025-after granting a 17-day extension-for filing an amended complaint is not contrary to law. Ms. Kumaran's objections are overruled. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis (IFP) status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. The appellate case is entitled Kumaran v. ADM Investor Services, Inc., Case No. 25-1708, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on July 11, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant SAMANTHA SIVA KUMARAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, appears pro se. AFLAC INC: M.D. Georgia Consolidates 24 Data Breach Class Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Eleanor Griffin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Aflac Incorporated, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-CV-00183 (M.D. Ga.), Judge Clay D. Land of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to consolidate 24 separate class action cases arising from the same alleged data breach. Judge Land found that "the cases involved some of the same issues of fact and law, grow out of the same alleged data breach involving Aflac Incorporated, have many of the same claims, and have proposed class definitions that will encompass the same persons." The Court determined that "the cases have sufficient commonality of issues and parties to warrant consolidating the cases" and that "the benefits of consolidation are not outweighed by any risk of prejudice or jury confusion." The Court consolidated 24 class action lawsuits filed by individual plaintiffs "on behalf of all others similarly situated" against Aflac Incorporated. The plaintiffs include Eleanor Griffin, Jessica Batiste, Martha Graham, William Jernigan, John O'Connor, Helen Rustin, Christopher Cook, James Byrne, Elisa Mittelstaed, Princess Russell, Larry Scott, L.P., Hilda M. Murphree, Jeffrey Alonzo Minter, Charlene Synoga, Tonya Grubbs, Jack Keiffer, Sandra Hermann, Adam Hatch, Marlena Neagle, David Sandoro, Jennifer Steele, Carrie Womack, Sandra J. Fletcher, Daniela Harrell, Miah Cliatt, and Ismael Perez. The Court ordered that all cases shall be consolidated for all purposes, including pretrial proceedings, trial and appeal, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 before the Honorable Clay D. Land." The consolidated action will be maintained under Case No. 4:25-CV-00183 and shall bear the following caption: In re Aflac Inc. Data Breach Litigation. The Court directed that all filings in the Consolidated Action shall be filed under Case No. 4:25-CV-00183 and the case file for the Consolidated Action will be maintained under the Master File Case No. 4:25-CV-00183. The consolidated cases arise from "the Data Breach announced by Aflac on or around June 20, 2025." The Court noted that all cases grow out of the same alleged data breach involving Aflac Incorporated" and involve similar factual and legal issues. The Court established that any action subsequently filed, transferred, or removed to this Court that arises out of the same or similar operative facts as the Consolidated Action will be automatically consolidated with the Consolidated Action within 10 calendar days following the filing of that action." Parties must object to such consolidation before the expiration of that period. The Court required that the Parties will notify the Court by email to columbus.ecf@gamd.uscourts.gov whenever a related case that should be consolidated into the Consolidated Action is filed in, transferred to, or removed to this District. Procedural Timeline The Court established specific deadlines for the consolidated proceeding: 1. "Any applications for the appointment of interim class counsel under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(3) shall be filed within 7 days of entry of this Order"; 2. Plaintiffs shall file a Consolidated Class Action Complaint within 60 days of the Court's ruling upon any applications for appointment of interim class counsel, which shall serve as the operative complaint in the Consolidated Action; 3. Defendant will answer, move or otherwise respond to the operative CCAC no later than 60 days after the CCAC is filed; and 4. If Defendant files a motion directed to the CCAC, Plaintiffs will have 30 days thereafter to file an opposition, and Defendant will then have 30 days to file a reply in support of its motion. The Court found that consolidation would result in judicial economy and preserving the Parties' resources, as well as avoiding disparate rulings in separate actions. Judge Land determined that these related actions have sufficient commonality of law and fact and because consolidation does not increase the risk of an unfair outcome. The Court stayed Aflac's deadline to respond to any complaints in the Related action pending the consolidation and filing of the consolidated complaint. AFLAC INCORPORATED: Court Consolidates 24 Data Breach Suits ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Eleanor Griffin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Aflac Incorporated, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-CV-00183 (M.D. Ga.), Judge Clay D. Land of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia granted Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to consolidate 24 separate class action lawsuits arising from the same alleged data breach. Judge Land held that "the cases involved some of the same issues of fact and law, grow out of the same alleged data breach involving Aflac Incorporated, have many of the same claims, and have proposed class definitions that will encompass the same persons." The Court determined that "the cases have sufficient commonality of issues and parties to warrant consolidating the cases" and that "the benefits of consolidation are not outweighed by any risk of prejudice or jury confusion." The Court stated that "the effect of such consolidation will be judicial economy and preserving the Parties' resources, as well as avoiding disparate rulings in separate actions." Accordingly, the Court found that these related actions have sufficient commonality of law and fact and because consolidation does not increase the risk of an unfair outcome" and therefore granted the motion. The consolidated cases are: -- Eleanor Griffin v. Aflac Inc., No. 4:25-CV-00183; -- Jessica Batiste v. Aflac Inc., No. 4:25-CV-00185; -- Martha Graham v. Aflac, Inc., No. 4:25-CV-00186; -- William Jernigan v. Aflac Inc., No. 4:25-CV-00188; -- John O'Connor v. Aflac Inc., No. 4:25-CV-00189; -- Helen Rustin v. Aflac Inc., No. 4:25-CV-00190; -- Christopher Cook v. Aflac Inc., No. 4:25-CV-00192; -- James Byrne v. Aflac Inc., No. 4:25-CV-00193; -- Elisa Mittelstaed v. Aflac Inc., No. 4:25-CV-00194; -- Princess Russell v. Aflac Inc., No. 4:25-CV-00195; -- Larry Scott v. Aflac Inc., No. 4:25-CV-00196; -- L.P. v. Aflac Inc., No. 4:25-CV-00197; -- Hilda Murphree v. Aflac Inc., No. 4:25-CV-00200; -- Jeffrey Alonzo Minter v. Aflac Inc., No. 4:25-cv-00205; -- Charlene Synoga et al. v. Aflac Inc., No. 4:25-cv-00206; -- Sandra Hermann v. Aflac Inc., No. 4:25-cv-00207; -- Adam Hatch et al. v. Aflac Inc., No. 4:25-cv-00208; -- David Sandoro v. Aflac Inc., No. 4:25-cv-00211; -- Jennifer Steele v. Aflac Inc., No. 4:25-cv-00212; -- Carrie Womack v. Aflac Inc., No. 4:25-cv-00214; -- Sandra J. Fletcher v. Aflac Inc., No. 4:25-cv-00216; -- Daniela Harrell v. Aflac Inc., No. 4:25-cv-00218; -- Miah Cliatt v. Aflac Inc., No. 4:25-cv-00219; and -- Ismael Perez v. Aflac Inc., No. 4:25-cv-00220. The Court ordered that all cases shall be consolidated for all purposes, including pretrial proceedings, trial and appeal, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 before Judge Land and that "Aflac's deadline to respond to any complaints in the Related action shall be stayed." The Court directed that all filings in the Consolidated Action shall be filed under Case No. 4:25-CV-00183, and shall bear the following caption: In re Aflac Inc. Data Breach Litigation." The Court established specific procedural requirements, ordering that "any applications for the appointment of interim class counsel under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(3) shall be filed within 7 days of entry of this Order." Additionally, the Court ordered that "Plaintiffs shall file a Consolidated Class Action Complaint within 60 days of the Court's ruling upon any applications for appointment of interim class counsel, which shall serve as the operative complaint in the Consolidated Action." For future related cases, Judge Land ordered that any action subsequently filed, transferred, or removed to this Court that arises out of the same or similar operative facts as the Consolidated Action will be automatically consolidated with the Consolidated Action within 10 calendar days following the filing of that action." The Court further directed that "the Parties will notify the Court by email to columbus.ecf@gamd.uscourts.gov whenever a related case that should be consolidated into the Consolidated Action is filed in, transferred to, or removed to this District." The consolidated litigation stems from the Data Breach announced by Aflac on or around June 20, 2025. All cases involve similar class action allegations against Aflac related to this data security incident. A copy of the Consolidation order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=X7Sehk ALDI INC: Fed Court Tosses Graham Cracker Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Lanita Stinnie, Plaintiff, v. Aldi Inc., Defendant, Index No. 156378/2024 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Judge Paul A. Goetz of the Supreme Court of New York County granted Defendant's motion to dismiss a consumer fraud putative class action relating to a graham cracker product sold by the defendant grocery store chain. Aldi operates 129 grocery stores in New York." The company sells products under a variety of national brand names, as well as products under its private label brands, including Benton's." Aldi "sells one such Benton 's-branded product, graham crackers, in navy blue box packages, and the front label displays the following: (a) The Benton's brand logo in the top left-hand corner; (b) 'GRAHAM crackers' written in the largest font, in white lettering outlined in brown and yellow; (c) an illustration of a honey dipper, with a falling drop of honey; (d) a photographic depiction of the product, as a rectangular, coarse, toasted tan, dimpled cracker; (e) 'NO high fructose corn syrup' written in smaller font in the bottom right-hand corner." The product label also states "'8g of whole grains per serving / USDA recommends consuming 48g or more whole grains per day,' with '8g' being in a large, light blue font." The "Nutrition Facts" indicate "a serving size is '2 full cracker sheets (31g)'" and "'Total Sugars 8g / Includes 8g of Added Sugars 15%'" with "INGREDIENTS: ENRICHED FLOUR (WHEAT FLOUR, NIACIN, REDUCED IRON, THIAMIN MONONITRATE, RIBOFLAVIN, FOLIC ACID), GRAHAM FLOUR (WHOLE WHEAT FLOUR), SUGAR, . . . HONEY." Plaintiff alleges that this packaging and naming the product "graham crackers" misled her and other Aldi shoppers to form the false belief that the graham crackers contained a significant amount of whole grain graham flour, as opposed to refined flours, and were predominantly sweetened by honey, as opposed to refined sugar. Plaintiff claimed she paid more for the Product than she would have, had she known the actual composition. The complaint asserted one cause of action for violation of General Business Law Sections 349 and 350. Under the GBL sections, a plaintiff must prove three elements: first, that the challenged act or practice was consumer-oriented; second, that it was misleading in a material way; and third, that the plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the deceptive act. The Court noted that the false advertising or deceptive practice must be likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. Additionally, courts view each allegedly misleading statement in light of its context on the product label or advertisement as a whole. The Court found that the word "honey" does not appear anywhere on the front side of the box. However, there is an illustration of a honey dipper with a falling drop of honey right over/through the "GRAHAM crackers" text. Plaintiff argued this imagery results in purchasers understanding the food's name as being modified [to] read as "Honey Graham Crackers." Judge Goetz held that "a label's imagery (as opposed to text) is reasonably interpreted to represent a product's flavor, rather than the use of a specific ingredient." Therefore, the imagery of a honey dipper on the package, on its own, does not convey an ingredient claim. The Court concluded that the label only represents that the product is honey flavored, and plaintiff acknowledges this is an accurate representation of the product's taste. Regarding the "no high fructose corn syrup" statement, Plaintiff asserted that purchasers understand this as supporting the representations and expectations that honey is the predominant sweetening ingredient. However, the Court found she provides no support for this factual assertion and determined the phrase is merely a factually correct statement. Plaintiff noted that "GRAHAM" is the largest word on the front label and the product name includes the word "graham," which refers to graham flour. She alleged the packaging "causes purchasers to expect that whole grain graham flour, from whole wheat, is the predominant flour ingredient, or at least present in a significant amount." Plaintiff cited dictionary definitions describing graham crackers as a slightly sweet cracker made of whole wheat flour or semisweet cracker, usually rectangular in shape, made chiefly of whole-wheat flour. According to the Court, Plaintiff offers insufficient support for her allegation that the graham and whole grain representations are misleading. According to the Court, Plaintiff "does not allege any facts showing that reasonable consumers expect the product at issue to match the dictionary definition of 'graham crackers' or that they are even aware of that definition of the term." The Court also noted "the whole grain claim is explicitly qualified by the '8g [] per serving' language." This disclosure, combined with the nutrition label showing that a serving size is 31g, 'makes clear that 23 other grams are something else and leaves no room for the consumer to think there is any more whole grain content than the eight grams listed.'" The Court concluded that in assessing the front label as a whole, the graham and whole grain representations are, at best, ambiguous. Where representations are ambiguous, "the 'additional information [on the nutrition label] cures any potential ambiguity from the front label.'" The Court distinguished this case, noting unlike in Mantikas v Kellogg Co., 910 F3d 633 [2nd Cir 2018], "the challenged labeling statements at issue are not alleged to be affirmatively inaccurate, or contradictory to the Nutrition Facts Panel. The Court determined that reasonable shoppers seeking to limit their consumption of refined wheat flour, or seeking to consume more whole grain, would simply turn to the nutrition label to assess the product's proportions of various flours. Therefore, "plaintiff fails to plausibly allege violations of GBL Sections 349 and 350 based on the graham representations. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=P6gK4q ALLY FINANCIAL: Sheridan Wins Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL C. SHERIDAN, on behalf of Himself and all others similarly situated, v. ALLY FINANCIAL, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-00616 (S.D.W. Va.), the Hon. Judge Frank Volk entered a memorandum granting Mr. Sheridan's motion for class certification. The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this written opinion and order to all counsel of record and any unrepresented parties. As noted, Mr. Sheridan contends the class is comprised of 15,021 West Virginians. Joinder of that many claims would be impracticable and unwieldly. Moreover, Ally's liability is a common question that would be inefficient to continuously litigate and risk nonconformity in decisions. Pursuing this matter as a class action is superior to any other method available. On Sept. 18, 2023, Mr. Sheridan instituted this action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. The Second Amended Class Action Complaint alleges Ally "is an industry-leading automobile lender, who regularly passes its collection costs for monthly loan payments to borrowers when they make their payments by telephone or online." On March 7, 2025, Mr. Sheridan filed his Motion for Class Certification, seeking class treatment for the following group: "All West Virginia consumers identified by the Defendant with a West Virginia mailing address (1) with an automobile loan securing a vehicle with a Contract and Garage State in West Virginia, (2) where the lender or assignee is Ally, (3) who paid a fee to ACI or CheckFreePay for making a loan payment by telephone or over the internet, by interactive voice recognition (IVR) or by other electronic means, from four years before the filing of the complaint through the date a class is certified." Ally is a digital financial-services company. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion and order dated July 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bpeCnh at no extra charge.[CC] ALPHA ANALYTICAL: Filing for Class Cert. Due Nov. 20, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAURYN GIST-REED, v. ALPHA ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-03282-DJC-CSK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Daniel J. Calabretta entered a scheduling order as follows: All fact discovery shall be completed no later than July 17, 2026. The parties shall disclose initial experts and produce reports in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) by no later than Aug. 14, 2026. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification, shall be filed on or before Nov. 20, 2026 and shall be noticed for hearing before Judge Calabretta no later than Jan. 7, 2027. A jury trial is set for Jan. 10, 2028 at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 7 before District Court Judge Daniel J. Calabretta. The final pretrial conference is set for Nov. 4, 2027 at 1:30 p.m. Alpha operates as a testing laboratory. A copy of the Court's order dated July 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Zwr7rP at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICAN INCOME: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Varela Says ----------------------------------------------------------- PHILLIP VARELA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN INCOME LIFE INSURANCE CO., Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-00303 (W.D. Tex., July 17, 2025) seeks injunctive and declaratory relief arising from Defendant's failure to safeguard the names, dates of birth, addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, Social Security Numbers and health-related information, and policy information, (together, "Private Information"). The Defendant's failure resulted in unauthorized access to its information systems in October 2024, and the compromised and unauthorized disclosure of that Private Information, causing widespread injury and damages to Plaintiff and other similarly situated customers. Further, the Defendant's failure to safeguard customers' highly sensitive private information as exposed and unauthorizedly disclosed in the Data Breach violates its common law duty, Texas law, and Defendant's implied contract with its customers to safeguard their Private Information, says the suit. On behalf of himself and the Class, the Plaintiff brings causes of action against Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of implied contract, resulting from Defendant's failure to adequately protect their highly sensitive Private Information. American Income Life Insurance Company is a life insurance company that with its principal place of business in Waco, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com ANAVEX LIFE: Huey Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- QUINTESSA HUEY is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing the lawsuit entitled Jonathan Blum, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Anavex Life Sciences Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-1910, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is a federal securities action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Anavex stock between February 1, 2022 and January 1, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"), against Anavex and certain of its officers and/or directors for violations of the Securities Act of 1934. On July 12, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on August 23, 2024. On June 18, 2025, Judge Colleen McMahon entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs failed to allege any primary securities law violation by any Defendant in this case. The claim under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act is dismissed. The appellate case is captioned Blum v. Anavex Life Sciences Corporation, Case No. 25-1752, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on July 18, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant QUINTESSA HUEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Defendants-Appellees ANAVEX LIFE SCIENCES CORPORATION, et al. are represented by: Stephen G. Topetzes, Esq. K&L GATES LLP 1601 K. Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 ANNA JAQUES: Court Grants Sewell's Bid to Remand Data Breach Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Angela Sewell and Milena Vitali-Charewicz v. Anna Jaques Hospital, Case No. 1:25-cv-10992-IT (D. Mass.), Judge Indira Talwani of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts grants the Plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to the Essex County Superior Court. The Plaintiffs' request for costs and fees was denied. The court's ruling centered on a data breach incident that occurred in Defendant Anna Jaques Hospital's computer systems in December 2023. This action arose from the same security incident that spawned multiple class action lawsuits beginning in January 2024, when the first putative class action lawsuit concerning the incident was filed in Massachusetts state court, which Anna Jaques removed to federal court on March 27, 2024, in Cabozzi v. Anna Jaques Hospital, No. 1:24-cv-10792-IT. Between December 2024 and January 2025, seven additional class action complaints were filed in or removed to the court. On January 10, 2025, plaintiffs in those actions and the Cabozzi action filed a motion seeking to consolidate their actions. The court entered an order consolidating those actions into a single Consolidated Action on January 16, 2025. Plaintiff Angela Sewell filed a class action complaint in Massachusetts state court on December 19, 2024, concerning the security incident, seeking to represent a class consisting of all individuals whose Private Information was accessed and/or acquired by an unauthorized party in the Data Breach, including all who were sent a notice of the Data Breach. On December 26, 2024, Plaintiff Milena Vitali-Charewicz filed a similar class action complaint in Massachusetts state court seeking to represent the same class described in Sewell's complaint. Both Sewell's and Vitali-Charewicz's counsel was Randi A. Kassan. On January 30, 2025, Defendant removed the Sewell and Vitali-Charewicz actions to federal court. On February 5, 2025, the court ordered Plaintiffs Sewell and Vitali-Charewicz to file any objection to consolidating the present case with the Consolidated Action within ten calendar days. On February 14, 2025, Sewell and Vitali-Charewicz each filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissing their actions against Defendant Anna Jaques without prejudice. On March 18, 2025, Plaintiffs Sewell and Vitali-Charewicz filed the instant complaint in Massachusetts state court. The complaint concerns the same December 25, 2025 data breach incident that was the subject of their earlier complaints, but in this refiled action, Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of "all Massachusetts citizens whose Private Information was accessed and/or acquired by an unauthorized party in the Data Breach, including all who were sent a notice of the Data Breach. On April 16, 2025, Defendant Anna Jaques removed this action to federal court, asserting the court's jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), codified at 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). Under CAFA, federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over class actions in which the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 and in which minimal diversity exists. Defendant did not dispute that there is not minimal diversity based on the face of Plaintiffs' complaint, as Defendant is a citizen of Massachusetts, and the putative class is defined to include only Massachusetts residents. However, Defendant argued that because the only substantive difference between Plaintiff Sewell's and Vitali-Charewicz's original actions and the newly filed action is the class definition, the court should consider Plaintiffs part of the putative nationwide class proposed in the Consolidated Action and find that minimal diversity exists. The court recognized that Plaintiffs' refiling of their action as one seeking to represent only Massachusetts residents places the instant action outside this court's jurisdiction. The court acknowledged that remand places a burden on the Defendant that Congress sought to avoid. Nonetheless, the court declined to depart from CAFA's text to find minimal diversity where a nationwide class has not yet been certified in the Consolidated Action. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=obhy1F ANSWERNET INC: Aguilar Suit Alleges ADA Violations -------------------------------------------------- JAY AGUILAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANSWERNET, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-01559 (N.D. Ohio, July 28, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant terminated the Plaintiff's employment on the basis of his disability. Answernet, Inc. is a tech-enabled contact center outsourcing company, providing inbound, outbound, automated, BPO, and AI services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan C. Volheim, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD. 2500 South Highland Avenue Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Telephone: (630) 575-8180 Facsimile: (630) 575-8188 Email: nvolheim@sulaimanlaw.com ANTHROPIC PBC: Judge Certifies Authors' Copyright Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Steven M. Selna, Carlo Lipson, Brinson S. Elliott of Benesch report that on July 17, 2025, US District Court Judge William Alsup approved a class certification against Anthropic for copyright infringement. According to Judge Alsup, it will be straightforward for the entire class to prove harm caused by Anthropic's "Napster-style downloading of millions of works" from pirate libraries and that "if not brought as a class action, there will likely be no action at all." This decision comes several weeks after Judge Alsup ruled that Anthropic's use of legally purchased books to train its large language model (LLM) constitutes Fair Use under the Copyright Act. However, Anthropic's means of acquiring other copyrighted works by downloading source copies of pirated materials is not excused by their ultimate purpose of LLM training. Following that ruling, Anthropic filed an interlocutory appeal on July 14, 2025, seeking the Ninth Circuit's guidance on two controlling questions: Whether fair use is analyzed based on the defendant's ultimate purpose in using a copyrighted work or instead parsed into separately analyzed constituent steps; and Whether a defendant's acquisition of a copyrighted work from a third party that distributed it without permission strongly weighs against the availability of the fair use defense even if the use is otherwise fair. Factual Background Pirate libraries are open repositories of books, digital media, and academic papers that are usually copyrighted or paywalled. In 2021, Anthropic downloaded over 196,000 unauthorized copies of copyrighted books from Books3, a pirate e-library that "conveniently packaged for mass download pairs of each book's extracted text and filename, enabling the books to be readily rebuilt into separate files or reviewed." Seeking more training material, Anthropic turned to LibGen, another pirate library. Anthropic's co-founder used the BitTorrent protocol, which enables decentralized electronic peer-to-peer file sharing across multiple sources, to mass download five million eBook files. Third parties then copied the LibGen library to create Z-Library, which was itself copied to create PiLiMi (Pirate Library Mirror), before being shut down by the government in November 2022. In July 2022, Anthropic compared the LibGen and PiLiMi libraries, torrenting two million copies of works not already in its training library. Anthropic admits it downloaded copyrighted works from LibGen and PiLiMi, but claims doing so is permitted under the Fair Use doctrine. In objecting to the class certification, Anthropic also argued that errors in torrenting led to partial book downloads, making their infringement de minimis. In response, Judge Alsup observed that the company was unable to provide a single example of a partial book in the LibGen downloads, and in any case, "stealing a page of copyrighted work is still a violation." LLM Training Techniques Will Help Identify Class Members The metadata and hashing techniques Anthropic used to identify copied works for LLM training will assist in identifying eligible class members. Anthropic used these methods to mitigate a decline in LLM performance. The company realized its LLM, Claude, was trained on multiple copies of certain books, causing the model to memorize the input text. This undermined Claude's performance and presented a risk that the model would produce outputs containing portions of the copyrighted training material. However, when Claude stopped being trained on pirated books, developers noticed another "performance hit." Anthropic sought training materials of similar quality to the pirated books, opting to download catalogs of metadata from the books it torrented from LibGen and PiLiMi. This metadata contained Industry Standard Book Numbers (ISBN) and Amazon Standard Identification Numbers (ASIN), which can be used to quickly identify books and unpack "intelligence about editions and languages." Anthropic's own records show that commercial metadata (ISBN/ASIN) is generally unique to books at the edition-level, alleviating concerns that different works and editions often share titles and authors. The metadata catalogs also contained hash values, or short alphanumeric signatures, which algorithms can use to decipher differences in source file content, formatting, or file type. Plaintiffs are using this metadata to identify beneficial owners of copyright registration certificates who are eligible to join the class action. Class Certification Granted for eBooks but Denied for Scanned Books Judge Alsup limited the class to actual and beneficial copyright owners of books with an ISBN or ASIN that were downloaded from two pirate libraries: LibGen or PiLiMi. He declined to include the third pirate library, Books3, reasoning that identifying titles and authors could prove too difficult given that these downloads had more incomplete files and comparatively less metadata. Judge Alsup declined to certify a class of authors of physical books that Anthropic bought and scanned beginning in 2024. Litigation Timeline and Near-Term Developments By August 1, 2025, Anthropic must submit specific information—the titles, authors, publishers, and ISBN/ASIN data—to plaintiffs' counsel for all downloads from the two pirated libraries. By August 15, 2025, parties must submit an agreed-upon notice for review and a plan to distribute notice to potential class members. By its own calculation, Anthropic's statutory damages could be up to $150,000 times the five million books. Actual damages may be calculated in part by the price Anthropic later paid for print copies of the copyrighted works. According to Judge Alsup, Anthropic "has actively submitted that piracy is for an AI company the fair price to pay." The Bartz v. Anthropic PBC trial is scheduled to begin on December 1, 2025. [GN] APPLE INC: Wins Appeal Over Misleading iCloud Storage Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jonathan Stempel of Star Advertiser reports that a U.S. federal appeals court rejected claims by Apple customers that the iPhone maker gave them less iCloud data storage than they paid for when upgrading. In a 3-0 decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said reasonable consumers in the proposed class action would not have been misled by Apple's promises about storage capacity in its iCloud+ plans. The plaintiff Lisa Bodenburg said she paid $2.99 a month for 200 GB of storage, believing Apple would add it to the 5 GB that all iCloud customers receive, and was shortchanged because Apple gave her only 200 GB of total storage, not 205 GB. Circuit Judge Milan Smith, however, said Bodenburg "received exactly what Apple promised her" when the Cupertino, California-based company offered "incremental" or "supplemental" storage, on top of the 5 GB she got for free. He cited dismissals of other cases based on "unreasonable assumptions," including that Diet Dr. Pepper would aid in weight loss, and the net weight on a lip balm label failed to reveal that the dispenser's design left some balm inaccessible. "Apple's statements are not false and deceptive merely because may be unreasonably misunderstood by an insignificant and unrepresentative segment of consumers," Smith wrote. Lawyers for Bodenburg did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The decision upheld a May 2024 dismissal by U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson in San Francisco. The case is Bodenburg v Apple Inc., 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 24-3335. [GN] ARCHERY TRADE: Conspired w/ Others to Fix Prices, Simcik Says ------------------------------------------------------------- MATT SIMCIK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARCHERY TRADE ASSOCIATION, INC; BOWTECH INC.; BPS DIRECT, LLC d/b/a BASS PRO SHOPS; CABELA'S LLC; DICK'S SPORTING GOODS, INC.; HOYT ARCHERY, INC.; JAY'S SPORTING GOODS; KINSEY'S OUTDOORS, INC.; LANCASTER ARCHERY SUPPLY, INC.; MATHEWS ARCHERY, INC.; and PRECISION SHOOTING EQUIPMENT, INC., Defendants, Case No. 0:25-cv-02875-LMP-JFD (D. Minn., July 16, 2025) is a class action against Defendants for their unlawful contract, combination, or conspiracy to fix the prices of Archery Products sold throughout the United States in violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act, and Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants' conspiracy concerned about price competition within the industry which was driving prices down and impacting profit margins for manufacturers and retailers. The Defendants acted collectively to implement and vigorously enforce minimum advertised price (MAP) policies throughout the industry. These policies -- which were transparently intended to eliminate price competition and increase profit margins for manufacturers and retailers -- worked by establishing a lowest-possible price for specific products, which no retailers could advertise that product. In order to further the anticompetitive aims of the conspiracy, Defendants also engaged in a continuous and multi-faceted exchange of competitively sensitive information, which further suppressed price competition and permitted Defendants to monitor each other's adherence to the conspiracy. The Defendants' actions resulted in Plaintiff and members of the Class paying supracompetitive prices for Archery Products in the United States and its territories, says the suit. The Plaintiff purchased Archery Products that were Manufactured by one or more of the Manufacturer Defendants and sold by one of the Retailer Defendants. Archery Trade Association is a members-only trade association that works to further the economic interests of participants in the Archery Products industry, with principal place of business in New Ulm, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon A. Tostrud, Esq. Anthony M. Carter, Esq. TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, P.C. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 278-2600 Facsimile: (310) 278-2640 E-mail: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com acarter@tostrudlaw.com ARIZONA: Appeals Approved Staffing Analysis & Plan to 9th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- RYAN THORNELL, Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Shawn Jensen, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Ryan Thornell, Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:12-cv-00601-ROS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The Plaintiffs initially brought this suit against the Defendants on March 22, 2012. The Plaintiffs and similarly situated prisoners are housed in Arizona Department of Corrections state prisons, and seek declaratory and injunctive relief against Charles Ryan and Michael Pratt, in their official capacities. Prisoner Plaintiffs and the Class are entirely dependent on the Defendants for their basic health care. However, the system under which the Defendants Ryan and Pratt provide medical, mental health, and dental care to prisoners is grossly inadequate and subjects all prisoners to a substantial risk of serious harm, including unnecessary pain and suffering, preventable injury, amputation, disfigurement, and death. On Apr. 3, 2025, the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry Health Care Staffing Analysis and Plan is filed, which Judge Roslyn O. Silver approved on June 11, 2025 as modified by the Experts Analysis of Parties' Responses to Staffing Analysis and Plan. The appellate case is entitled Jensen, et al. v. Thornell, et al., Case No. 25-4365, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 15, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on July 21, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on July 25, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on August 25, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on October 3, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on November 3, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees SHAWN JENSEN, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Corene Thaedra Kendrick, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF ARIZONA (ACLU) NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT 425 California Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94104 - and - Eunice Hyunhye Cho, Esq. David Cyrus Fathi, Esq. Maria Viette Morris, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF ARIZONA (ACLU) NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT 915 15th St. NW, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20005 - and - Jared G. Keenan, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF ARIZONA 2712 North 7th Street Phoenix, AZ 85006 - and - Donald Specter, Esq. Alison Hardy, Esq. PRISON LAW OFFICE 1917 5th Street Berkeley, CA 94710 Defendants-Appellants RYAN THORNELL, Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation, et al. are represented by: Mary O'Grady, Esq. Andrew George Pappas, Esq. John Bullock, Esq. Molly Walker, Esq. OSBORN MALEDON, PA 2929 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2000 Phoenix, AZ 85012 - and - Joshua Bendor, Esq. Luci Danielle Davis, Esq. Lucy Marie Rand, Esq. Gregory Honig, Esq. AGAZ - Office of the Arizona Attorney General 2005 N. Central Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85004 ARTIVION INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Benson Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- ASHLYN B. BENSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARTIVION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04196-SCJ (N.D. Ga., July 28, 2025) is a class action arising out of the Defendant's failure to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and timely and adequately destroy the Plaintiff's and Class members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, due to the Defendant's data security failures which resulted in the Data Breach, cybercriminals were able to target Defendant's computer systems and exfiltrate the Plaintiff's and Class members' highly sensitive and personally identifiable information and protected health information (collectively, the "Private Information"). As a result of this Data Breach, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information compromised and stolen and remains in the hands of those cybercriminals. Artivion Inc.(Artivion) is a medical device company focused on developing simple, elegant solutions that address cardiac and vascular surgeons' most difficult challenges in treating patients with aortic disease. The company's major products include:aortic stents, stent grafts, prosthetic heart valves, cyropreserved cardiac and vascular allografts, and surgical sealants. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin T. Holcombe, Esq. SKAAR & FEAGLE LLP 133 Mirramont Lake Drive Woodstock, GA 30189 Telephone: (770) 427-5600 Email: jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com - and - Marc H. Edelson, Esq. Liberato P. Verderame, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 Email: medelson@edelson-law.com lverderame@edelson-law.com - and - Scott Poynter, Esq. POYNTER LAW GROUP 4924 Kavanaugh Blvd. Little Rock, AR 72207 Telephone: (501) 812-3943 ASPEN DENTAL: Agrees to Settle Pixel Tracking Suit for $18.7-Mil. ----------------------------------------------------------------- William C. Gendron of ClaimDepot reports that Patients who booked an appointment online at www.aspendental.com between Feb. 20, 2022, and Jan. 1, 2025, may be eligible to claim a cash payment from a class action settlement. Aspen Dental Management Inc. agreed to pay $18 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging it disclosed users' personal information to third parties, including Meta and Google, through tracking pixels and similar technologies on its website. Who can file an Aspen Dental claim? The class includes anyone who booked an appointment online directly through www.aspendental.com during specific periods. There are two groups of class members, each with different eligibility dates and compensation structures: -- Group 1 settlement class members: Booked an appointment on the website between Feb. 20, 2022, and June 1, 2023. -- Group 2 settlement class members: Booked an appointment on the website between June 2, 2023, and Jan. 1, 2025. How much can class members get? The amount class members may receive depends on which group they belong to and the total number of valid claims submitted. -- Group 1 settlement class members: There is approximately $2.7 million available for valid claims from this group. After deducting notice and administration costs, attorneys' fees and service awards, the remaining funds will be distributed on a pro rata basis among all valid claimants in Group 1. The exact payment per person will depend on the total number of valid claims. -- Group 2 settlement class members: There is up to $16 million available for valid claims from this group. Each valid claim is eligible for up to $15. However, if the total number of valid claims exceeds the available funds, the payment per person will be reduced proportionally. How to claim a tracking pixel payut Class members can file a claim online or download and print the PDF claim form to complete and mail to the settlement administrator. Claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by Sept. 15, 2025. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Donnelly, et al. v. Aspen Dental Management Inc., c/o Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 25226, Santa Ana, CA 92799 What information is required to submit a claim? All claimants must provide the class member ID located on the settlement notice they received by mail or email. Online claimants must also provide the PIN from the same notice. Those who do not have a class member ID or PIN should contact the settlement administrator. Payout options -- Electronic payment (online claims only) -- Paper check $18 million settlement fund breakdown The $18 million settlement fund covers: -- Settlement administration costs: Amount not specified, but deducted from the total fund -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $5,292,000 -- Attorneys' expenses: Up to $60,000 -- Service awards to class representatives: Up to $2,500 each ($27,500.00 total) -- Payments to eligible class members: Remaining funds Important dates -- Deadline to file a claim: Sept. 15, 2025 -- Deadline to opt out: Sept. 15, 2025 -- Final approval hearing: Oct. 20, 2025 When is the Aspen Dental pixel settlement payout date? Payments will be issued after the court grants final approval of the settlement and any appeals are resolved. Why is there a class action settlement? The class action lawsuit alleged Aspen Dental Management Inc. disclosed users' personal information to third parties, such as Meta and Google, through tracking pixels and similar technologies on its website. The plaintiffs alleged that this practice violated privacy rights and certain laws. Aspen Dental Management Inc. denies any wrongdoing, but both sides agreed to settle to avoid the costs and risks of continued litigation. [GN] AT&T INC: Court Denies Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony --------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Timothy Scott, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AT&T Inc., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 20-cv-07094-JD (N.D. Cal.), Judge James Donato of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied AT&T's request to exclude the opinions of plaintiff's expert Ian Altman under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, finding that his actuarial methodology was sufficiently reliable under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 standards. The ruling allows Altman's expert testimony to proceed to trial in this putative class action regarding AT&T's pension benefit calculations. According to the Court, AT&T failed to demonstrate that Altman's opinions were unreliable to warrant exclusion. The basics about this putative class action against defendants AT&T Inc., the AT&T Defined Benefit Plan, and AT&T Services, Inc. (collectively AT&T) are stated in the summary judgment order and incorporated herein." AT&T asked to exclude the opinions of plaintiff’s proffered expert, Ian Altman, under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and related cases in connection with class certification and summary judgment proceedings.. The parties filed duelling expert reports and supplemental reports in connection with motions for class certification and summary judgment. The Court convened a concurrent expert evidentiary proceeding to hear directly from Altman and AT&T's rebuttal expert, Jack Abraham, about why Altman's opinions might be deficient as to warrant exclusion. During the proceeding, Altman and Abraham exchanged detailed comments and analyses of Altman's methodology and reasoning. The Court directed the experts to "confer in-person... to discuss the AT&T data sets and any disputes about completeness and the like." Based on the experts' subsequent meet and confer, Altman updated his data set and filed a second supplemental report, and Abraham filed a supplemental rebuttal report. The Court also directed AT&T to back up its suggestion that Altman had "screwed this whole thing up" by filing a statement identifying the individuals who would be deemed beneficiaries under Altman's approach. AT&T took this, as noted by the court, wrongly, as an invitation to stuff the docket with materials far beyond the Court's order, including wholly extraneous and unauthorized arguments with plaintiff's theory of the case and Altman's methodology. This effort to lard the record was seen as a violation of the Court's order. Exhibits C and E through X to AT&T's statement were stricken from the docket. All arguments and statements made in connection with the exhibits in AT&T's statement and Abraham's January 31, 2025 declaration were also stricken from the record and will be disregarded. Federal Rule of Evidence 702 provides that a witness who is qualified as an expert may testify if the proponent demonstrates that it is more likely than not that the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data, is the product of reliable principles and methods, and reflects a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case. The Court found that AT&T did not demonstrate that Altman's opinions are "akin to predicting criminality by feeling bumps on a person's head." AT&T argued that Altman's opinions about the Plan's conversion factors' failure to achieve actuarially equivalent results is unreliable because his preferred methodology assertedly does not establish the "bottom" of the range of actuarially equivalent results. According to the summary judgment order, Altman relies on his decades of experience and reliable evidence about industry practice to opine that the Plan's conversion factors do not generate actuarially equivalent JSA benefits because the underlying assumptions are outdated and unreasonable. AT&T certainly may raise its concerns on cross--examination of Altman during the bench trial, but its objections do not rise to the level of warranting exclusion of Altman's opinions as junk science." For Altman's methodology for calculating "damages," AT&T argued there are several discrete mistakes that render his opinion unreliable. None of those objections warrant exclusion of Altman's opinions. The Court noted that plaintiffs emphasize guidance in the Actuarial Standards of Practice that provides that an actuary may apply "judgmental adjustments or assumptions" where accurate and complete data may not be available so long as the use of such adjustments or assumptions is disclosed. Regarding the assumption that female spousal beneficiaries are about three years younger than the Plan participant where AT&T's data did not include the spousal beneficiary's age, Altman said that assumption was grounded in "common actuarial practice based on historical patterns," and plaintiff adduced evidence that AT&T's own actuaries have employed the same assumption. Altman also assumed that a participant's listed beneficiary was his or her spouse even where he didn't have independent confirmation that the beneficiary was the spouse." After excluding the non-spouses, Altman inquired with AT&T what "NP" meant and was told "they didn't know." He then assumed the beneficiary was a spouse where there was no information or a "NP" notation because, for most of the "over 30,000 records where it was listed... the beneficiary was the spouse." In instances where AT&T's record keeper data did not include the JSA Conversion Factor used, Altman used an "implied" factor for calculating individual participant's damages. He generated this "implied" factor by "dividing a participant's JSA benefit by the accrued benefit" as those benefit amounts were documented in AT&T's records. The Court found that Altman adequately explained and disclosed the adjustments and assumptions he made when dealing with what he reasonably believed to be deficient data, and AT&T did not demonstrate those assumptions were so outlandish that no reasonable actuary would make them. AT&T's objections to Altman's treatment of the data go to weight, not admissibility. The Court concluded that the record overall indicates that Altman's opinions are grounded in evidence and sound actuarial methods and therefore will be put through the crucible of vigorous cross examination at trial. The request to exclude his opinions under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and related cases is denied without prejudice to renewal at trial as to specific calculations, as the evidence and circumstances warrant. A copy of the court's opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5Xc5G9 AV NOW: Faces Pittman Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- DEBBIE PITTMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Av Now, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08092 (N.D. Ill., July 16, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://avnow.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. On January 20, 2025, the Plaintiff wanted to purchase a portable speaker with a microphone. The Plaintiff asserts 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: inaccurate heading hierarchy, incorrectly formatted lists, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, non-descriptive alt-text on graphics, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Av Now'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. Av Now, Inc. operates the website that offers a variety of audio equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law BARNES & NOBLE: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Barnes & Noble Education, Inc. (NYSE: BNED) resulting from allegations that Barnes & Noble may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Barnes & Noble securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=42439 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On July 18, 2025, after the market closed, Barnes & Noble filed a current report with the SEC on Form 8-K. It stated that Barnes & Noble had "filed a Notification of Late Filing on Form 12b-25 ("Form 12b-25") with the [SEC] to report that [Barnes & Noble] is unable to file its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended May 3, 2025 within the prescribed time period without unreasonable effort or expense. The Form 12b-25 included selected preliminary and unaudited financial results for the fiscal year ended May 3, 2025 and included the following information: Certain information regarding the recording of cost of digital sales was brought to the attention of management in July 2025, which promptly informed the Audit Committee (the "Committee") of the Board of Directors of the Company, that caused the Committee to commence an internal investigation with the assistance of outside counsel and advisors." On this news, Barnes & Noble stock fell 21% on July 21, 2025. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. At the time Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] BELK INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Annie McBride filed a class action lawsuit against Belk Inc. Why: McBride claims the company failed to protect her personally identifiable information (PII) from a data breach. Where: The Belk data breach class action was filed in North Carolina federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Belk Inc. failed to protect the personally identifiable information of its customers in a data breach earlier this year. Plaintiff Annie McBride claims Belk failed to properly secure and safeguard customers' PII, which she argues was impacted in a data breach that the company disclosed on June 5. McBride argues Belk had a number of statutory, regulatory, contractual and common law duties and obligations to keep its customers' PII confidential, safe, secure and protected from unauthorized disclosure or access. "Defendant solicited, collected, used and derived a benefit from the Private Information yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices," the Belk data breach class action alleges. Belk allegedly failed to take precautions to keep PII secure McBride claims Belk failed to take precautions to keep individuals' PII secure and owed a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the PII safe and secure from unauthorized access. As a result of the data breach, McBride argues Belk customers have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries, including financial losses caused by misuse of their PII, the loss or diminished value of their PII, lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft and theft of personal and financial information. "Plaintiff and Class Members face a substantial risk of identity theft given that their Private Information was compromised in the Data Breach," the Belk class action alleges. McBride claims Belk is guilty of negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract and breach of confidence. She demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of compensatory damages for herself and all class members. Earlier, two former employees of Belk filed class action lawsuits against the company, both alleging it failed to properly secure and safeguard its employees' and customers' PII following a data breach. The plaintiff is represented by Scott C. Harris of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC and Mark S. Reich and Melissa G. Meyer of Levi & Korsinsky LLP. The Belk data breach class action lawsuit is McBride v. Belk Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-00432, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. [GN] BODY CONTOUR: Court Allows T.S. to Proceed Under Pseudonym ---------------------------------------------------------- Judge Lauren King of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, issued an order granting the Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym in the lawsuit captioned T.S., Plaintiff v. BODY CONTOUR CENTERS, LLC d/b/a SONO BELLO, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-01944-LK (W.D. Wash.). The Plaintiff seeks to proceed under the pseudonym "T.S." Defendant Body Contour Centers, LLC d/b/a Sono Bello, does not oppose her use of a pseudonym at this stage of the proceedings. The Plaintiff initiated this putative class action in November 2024, seeking recovery under a variety of state and federal privacy and medical confidentiality laws on behalf of "all California residents who have accessed and used [Sono Bello's] Website to book a consultation." Defendant Sono Bello filed a motion to dismiss on Jan. 31, 2025. Sono Bello further filed a motion to stay discovery in early April, which the Court has since denied. The Plaintiff argues that pseudonymity is necessary to protect her privacy interests in her personal and intimate medical information, including her search for a weight loss surgical procedure. While the Plaintiff is currently in a position to decide to whom she discloses her health conditions and the treatment she seeks, requiring her to proceed under her full name will strip her of that control and no longer protect her from the possibility of harassment, embarrassment and ridicule. Further, the Plaintiff contends that forcing her to litigate using her true name will cause the very injury that the litigation addresses -- the public disclosure of highly sensitive, private personal information, especially health conditions and treatment thereof. The Plaintiff also argues that proceeding pseudonymously would not interfere with the public's interest in this action or right to an open court system, since her individual identity is not central to the issues raised in her complaint. She notes that her own identity has no bearing on the resolution of the issues raised by this case, i.e., whether the Defendant's alleged use of tracking technologies and interception of users' personal communications unlawfully led to the disclosure of consumers' PII or PHI to unauthorized third parties, and that the nature of this case as a class action militates against requiring her to disclose her name. Although Sono Bello's non-opposition to the motion to proceed anonymously may weigh in favor of anonymity because there is no argument of fundamental unfairness to it, Judge King says that is ultimately not dispositive given the public interest at stake. Judge King notes that the most compelling situations in which plaintiffs are allowed to proceed anonymously involve matters, which are highly sensitive, such as social stigmatization, real danger of physical harm, or where the injury litigated against would occur as a result of the disclosure of the plaintiff's identity. The Court finds that pseudonymity is appropriate here--at least at this stage of the case--and outweighs the countervailing considerations. The Court may revisit the issue at a later stage of the proceedings if the Defendant so moves. For these reasons, the Court grants the Plaintiff's motion. The parties will refer to the Plaintiff by the pseudonym "T.S." in all future filings and public proceedings in this matter. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5n9a8jk7 from PacerMonitor.com. CALIBER COMPLETION: Faces Perez Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- MARIO PEREZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CALIBER COMPLETION SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-00793-J (W.D. Okla., July 17, 2025) seeks to recover Plaintiff's unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed by Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. When calculating Perez's regular rate of pay for determining his overtime rate, Caliber Completion did not include additional compensation consisting of non-discretionary bonuses in its calculations. This means that Perez's overtime hours, when paid, were at an artificially low rate. Caliber Completion's policy of excluding non-discretionary bonuses from Perez's regular rate violates the FLSA, says the suit. Plaintiff Perez worked as an hourly wireline operator for Caliber Completion in Texas from January to November 2024. Caliber Completion is a company that provides wireline services to companies engaged in fracking.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq. WELMAKER LAW, PLLC 505 E. Magrill St. Longview, TX 75601 Telephone: (512) 799-2048 E-mail: doug@welmakerlaw.com CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Appeals Tossed Arbitration Bid in Saige Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- CAPSTONE LOGISTICS, LLC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction in the lawsuit entitled Jacob Saige, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Capstone Logistics, LLC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-00195-RGK-SHK, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of the California Labor Code. On Apr. 24, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration, which Judge R. Gary Klausner denied on July 1, 2025. The appellate case is entitled Saige, et al. v. Capstone Logistics, LLC., et al., Case No. 25-4275, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 11, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on July 16, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on August 20, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on September 19, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees JACOB SAIGE, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Jonathan M. Genish, Esq. Marissa A. Mayhood, Esq. Karen I. Gold, Esq. Noam Y. Reiffman, Esq. Sara Pezeshkpour, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, PC 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Defendants-Appellants CAPSTONE LOGISTICS, LLC, et al. are represented by: Betty Luu, Esq. Nicholas Baltaxe, Esq. DUANE MORRIS, LLP 865 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 - and - Gerald Leonard Maatman, Jr., Esq. Jennifer A. Riley, Esq. DUANE MORRIS, LLP 190 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 3700 Chicago, IL 60603 CARGILL INC: Claim Assignees' Bid to Opt-Out Denied --------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled IN RE TURKEY ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 1:19-cv-08318 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Sunil R. Harjani of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denies the Motion to Amend the Preliminary List of Exclusion Requests from the Settlement with Cargill. Carina Ventures LLC and Amory Investments LLC, two investment vehicles litigating this antitrust action as assignees of turkey purchasers, asked the Court to excuse their lateness in opting out of the proposed Cargill settlement. The Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (DPPs) have reached a class settlement with Defendants Cargill, Incorporated, and Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation (Cargill). On Jan. 30, 2025, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement and set the date for any Plaintiffs to opt-out or object by April 21, 2025. Two of the Plaintiffs, Carina and Amory, blew that deadline. Instead, on April 22, 2025, they sent an email to the settlement administrator of the class stating their intent to opt-out. The administrator rejected Carina's and Amory's untimely opt-out and excluded them from the opt-out list for the Cargill settlement. Carina and Amory now seek to have the Court approve their opt-out request. This matter was fully briefed by Carina and Amory, the DPPs, and Cargill, and an oral argument was held on June 18, 2025. Carina's and Amory's argue that they timely opted-out by their filing of a direct action against Cargill and that their conduct provided a "reasonable indication" that they intended to exclude themselves from the settlement. However, Judge Harjani opines, the reasonable indication test Carina and Amory advocate for is unavailable to them. The Seventh Circuit's decisions in Navistar and Broiler Chicken conclusively held that simply proceeding with a separate action against a defendant is not sufficient to meet the opt-out obligations where a court has delineated specific procedures and deadlines to opt-out, Judge Harjani points out, citing Matter of Navistar MaxxForce Engines Mktg., Sales Pracs., & Prods. Liab. Litig., 990 F.3d 1048, 1053 (7th Cir. 2021); and Matter of Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litig., 133 F.4th 761, 764 (7th Cir. 2025). Judge Harjani notes that the Court provided specific and detailed instructions on how to opt-out, which Carina and Amory failed to follow. Thus, like the plaintiffs in Navistar and Broiler Chicken, Carina and Amory failed to timely opt-out of the Cargill settlement. Carina's and Amory's explanation for why they missed the deadline is that this was simply a mistake as their attorneys were busy with other matters, including their own case against Cargill, and that they believed that their separate action excluded them from the settlement. Judge Harjani finds that neither of these excuses have any merit. Counsel's preoccupation with other aspects of this case does not excuse their failure to file the opt-out request on time, Judge Harjani says. Thus, this is not a valid reason for the delay to be excused. All in all, Judge Harjani points out, Carina's and Amory's prejudice--that it will be part of the class settlement rather than be permitted to continue its action against Cargill--is one of its own making and is, crucially, not a factor for establishing excusable neglect under Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993). What is a factor is the prejudice to Cargill, as the nonmovant. This case is a multi-party, complex, and six-year-old, antitrust litigation, Judge Harjani says; as such there is innate value for the litigants and the Court to know that deadlines and instructions, once set, will be followed and that the Court will hold all litigants accountable. Accordingly, the Court denies Carina's and Amory's Motion to Amend the Preliminary List of Exclusion Requests from the Settlement with Cargill. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/34kcutz6 from PacerMonitor.com. CARGO THERAPEUTICS: M&A Investigates Sale to Concentra Biosciences ------------------------------------------------------------------ Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- CARGO Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: CRGX) related to its sale to Concentra Biosciences, LLC for $4.379 in cash per CARGO share, plus one non-transferable contingent value right, representing the right to receive: (i) 100% of the closing net cash of CARGO in excess of $217.5 million; and (ii) 80% of the net proceeds from the sale, license, or other disposition of either (a) CRG-022, a CDRR CAR T-cell therapy, or (b) CRG-023, a CD19/CD20/CD22 tri-specific CAR T therapy, or (c) the Allogeneic Platform, that occurs within 2 years following the closing. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/cargo-therapeutics-inc/https://monteverdelaw.com/case/dnow-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Hudson Global, Inc. (HSON) related to its merger with Star Equity Holdings, Inc. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, Hudson shareholders will own approximately 79% of the combined company. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for August 21, 2025. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/hudson-global-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Breeze Holdings Acquisition Corp. (OTC: BRZH), relating to its proposed merger with YD Biopharma Limited. Under the terms of the agreement, all Breeze Holdings ordinary shares will be converted into the right to receive one ordinary share of the surviving company. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for August 14, 2025. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/breeze-holdings-acquisition-corp-2/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Enzo Biochem, Inc. (OTCMKTS: ENZB) related to its sale to Battery Ventures for $0.70 per share in cash without interest to Enzo shareholders. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for August 19, 2025. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/enzo-biochem-inc-2/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] CERNER CORPORATION: Fails to Protect Sensitive Info, Sanders Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- KELLY SANDERS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CERNER CORPORATION D/B/A ORACLE HEALTH, INC. and MOSAIC LIFE CARE, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-553 (W.D. Mo., July 16, 2025) is a class action arising from the Defendants' failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the complaint, the Defendants stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information and protected health information about its current and former patients, including Plaintiff's. But Defendants lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. Cybercriminals were able to breach Defendants' systems because Defendants failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class' PII/PHI, asserts the suit. Mosaic Life Care is a healthcare provider. Cerner Corporation d/b/a Oracle Health is a third-party vendor that provides data migration services to Mosaic.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John F. Garvey, Esq. Colleen Garvey, Esq. Ellen Thomas, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 701 Market Street, Suite 1510 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 390-6750 E-mail: jgarvey@stranchlaw.com cgarvey@stranchlaw.com ethomas@stranchlaw.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Facsimile: (317) 636-2593 E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com athomas@cohenandmalad.com CHRISTIAN DIOR: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Bhatt Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- RAVEEN BHATT; and PORTIA MARIE SMITHSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CHRISTIAN DIOR, INC.; and CHRISTIAN DIOR COUTURE SAS, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-06205 (S.D.N.Y., July 28, 2025) is an action against Dior for its failure to secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of Plaintiffs and Class Members. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that Dior owed a duty to Plaintiffs and Class Members to implement and maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to secure, protect, and safeguard their PII against unauthorized access and disclosure. Dior breached that duty by, among other things, failing to, or contracting with companies that failed to, implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect patients' PII from unauthorized access and disclosure. As a result of Dior's failure to provide reasonable and adequate data security, Plaintiffs' and the Class Members' unencrypted, non-redacted PII has been exposed to unauthorized third parties. The Plaintiffs and the Class are now at much higher risk of identity theft and cybercrimes of all kinds, especially considering the highly sensitive PII stolen here and the fact that the compromised PII is likely already being sold on the dark web, says the suit. Christian Dior, Inc. designs and retails ready-to-wear, leather goods, fashion accessories, footwear, jewelry, time pieces, fragrance, make-up, and skincare products. Christian Dior serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com CHUBBIES INC: Martinez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Judith Adela Fernandez Martinez, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. CHUBBIES, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-06071 (S.D.N.Y., July 24, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for its failure 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 denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, https://www.chubbiesshorts.com/, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. 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, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. CHUBBIES, INC., operates the Chubbies Shorts online retail store, as well as the Chubbies Shorts interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Danalgottlieb@aol.com Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal CITY OFFICE: M&A Investigates Merger With MCME Carell ----------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating City Office REIT, Inc. (NYSE: CIO) related to its merger with MCME Carell Holdings, LP. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, each outstanding share of City Office common stock will be converted into the right to receive $7.00 per share in cash. Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/city-office-reit-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] CITY VIEW: Gamble Appeals BIPA Class Cert. Order to 7th Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- EVELYN GAMBLE is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendants' preemptive motion to deny class certification in the lawsuit entitled Evelyn Gamble, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. City View Multicare Center, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 23-cv-3029, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Ms. Gamble commenced this litigation on May 15, 2023. On Sept. 10, 2024, she filed her amended complaint. Therein, as she did initially, Ms. Gamble asserts claims pursuant to federal the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Illinois state laws, including Biometric Information Privacy Act. She sought to pursue her FLSA claims as a collective action and her Illinois state law claims primarily as class actions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. The Defendants filed a preemptive motion to deny BIPA class certification, which Judge Charles P. Kocoras granted on July 8, 2025. The Court concludes that Gamble's class definition is too broad. It is difficult to see how she would be able to establish commonality or adequacy in this scenario. The Defendants' motion seeking denial of BIPA class certification is granted. Because the Court finds that Gamble is unable to meet the commonality and adequacy requirements under Rule 23, the Court need not address any of the parties' remaining arguments. The appellate case is entitled Evelyn Gamble v. City View Multicare Center, LLC, et al., Case No. 25-8020, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on July 22, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner EVELYN GAMBLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 125 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (224) 698-2630 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com Defendants-Respondents CITY VIEW MULTICARE CENTER, LLC, et al. are represented by: Todd P. Stelter, Esq. Tom H. Luetkemeyer, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 151 North Franklin Street, Suite 2500 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 704-3000 Email: tstelter@hinshawlaw.com tluetkemeyer@hinshawlaw.com COLIMA TAQUERIA: Jacinto Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA, NYLL -------------------------------------------------------------- ESVIN VASQUEZ, JACINTO VASQUEZ and XIOMARA VASQUEZ, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated V. COLIMA TAQUERIA LLC, BRIAN CENTENO and NADIA VANESSA CENTENO, Case No. 1:25-cv-05952 (S.D.N.Y., July 21, 2025) alleges that the Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees regularly worked more than 40 hours in a work week but were not paid overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs bring this action to recover unpaid overtime wages, spread of hours pay, and statutory damages. The Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees performed non-exempt work for the Defendants. The Defendants are engaged in the restaurant business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 COMMUNITY CLINIC: Curimao Suit Remanded to Hawaii State Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Micah W.J. Smith of the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii remands to the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit, State of Hawai'i, the lawsuit entitled Curimao v. Community Clinic of Maui, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-00030-MWJS-WRP (D. Haw.); IN RE COMMUNITY CLINIC OF MAUI DATA BREACH LITIGATION, Case No. 24-00431 MWJS-WRP (D. Haw.). In May 2024, the Community Clinic of Maui, Inc., doing business as Malama I Ke Ola Health Center, experienced a cyberattack. Thousands of patients' personal data were stolen. A number of lawsuits and class actions, including this case, arose from the incident, several of which were filed in state court. The Plaintiffs bring state law claims under tort and contract theories and for violations of Hawai'i statutes, including the Unfair Deceptive Acts or Practices Statute, Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and Security Breach of Personal Information law. Although those cases raised only state law claims, Malama, a federally funded community health center, notified the federal government, a non-party, that it believed it was entitled to immunity and to removal to federal court based on its receipt of federal funding under the Federally Supported Health Centers Assistance Act (FSHCAA). The United States generally agreed that Malama was deemed a federal employee for the relevant time period. But it disclaimed that Malama was deemed an employee specifically with respect to the cybersecurity incident at hand. The Attorney General took the position that while Malama was entitled to immunity from medical malpractice liability during the relevant time, it was not entitled to immunity for the cybersecurity incident at issue. Despite the Attorney General's stance, on Jan. 24, 2025, Malama removed all four state court actions to federal court (Curimao v. Cmty. Clinic of Maui, Inc., No. 25-cv-00030; Jackson v. Cmty. Clinic of Maui, Inc., No. 25-cv-00031; Jones v. Cmty. Clinic of Maui, Inc., No. 25-cv-00032; Parry v. Cmty. Clinic of Maui, Inc., No. 25-cv-00033). As grounds for removal, Malama cited two federal statutes: (1) 42 U.S.C. Section 233(l)(2), which provides for the removal of actions brought against federally funded health centers; and (2) 28 U.S.C. Section 1442, which is the general federal officer removal statute. Before the Court is a motion, filed by the United States, to remand these cases to state court on the basis that Malama is not authorized to remove these cases to federal court under the FSHCAA (42 U.S.C. Section 233(l)(2)), or under the general federal officer removal statute (28 U.S.C. Section 1442). For the reasons explained in this Order, the Court agrees on both points. The United States' motion is, therefore, granted, and the removed cases are remanded to state court. The Court concludes that the claims for the data breach alleged in the complaints do not arise out of the performance of medical, surgical, dental, or related functions that fall within the ambit of Section 233(a). Accordingly, even if Malama could itself have removed these cases under Section 233(l)(2) if the government had improperly declined to remove the cases--which is by no means clear--the government's decision not to do so was properly grounded in Section 233(a), Judge Smith opines. Section 233, therefore, cannot provide a valid basis for Malama's removal of these cases. Judge Smith finds that the two elements of Section 1442 are deficient. First, and most simply, Malama cannot assert a "colorable federal defense." Second, Malama's cybersecurity activities were not taken pursuant to a federal officer's directions. And because these elements of Section 1442 are not met, Judge Smith points out that Section 1442 does not provide a valid basis for Malama's removal of the complaints. Malama has offered only two grounds for removal, and neither is sufficient here, Judge Smith concludes. The removed cases, therefore, cannot remain in federal court. Non-party the United States's motion to remand is granted, and the four removed consolidated cases are remanded to the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit, State of Hawai'i. Judge Smith directs the Clerk of Court to effectuate the remand and to close these cases. The remaining cases consolidated in In re Community Clinic of Maui Data Breach Litigation, No. 24-cv-431 (Aleuta v. Cmty. Clinic of Maui, Inc., No. 24-cv-431; Kaiwi v. Cmty. Clinic of Maui, Inc., No. 24-cv-00440; Johnson v. Cmty. Clinic of Maui, Inc., No. 24-cv-00443; and Oberg v. Cmty. Clinic of Maui, Inc., No. 24-cv-00483) are unaffected by this order. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/8upw3er5 from PacerMonitor.com. COMMUNITY CLINIC: Jackson Suit Remanded to Hawaii State Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Micah W.J. Smith of the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii remands to the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit, State of Hawai'i, the lawsuit titled Jackson v. Community Clinic of Maui, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-00031-MWJS-WRP (D. Haw.); IN RE COMMUNITY CLINIC OF MAUI DATA BREACH LITIGATION, Case No. 24-00431 MWJS-WRP (D. Haw.). In May 2024, the Community Clinic of Maui, Inc., doing business as Malama I Ke Ola Health Center, experienced a cyberattack. Thousands of patients' personal data were stolen. A number of lawsuits and class actions, including this case, arose from the incident, several of which were filed in state court. The Plaintiffs bring state law claims under tort and contract theories and for violations of Hawai'i statutes, including the Unfair Deceptive Acts or Practices Statute, Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and Security Breach of Personal Information law. Although those cases raised only state law claims, Malama, a federally funded community health center, notified the federal government, a non-party, that it believed it was entitled to immunity and to removal to federal court based on its receipt of federal funding under the Federally Supported Health Centers Assistance Act (FSHCAA). The United States generally agreed that Malama was deemed a federal employee for the relevant time period. But it disclaimed that Malama was deemed an employee specifically with respect to the cybersecurity incident at hand. The Attorney General took the position that while Malama was entitled to immunity from medical malpractice liability during the relevant time, it was not entitled to immunity for the cybersecurity incident at issue. Despite the Attorney General's stance, on Jan. 24, 2025, Malama removed all four state court actions to federal court (Curimao v. Cmty. Clinic of Maui, Inc., No. 25-cv-00030; Jackson v. Cmty. Clinic of Maui, Inc., No. 25-cv-00031; Jones v. Cmty. Clinic of Maui, Inc., No. 25-cv-00032; Parry v. Cmty. Clinic of Maui, Inc., No. 25-cv-00033). As grounds for removal, Malama cited two federal statutes: (1) 42 U.S.C. Section 233(l)(2), which provides for the removal of actions brought against federally funded health centers; and (2) 28 U.S.C. Section 1442, which is the general federal officer removal statute. Before the Court is a motion, filed by the United States, to remand these cases to state court on the basis that Malama is not authorized to remove these cases to federal court under the FSHCAA (42 U.S.C. Section 233(l)(2)), or under the general federal officer removal statute (28 U.S.C. Section 1442). For the reasons explained in this Order, the Court agrees on both points. The United States' motion is, therefore, granted, and the removed cases are remanded to state court. The Court concludes that the claims for the data breach alleged in the complaints do not arise out of the performance of medical, surgical, dental, or related functions that fall within the ambit of Section 233(a). Accordingly, even if Malama could itself have removed these cases under Section 233(l)(2) if the government had improperly declined to remove the cases--which is by no means clear--the government's decision not to do so was properly grounded in Section 233(a), Judge Smith opines. Section 233, therefore, cannot provide a valid basis for Malama's removal of these cases. Judge Smith finds that the two elements of Section 1442 are deficient. First, and most simply, Malama cannot assert a "colorable federal defense." Second, Malama's cybersecurity activities were not taken pursuant to a federal officer's directions. And because these elements of Section 1442 are not met, Judge Smith points out that Section 1442 does not provide a valid basis for Malama's removal of the complaints. Malama has offered only two grounds for removal, and neither is sufficient here, Judge Smith concludes. The removed cases, therefore, cannot remain in federal court. Non-party the United States's motion to remand is granted, and the four removed consolidated cases are remanded to the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit, State of Hawai'i. Judge Smith directs the Clerk of Court to effectuate the remand and to close these cases. The remaining cases consolidated in In re Community Clinic of Maui Data Breach Litigation, No. 24-cv-431 (Aleuta v. Cmty. Clinic of Maui, Inc., No. 24-cv-431; Kaiwi v. Cmty. Clinic of Maui, Inc., No. 24-cv-00440; Johnson v. Cmty. Clinic of Maui, Inc., No. 24-cv-00443; and Oberg v. Cmty. Clinic of Maui, Inc., No. 24-cv-00483) are unaffected by this order. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/239thfwn from PacerMonitor.com. COMMUNITY CLINIC: Jones Suit Remanded to Hawaii State Court ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Micah W.J. Smith of the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii remands to the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit, State of Hawai'i, the lawsuit styled Jones v. Community Clinic of Maui, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-00032-MWJS-WRP (D. Haw.); IN RE COMMUNITY CLINIC OF MAUI DATA BREACH LITIGATION, Case No. 24-00431 MWJS-WRP (D. Haw.). In May 2024, the Community Clinic of Maui, Inc., doing business as Malama I Ke Ola Health Center, experienced a cyberattack. Thousands of patients' personal data were stolen. A number of lawsuits and class actions, including this case, arose from the incident, several of which were filed in state court. The Plaintiffs bring state law claims under tort and contract theories and for violations of Hawai'i statutes, including the Unfair Deceptive Acts or Practices Statute, Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and Security Breach of Personal Information law. Although those cases raised only state law claims, Malama, a federally funded community health center, notified non-party, the federal government, that it believed it was entitled to immunity and to removal to federal court based on its receipt of federal funding under the Federally Supported Health Centers Assistance Act (FSHCAA). The United States generally agreed that Malama was deemed a federal employee for the relevant time period. But it disclaimed that Malama was deemed an employee specifically with respect to the cybersecurity incident at hand. The Attorney General took the position that while Malama was entitled to immunity from medical malpractice liability during the relevant time, it was not entitled to immunity for the cybersecurity incident at issue. Despite the Attorney General's stance, on Jan. 24, 2025, Malama removed all four state court actions to federal court (Curimao v. Cmty. Clinic of Maui, Inc., No. 25-cv-00030; Jackson v. Cmty. Clinic of Maui, Inc., No. 25-cv-00031; Jones v. Cmty. Clinic of Maui, Inc., No. 25-cv-00032; Parry v. Cmty. Clinic of Maui, Inc., No. 25-cv-00033). As grounds for removal, Malama cited two federal statutes: (1) 42 U.S.C. Section 233(l)(2), which provides for the removal of actions brought against federally funded health centers; and (2) 28 U.S.C. Section 1442, which is the general federal officer removal statute. Before the Court is a motion, filed by the United States, to remand these cases to state court on the basis that Malama is not authorized to remove these cases to federal court under the FSHCAA (42 U.S.C. Section 233(l)(2)), or under the general federal officer removal statute (28 U.S.C. Section 1442). For the reasons explained in this Order, the Court agrees on both points. The United States's motion is, therefore, granted, and the removed cases are remanded to state court. The Court concludes that the claims for the data breach alleged in the complaints do not arise out of the performance of medical, surgical, dental, or related functions that fall within the ambit of Section 233(a). Accordingly, even if Malama could itself have removed these cases under Section 233(l)(2) if the government had improperly declined to remove the cases--which is by no means clear--the government's decision not to do so was properly grounded in Section 233(a), Judge Smith opines. Section 233, therefore, cannot provide a valid basis for Malama's removal of these cases. Judge Smith finds that the two elements of Section 1442 are deficient. First, and most simply, Malama cannot assert a "colorable federal defense." Second, Malama's cybersecurity activities were not taken pursuant to a federal officer's directions. And because these elements of Section 1442 are not met, Judge Smith points out that Section 1442 does not provide a valid basis for Malama's removal of the complaints. Malama has offered only two grounds for removal, and neither is sufficient here, Judge Smith concludes. The removed cases, therefore, cannot remain in federal court. Non-party the United States's motion to remand is granted, and the four removed consolidated cases are remanded to the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit, State of Hawai'i. Judge Smith directs the Clerk of Court to effectuate the remand and to close these cases. The remaining cases consolidated in In re Community Clinic of Maui Data Breach Litigation, No. 24-cv-431 (Aleuta v. Cmty. Clinic of Maui, Inc., No. 24-cv-431; Kaiwi v. Cmty. Clinic of Maui, Inc., No. 24-cv-00440; Johnson v. Cmty. Clinic of Maui, Inc., No. 24-cv-00443; and Oberg v. Cmty. Clinic of Maui, Inc., No. 24-cv-00483) are unaffected by this order. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3h4rk63d from PacerMonitor.com. COMMUNITY CLINIC: Parry Suit Remanded to Hawaii State Court ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Micah W.J. Smith of the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii remands to the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit, State of Hawai'i, the lawsuit captioned Parry v. Community Clinic of Maui, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-00033-MWJS-WRP (D. Haw.); IN RE COMMUNITY CLINIC OF MAUI DATA BREACH LITIGATION, Case No. 24-00431 MWJS-WRP (D. Haw.). In May 2024, the Community Clinic of Maui, Inc., doing business as Malama I Ke Ola Health Center, experienced a cyberattack. Thousands of patients' personal data were stolen. A number of lawsuits and class actions, including this case, arose from the incident, several of which were filed in state court. The Plaintiffs bring state law claims under tort and contract theories and for violations of Hawai'i statutes, including the Unfair Deceptive Acts or Practices Statute, Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and Security Breach of Personal Information law. Although those cases raised only state law claims, Malama, a federally funded community health center, notified the federal government, a non-party, that it believed it was entitled to immunity and to removal to federal court based on its receipt of federal funding under the Federally Supported Health Centers Assistance Act (FSHCAA). The United States generally agreed that Malama was deemed a federal employee for the relevant time period. But it disclaimed that Malama was deemed an employee specifically with respect to the cybersecurity incident at hand. The Attorney General took the position that while Malama was entitled to immunity from medical malpractice liability during the relevant time, it was not entitled to immunity for the cybersecurity incident at issue. Despite the Attorney General's stance, on Jan. 24, 2025, Malama removed all four state court actions to federal court (Curimao v. Cmty. Clinic of Maui, Inc., No. 25-cv-00030; Jackson v. Cmty. Clinic of Maui, Inc., No. 25-cv-00031; Jones v. Cmty. Clinic of Maui, Inc., No. 25-cv-00032; Parry v. Cmty. Clinic of Maui, Inc., No. 25-cv-00033). As grounds for removal, Malama cited two federal statutes: (1) 42 U.S.C. Section 233(l)(2), which provides for the removal of actions brought against federally funded health centers; and (2) 28 U.S.C. Section 1442, which is the general federal officer removal statute. Before the Court is a motion, filed by the United States, to remand these cases to state court on the basis that Malama is not authorized to remove these cases to federal court under the FSHCAA (42 U.S.C. Section 233(l)(2)), or under the general federal officer removal statute (28 U.S.C. Section 1442). For the reasons explained in this Order, the Court agrees on both points. The United States' motion is, therefore, granted, and the removed cases are remanded to state court. The Court concludes that the claims for the data breach alleged in the complaints do not arise out of the performance of medical, surgical, dental, or related functions that fall within the ambit of Section 233(a). Accordingly, even if Malama could itself have removed these cases under Section 233(l)(2) if the government had improperly declined to remove the cases--which is by no means clear--the government's decision not to do so was properly grounded in Section 233(a), Judge Smith opines. Section 233, therefore, cannot provide a valid basis for Malama's removal of these cases. Judge Smith finds that the two elements of Section 1442 are deficient. First, and most simply, Malama cannot assert a "colorable federal defense." Second, Malama's cybersecurity activities were not taken pursuant to a federal officer's directions. And because these elements of Section 1442 are not met, Judge Smith points out that Section 1442 does not provide a valid basis for Malama's removal of the complaints. Malama has offered only two grounds for removal, and neither is sufficient here, Judge Smith concludes. The removed cases, therefore, cannot remain in federal court. Non-party the United States's motion to remand is granted, and the four removed consolidated cases are remanded to the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit, State of Hawai'i. Judge Smith directs the Clerk of Court to effectuate the remand and to close these cases. The remaining cases consolidated in In re Community Clinic of Maui Data Breach Litigation, No. 24-cv-431 (Aleuta v. Cmty. Clinic of Maui, Inc., No. 24-cv-431; Kaiwi v. Cmty. Clinic of Maui, Inc., No. 24-cv-00440; Johnson v. Cmty. Clinic of Maui, Inc., No. 24-cv-00443; and Oberg v. Cmty. Clinic of Maui, Inc., No. 24-cv-00483) are unaffected by this order. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5ttr6t4 from PacerMonitor.com. COMPUMEDICS USA: Faces Ward Suit Over Compromised Health Info ------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID WARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMPUMEDICS USA INC., and BRONSON HEALTH CARE GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-518 (W.D.N.C., July 17, 2025) is a class action against Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard the protected health information and other individually identifiable information of its patients, including Plaintiff's. On March 22, 2025, Defendant CUSA discovered suspicious activity in its information technology environment, which resulted in an unauthorized party gaining access to PHI between February 15, 2025, and March 23, 2025. According to the complaint, the Data Breach was a direct result of Defendants' failure to implement reasonable safeguards to protect PHI from a foreseeable and preventable risk of unauthorized disclosure. Had Defendants implemented administrative, technical, and physical controls consistent with industry standards and best practices, it could have prevented the Data Breach, says the suit. As such, the Defendants were obligated to use reasonable technical, administrative, and physical safeguards to protect the PHI in their custody. These obligations were contained in the applicable privacy policy, contract, and other statutory privacy requirements, asserts the suit. Compumedics USA Inc. provides diagnostic and research technologies for sleep disorders.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan A. Valente, Esq. Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 E-mail: teamvalente@poulinwilley.com paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com CONNECTICUT GENERAL: Vida Appeals Final Settlement in Glover Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- VIDA LONGEVITY FUND LP, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class action settlement in the lawsuit entitled Paulette T. Glover, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-827, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case is brought against the Defendants for alleged breach of life insurance policy provisions governing "cost of insurance" ("COI") deductions from the investment portion of the policy. The Plaintiffs, Paulette Glover and John Warehime, entered into a Settlement Agreement on behalf of themselves and a proposed Settlement Class of others similarly situated, resolving all claims against Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and Lincoln National Life Insurance Company. The proposed settlement provides for $147,474,191.99 to about 191,000 policyholders, less attorneys' fees and related expenses. An Order for preliminary approval of the Settlement was entered by this Court on Sept. 4, 2024. On Dec. 9, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for final approval of class action settlement, which Judge Michael P. Shea granted on June 16, 2025. The Plaintiffs' motion for fees, expenses, and service awards is granted in part and denied in part. Class Counsel shall receive $26,545,354.56 in attorneys' fees and $174.082.63 in reimbursement for expenses. Paulette Glover shall receive a $25,000 service award and John Warehime shall receive a $10,000 service award. The Objectors' motion for fees, expenses, and service awards is granted in part and denied in part as follows: Susman Godfrey LLP shall receive $2,949,483.84 in attorneys' fees and Susman's request for reimbursement for expenses is denied. The three Plaintiffs in the Related Actions: Vida Longevity Fund LP, TVPX ARS Inc., and Jean Heckman shall each receive service awards of $10,000. The motions to seal are also granted. The appellate case is entitled Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, Case No. 25-1760, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on July 18, 2025. [BN] Movants-Appellants VIDA LONGEVITY FUND LP, et al. are represented by: Zachary Savage, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY LLP One Manhattan West, 50th Floor New York, NY 10001 Defendants-Appellees CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. are represented by: Patrick W. Begos, Esq. ROBINSON & COLE LLP 1055 Washington Boulevard Stamford, CT 06901 Telephone: (203) 462-7599 CORTEVA INC: Appeals Final Judgment in Cockerill Suit to 3rd Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- CORTEVA INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion to alter judgment in the lawsuit entitled Robert Cockerill, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Corteva Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03966, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The putative class action arises from the alleged denial of retirement benefits to certain employees following the employer's spin-off of these employees to a different entity. Plaintiffs Robert F. Cockerill and Christopher W. Newton, individually and as representatives on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, bring various claims pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 against Defendants Corteva, Inc.; Dupont Specialty Products USA, LLC; DuPont de Nemours, Inc.; E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company; The Pension and Retirement Plan; and the Administrative Committee. On May 8, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for attorney fees and costs, which Judge Michael M. Baylson granted in part and denied in part on May 27, 2025. Judge Baylson determined that the Plaintiffs' counsel deserved to be appropriately compensated and that they would also be liable for substantial counsel fees, which are justified by the successes of the Plaintiffs' counsel, by the facts of the case, and by the prevailing law. Accordingly, he granted the Plaintiffs' petition for attorneys' fees and confirmed the case as a class action. On May 28, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for clarification regarding the May 27 Order on award of attorneys' fees, which Judge Baylson granted on May 30, 2025. Final judgment is entered in favor of the Plaintiffs and the certified classes they represent and against the Defendants. On June 3, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to alter judgment, which Judge Baylson denied on June 11, 2025. The appellate case is entitled Robert Cockerill, et al. v. Corteva Inc., et al., Case No. 25-2312, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on July 14, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees ROBERT F. COCKERILL, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Samantha L. Brener, Esq. Jaclyn D. Conover, Esq. Elizabeth Hopkins, Esq. Susan L. Meter, Esq. KANTOR & KANTOR 9301 Corbin Avenue, Suite 1400 Northridge, CA 91324 - and - Lisa A. Salmons, Esq. Edward S. Stone, Esq. EDWARD STONE LAW 175 W. Putnam Avenue, 2nd Floor Greenwich, CT 06830 Defendants-Appellants CORTEVA INC., et al. are represented by: Andrew W. Balthazor, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 789-7584 - and - Nipun J. Patel, Esq. Cory Thomas, Esq. POLSINELLI 1717 Arch Street Three Logan Square, Suite 2800 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 267-3009 (215) 267-3024 - and - Kayla L. Pragid, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT 777 S. Flagler Street, Suite 1900W West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 560-8303 - and - Richard B. Phillips, Jr., Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT 1722 Routh Street One Arts Plaza, Suite 1500 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 969-1148 - and - Todd D. Wozniak, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT 1180 W. Peachtree Street NW, Suite 1800 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 817-8431 CREATED WEALTH: Bethea Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Created Wealth LLC, et al. The case is styled as Russel Bethea, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Created Wealth LLC, E.W.R. Logistics, Corp doing business as: Reliable Cold Callers, Case No. 8:25-cv-01952 (M.D. Fla., July 24, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Created Wealth Advisory -- https://createdwealth.com/ -- specializes in wealth planning and management services, tailored specifically for matriarchs.[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 CVS HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Unwanted Telemarketing Texts ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ted Sink of The Ted Law Firm reports that CVS Health Corp has been named in a major class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act due to the transmission of unwanted telemarketing text messages to cell phones listed on the National Do Not Call Registry. Filed in a Georgia federal court, the lawsuit accuses CVS Pharmacy of using automated telephone dialing systems and prerecorded voice systems to contact individuals without obtaining prior express written consent, which is a direct breach of consumer protection laws in the United States. The case, Lewis v. CVS Health Corp, shines a spotlight on the intersection of digital marketing and consumer privacy. With CVS Pharmacy Inc. under scrutiny for its telemarketing practices, the potential implications for other companies relying on automated technology, SMS messages, and spam texts are enormous. The Foundation of the CVS Class Action Complaint The lawsuit was filed by Robert Lewis Jr., who alleges he received five separate marketing text messages from CVS Pharmacy between January 30 and March 27. His cellular telephone number had been registered on the National Do-Not-Call list for over 31 days, long enough for the protections of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act to apply. Lewis contends that CVS did not have a business relationship with him, nor did he provide prior express written consent for receiving marketing text messages or text alerts. The messages were, according to him, an invasion of privacy, a private nuisance, and clear evidence of TCPA violations. He also alleges that these automated dialing system messages were sent through short code delivery systems, which are commonly used in automated marketing campaigns. What Is the Telephone Consumer Protection Act? The Telephone Consumer Protection Act was enacted by the Federal Communications Commission to limit telephone solicitations, voice message spam, telemarketing calls, and text messages to wireless phones and residential numbers. Under the TCPA: -- Companies must obtain prior express written consent before sending automated messages. -- Use of Automatic Telephone Dialing Systems (ATDS) or automated systems to send text messages, SMS messages, or prerecorded voice messages is highly regulated. -- Numbers listed on the National Do Not Call Registry or Do-Not-Call list cannot receive unsolicited marketing text messages or telephone calls. These protections apply nationwide across the United States, ensuring consumer protections for millions of Americans against unlawful text messages. Allegations of CVS's Telemarketing Practices The lawsuit claims CVS used an Automated Telephone Dialing System, commonly referred to as an automated system, to deliver text messages without filtering out numbers on the National DNC Registry or verifying the presence of prior express written consent. This points to systemic negligence, or possibly intentional disregard, for consumer protection laws and Federal Trade Commission and Federal Communications Commission regulations. In addition to spam texts, the lawsuit suggests the messages may have included marketing notifications for services like flu shot reminders, refill options, or even customer prescriptions, though these messages were delivered without explicit permission and thus still constitute TCPA violations. The Proposed Class Members in the Lawsuit The lawsuit seeks to include all class members who meet the following criteria: -- Received at least two text messages, voice message, or telemarketing calls within a 12-month period -- Had their numbers registered on the National Do Not Call Registry or the Do-Not-Call list for more than 31 days -- Did not provide prior express written consent -- Received automated marketing from CVS within the last four years This proposed class action complaint could affect tens of thousands of consumers across the United States, who may not be aware of their eligibility to claim part of a potential settlement fund. Potential Relief and Settlement Amount Sought Lewis and his legal team are demanding the following: -- Treble damages as allowed under the TCPA -- Settlement amount covering all class members -- Full coverage of attorneys' fees -- An order for CVS to cease its telemarketing practices -- Injunctive relief to prevent further TCPA violations While no official settlement agreement has been reached, prior TCPA settlements involving companies like American Eagle Outfitters, Life Time Fitness, Michael Kors, Steve Madden, and The Body Shop have set precedents in the millions of dollars. CVS's Troubled Legal Landscape This isn't the only lawsuit currently facing CVS Health Corp. A separate class action lawsuit in Pennsylvania alleges the company colluded with drug manufacturers to suppress access to affordable generics for those on SilverScript Medicare Part D plans n. These repeated legal issues point to a larger problem within the corporation regarding consumer protections, privacy compliance, and regulatory oversight. How Automated Telephone Dialing Systems Create Risk A growing number of companies use automated technology and short codes to reach customers. However, the Federal Communications Commission has made it clear: cell phone users must consent in writing to receive text messages, telemarketing calls, or voice messages sent using automated dialing systems. The CVS case calls attention to the lack of safeguards in place when automated dialing systems are used improperly. Many consumers find themselves on the receiving end of text message alerts with no way to opt out, and often without knowing how their number was acquired. Privacy Matters: Impact of Unlawful Text Messages Receiving unwanted telemarketing text messages can be disruptive, stressful, and sometimes even alarming. Many consumers report confusion, frustration, and a loss of trust in companies that send such messages without opt-out instructions or valid business relationships. Cell phones are intimate communication tools, and the misuse of this access through automated marketing is more than an annoyance, it's a violation of privacy and federal law. These texts often interrupt daily life, invade personal space, and fail to include information about how to unsubscribe or contact customer service. Why This Lawsuit Matters for the Entire Country This class action news story extends beyond CVS Pharmacy Inc. The broader message is clear: companies must respect consumer protection laws, validate the presence of prior express written consent, and avoid the careless use of automated systems. If the court rules in favor of Lewis, it could: -- Strengthen TCPA enforcement by the Federal Communication Commission and Federal Trade Commission -- Raise awareness about opt-out instructions and contact numbers -- Push corporations to update their implementation measures -- Prompt new regulatory guidelines affecting all U.S.-based telemarketing calls and text messages From cellular telephones to wireless numbers, this ruling could set new standards across all digital communication platforms. Legal Oversight and Regulatory Pressure The United States District Court will play a pivotal role in reviewing the class action complaint, establishing whether CVS Health Corp must pay a significant settlement amount or face trial. The court's involvement ensures federal oversight over claims that are increasingly common in the age of digital communication. Other states such as Florida are also cracking down via additional regulations like the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act, signaling more aggressive enforcement against robocalls, SMS messages, and fax advertisements in both state and federal jurisdictions. The Trend of TCPA Violations in Corporate America The CVS lawsuit is part of a national trend in which companies such as Clover Network LLC, Victoria Soboleski, and Carl Lowe have faced scrutiny for TCPA violations, including cases in the Eastern District of Michigan, Northern District of Illinois, and other courts across the United States. From deceptive promotions to auto warranty spam to text messages without explicit permission, these cases emphasize the growing urgency for businesses to overhaul their telemarketing practices. Call to Action: Know Your Rights At Ted Law Firm, we track landmark litigation like the CVS class action lawsuit to keep the public informed. We serve families across Aiken, Anderson, Charleston, Columbia, Greenville, Myrtle Beach, North Augusta and Orangeburg. This case, involving alleged TCPA violations through telemarketing practices, shows how critical it is for every consumer to be aware of their rights under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Whether it's through unwanted text messages, prerecorded voice messages, or automated systems, no one should endure privacy violations, especially not from large corporations. Contact us today for a free consultation. [GN] D.R. HORTON: Class Action Case Moves Forward in District Court -------------------------------------------------------------- Jasmine Dean, writing for KLFY.com, reports that a legal battle between homeowners and Texas-based homebuilder D.R. Horton has led to a class-action lawsuit. For years, there has been a debate over whether the case should proceed in a district court or through arbitration. A district judge has ruled that a class action lawsuit against D.R. Horton will move forward in a district court and not arbitration. This following claims that an arbitration clause in homeowner's contracts only benefited the homebuilder. For years, reports of constant issues with D.R. Horton homes, ranging from moisture buildup, leaks, and health issues as a result of mold exposure, have resulted in a class action lawsuit against the homebuilder. But because of an arbitration clause in homeowners' contracts -- in a previous report -- lawyers representing D.R. Horton said contracts homeowners signed state all claims against the company must go to arbitration. Anna Pollock, a former D.R. Horton homeowner, says if anything goes wrong during the ownership of that house, you are stuck in arbitration. "When something serious is going wrong, nobody else has access to that information, said Pollock. "It gets taken care of quietly, and that's what we don't need. We need it to be taken care of out in the open where everybody has access to that information." Attorney Lance Unglesby, one of the attorneys representing homeowners in the class action, says everyone has the right to appear in court to have their issues heard in public. And with a district judge deciding the case will move forward in court and not arbitration, hundreds of families who have joined the class action lawsuit against D.R. Horton will get the chance to have their day in court. Unglesby says it's a way D.R. Horton can be held accountable for selling a house that they knew to be defective. "That's what they did. They had an arbitration clause that they thought would protect it, but it was a very one-sided arbitration clause, and that's what the judge saw," said Unglesby. Unglesby also went on to say that in the future, he plans to work with the legislature to amend some of the rules that allow homebuilders to put in arbitration clauses. [GN] DESERT FIRE: Court Grants Collective Class of Strip Club Workers ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Ashara Ramirez, an individual, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Desert Fire LLC dba Silver Dollar Club; Damon Shrader; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Civil Action No.6:25-cv-00037-AA (D. Or.), Judge Ann Aiken of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's motion for conditional FLSA class certification, court-authorized notice, and equitable tolling. This is a putative collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), not a traditional class action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23. According to the Court, unlike a class action, as set out in Rule 23, the FLSA's collective action mechanism is remedial and is tailored specifically to vindicate federal labor rights. Plaintiff Ashara Ramirez, who is now the lead plaintiff, alleges that she worked as a dancer at Defendants' business, Silver Dollar Club, in Eugene, Oregon, at varying times from approximately May 2021 to June 2024. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants misclassified her and other dancers as independent contractors and that as a result of this misclassification, Defendants failed to pay dancers any wages, demanded Kickback fees" ("house fees") for the ability to work a shift, and mandated a forced tipping policy that required dancers to tip DJs, bouncers, and bar staff, and to tip back to the club. The Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants exercised significant control over how Plaintiff and all other dancers performed, including requiring the dancers to work on a schedule set and managed by Defendants, to work a certain number of weekdays in order to be allowed to work... on weekends, to perform stage dances [to club customers] as part of their work at the club, to seek permission to leave early during a shift, and by subjecting dancers to discipline for uncompleted shifts. The Court found that Plaintiff plausibly alleges that she and other dancers who work at the same business location and under the same management are subject to the same unlawful misclassification scheme and pay and tipping practices. Defendants did not object to conditional certification at step one of this process but reserve their rights to, among other things, move to decertify the class once discovery is complete. Accordingly, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify the collective action. The putative collective class shall consist of current and former dancers who work or have worked at the Silver Dollar at any time since May 27, 2022. The Court ordered several revisions to the proposed notice and consent forms: * The forms must correct the error that inaccurately named two different workplaces, "The Nile" and "The Silver Dollar" * The notice must inform putative members that there will not necessarily be a favorable ruling in the case * Language must be revised to clarify that participation means sharing in benefits if there is a settlement or judgment, but also being bound by any favorable or adverse rulings Notice Distribution: * Defendant shall provide to Plaintiff's counsel within 10 days contact information for any individual who works or has worked as a dancer at the Silver Dollar since May 27, 2022 * The Court authorized Plaintiff to send notice to all putative collective members by regular mail, email, and text and to send one reminder by regular mail, email, and text 30 days after the notice issues * Plaintiff's attorneys shall have no other unsolicited contact with any putative plaintiff * The Court ordered Defendants to post the notice in all Silver Dollar dancer dressing rooms, but not at any public entrance * All posting shall conform to the FLSA's guidelines for federal and state-mandated workplace posters * The Court rejected Plaintiff's request for a three--foot by five--foot poster in bright colors as "inappropriate" due to size The Court ordered a 90-day notice period such that each putative plaintiff shall have 90 days from the date on which notice is sent to them to submit a completed "Consent to Join" form to Plaintiff's counsel. Judge Aiken granted Plaintiff's motion to equitably toll the FLSA three-year statute of limitations. The Court found that Plaintiff has no control over the time it takes the Court to rule on Plaintiff's motion to certify the collective. And the Court's delay may prejudice putative collective members by foreclosing a remedial action to collect back wages that would otherwise be available to them. The Court determined that it is in the interest of justice to equitably toll the statute of limitations from the date the briefings were completed, May 27, 2025, until the date the notice issues. The Court applied the Ninth Circuit's two-step process for FLSA collective actions. At the preliminary certification stage, a district court's level of consideration is lenient, and loosely akin to a plausibility standard, commensurate with the state of the proceedings. The Court noted that party plaintiffs are similarly situated, and may proceed in a collective, to the extent they share a similar issue of law or fact material to the disposition of their FLSA claims. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ijkAZM DIAMOND BRACES: Court Grants FLSA Collective Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Michelle Isayeva and Kaholy Fernandez, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiff and the Class, Plaintiffs, v. Diamond Braces, an unincorporated entity, association, or affiliation, Orthoclub, P.C. d/b/a Diamond Braces, John Doe Corporations 1-100 d/b/a Diamond Braces, and Oleg Drut, Defendants, Civil Action No. 22 Civ. 4575 (KPF) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of a collective action under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Court conditionally certified a collective action consisting of all employees who held the following non-exempt positions: dental assistant, marketing personnel, treatment coordinator, assistant office manager, head assistant, clinical assistant, billing specialist, lab technician, administrative assistant, client relations representative, HR assistant, marketing assistant, warehouse associate, flyer distributor, and business development representative, at any of Defendants' locations for the period June 2, 2019, through June 2, 2022. Diamond Braces operates more than 40 offices throughout the New York metropolitan area. Fernandez worked as a Treatment Coordinator "from on or about March 17, 2022, until August 8, 2022" and was "compensated on an hourly basis" at "$17 an hour" with her "last month of employment" paying "$20 an hour." Isayeva worked as a Dental Assistant "from on or about January 10, 2021, until in or around August 2021" and was "compensated on an hourly basis" at "$17 an hour." The Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants violated federal and New York labor laws through "time--shaving" practices. Specifically, employees were "required to 'clock out' for lunch breaks but also required to eat at their workstations and perform work during those periods, thereby not affording them bona fide meal breaks." Additionally, Defendants "maintained a similar practice with respect to short rest breaks, providing employees with a weekly break lasting less than twenty minutes, but requiring employees to clock out for such breaks, and therefore not compensating them for that time." The Court found that "Plaintiffs have met this burden on Conditional Certification by providing affidavits and documentary evidence to substantiate their claims." The Court noted that Plaintiffs rely on three affidavits -- one from each of the two current Plaintiffs and one from former Plaintiff Aliyeva." According to the Court, "the three declarations provided here establish that Defendants had a common practice of not compensating employees for lunch breaks, which employees were often required to work through, and for short breaks that were under twenty minutes." Fernandez asserted she was "required to remain at the office during her lunch break, despite being required to clock out, and that her meal breaks were 'regularly interrupted.'" The Court emphasized that "Plaintiffs provide additional information that further corroborates their allegations" through "an analysis of the employment records for a sample of 133 out of the 847 non-exempt employees." This sample "encompasses 18 non-exempt positions from 39 of Defendants' 44 locations" and revealed that "91 employees from the sample (approximately 70%) had been subjected to Defendants' policy of not compensating employees for short breaks. The Court limited the scope of the proposed collective, finding that Plaintiffs have met their evidentiary burden as to the 15 positions for which they found uncompensated short breaks in Defendants' employment records." However, "to the extent Plaintiffs seek a collective of all non-exempt employees, that is, beyond the 15 positions listed above, Plaintiffs do not provide any evidence to support such a request." Regarding location coverage, the Court found "Plaintiffs provide sufficient evidence substantiating their claim that Defendants' alleged FLSA violations extended to all of Defendants' locations." The evidence showed that "all of Defendants' locations share the same timekeeping and payroll system" and employees "would, at times, allegedly 'clock-in at one location in the morning and clock-out at another location in the evening without issue.'" The Court determined that Defendants constitute a single employer, noting that "all of Defendants' orthodontic offices are jointly owned and managed by Defendant Drut" and "share a common payroll and timekeeping system; a human resources department; a corporate handbook; a corporate compliance hotline; and advertisements." The Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted Plaintiffs' request for discovery, ordering Defendants to supplement their previously--ordered production with potential opt-in plaintiffs' titles, compensation rates, and dates of employment within 14 days of this Opinion." However, the Court declines to require the production of social security numbers" finding that "the greater weight of authority counsels against authorizing the collection of such sensitive information. The Court modified Plaintiffs' proposed notice in several respects. The Court limited the notice period to three years prior to the filing of the Complaint on June 2, 2022" rather than the requested six years. The Court also reduced the opt-in period from 90 days to "60 days" as courts in this Circuit routinely limit the opt-in period to 60 days unless a plaintiff can demonstrate why a longer period is necessary. The Court approved the sending of the notice by mail, email, and text messages and granted Plaintiffs' request that the notice and consent forms be posted in employee common areas at Defendants' places of business." The Court denied without prejudice Plaintiffs' request for equitable tolling, finding it "premature" because "it is not yet clear whether or not any potential plaintiffs will be barred from this action due to a delay in notice." The Court also denied Plaintiffs' request "to make the consent forms returnable to Plaintiffs' counsel instead of the Clerk of Court." The Court directed Plaintiffs to submit a revised proposed notice, consistent with this Opinion, for the Court's approval on or before July 21, 2025." The revised notice must include modifications to "(i) ensure only employees who held the previously listed positions within three years prior to filing of the Complaint are included in the collective; (ii) include an opt-in period of sixty days; (iii) advise potential opt-in plaintiffs of their obligation to preserve relevant evidence; (iv) include defense counsel's contact information; and (v) be returnable to the Clerk of Court, and not Plaintiffs' counsel. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ao7oDf * * * In a July 23 order, Judge Katherine Polk Failla held that the Court was in receipt of Plaintiffs' revised Notice and Consent to Sue forms, and Defendants' letter pointing out certain deficiencies in the updated form. On July 21, 2025, Court specifically instructed Plaintiffs to submit updated Notice and Consent to Sue forms, in compliance with "all of the Court's instructions in its July 10, 2025 Opinion, as well as [its July 21, 2025] Order." Plaintiffs failed to do so. Despite the Court's clear instructions that the collective include non-exempt employees at Defendants' locations "for the period of June 2, 2019 through June 2, 2022," Plaintiffs included in their proposed notice a period of "any time from June 2, 2019 to the present." While the Court will assume this was an oversight by Plaintiffs rather than a disregard for this Court's orders, Plaintiffs are expected to exercise greater care before making future submissions to the Court. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' proposed Notice and Consent to Sue form is approved, but must be modified to read as follows: Please read this notice if you are a former or current worker paid on an hourly basis (not salaried) working in New York for Diamond Braces at any of their locations as a dental assistant, marketing personnel, treatment coordinator, assistant office manager, head assistant, clinical assistant, billing specialist, lab technician, administrative assistant, client relations representative, HR assistant, marketing assistant, warehouse associate, flyer distributor, or business development representative at any time from June 2, 2019 to June 2, 2022. Because the Court assumes that Plaintiffs will comply with these instructions, notice may be issued without further approval from the Court. On July 25, the judge entered an order terminating Letter Motion for Local Rule 37.2 Conference. The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs' letter outlining several outstanding discovery issues and Defendants' letter in response. The Court begins by noting that it has been well over a month since the parties met and conferred about the issues Plaintiffs now bring to the Court's attention. It is clear from the parties' submissions that an additional meet and confer may have at least narrowed the scope of the issues requiring judicial intervention. Nevertheless, the Court addresses each outstanding issue in turn. Depositions: The Court understands that Defendants intend to provide deposition availability in the week of July 28. For the sake of clarity, the Court orders Defendants to provide information regarding the availability of their witnesses for depositions on or before August 1, 2025. ESI: The Court understands Plaintiffs' concern that Defendants' ESI searches returned zero hits for the terms and custodians requested by Plaintiffs. While the Court will not require Defendants to engage a private vendor at this time, Defendants were instructed to (i) confirm the ESI custodians on or before August 1, 2025, and (ii) meet and confer with Plaintiffs regarding their search technique. If the searches continue to produce no hits, the parties are instructed to inform the Court. Rule 26 Disclosures: The Court accepts Defendants' representation that they have provided the disclosures required by Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If Plaintiffs believe that Defendants' disclosures were inadequate, they must provide the Court with more information, beyond the single conclusory sentence included in their pre-motion letter, as to why that is so. Discovery Deadline: Plaintiffs' request for an extension of the discovery deadline is granted. Accordingly, the deadline for fact discovery to conclude is adjourned to December 26, 2025. The Court expects this lengthy extension to provide sufficient time to complete discovery. Moreover, in light of this extension, the post-fact conference scheduled for September 16, 2025, is adjourned to January 20, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. As before, the conference will take place in Courtroom 618 of the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, New York. EASTERLY ROCMUNI: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Statements ------------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, PLLP, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased shares of Easterly ROCMuni High Income Municipal Bond Fund f/k/a Principal Street High Income Municipal Fund (the "Easterly ROCMuni Fund") (NASDAQ: RMJAX; RMHVK; RMHIX) between May 5, 2023 and June 12, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 22, 2025. If you have incurred significant losses and want to act as the lead plaintiff in the class action lawsuit or determine your eligibility to receive a potential recovery, please submit your details here: https://www.johnsonfistel.com/investigations/easterly-rocmuni-high-income-municipal-bond-fund-principal-street-high-income. For more information, contact James Baker at (619) 814-4471 or jimb@johnsonfistel.com. The Easterly ROCMuni class action lawsuit alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Easterly ROCMuni Fund had marked tens of millions of dollars' worth of its portfolio assets at artificially inflated prices that did not reasonably reflect the fair value of those assets; (ii) the Easterly ROCMuni Fund had implemented a fundamentally flawed pricing and valuation methodology which had systematically inflated the Easterly ROCMuni Fund's NAV and individual asset valuations; (iii) the Easterly ROCMuni Fund was more heavily invested in illiquid assets than disclosed in its Offering Materials; (iv) the Easterly ROCMuni Fund's assets were more closely correlated and less diversified than disclosed in its Offering Materials; (v) as a result, the Easterly ROCMuni Fund's stated NAV, NAV per share, individual asset valuations, and historical performance were materially overstated; and (vi) consequently, the Easterly ROCMuni Fund was subject to a material undisclosed risk of a sudden collapse in the price of Easterly ROCMuni Fund shares. Johnson Fistel, PLLP | Top Law Firm for Securities Fraud and Investor Rights Johnson Fistel, PLLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York, Georgia, Colorado, and Idaho. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. We also extend our services to foreign investors who have purchased on US exchanges. Stay updated with news on stock drops and learn how Johnson Fistel, PLLP can help you recover your losses. For more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit http://www.johnsonfistel.com. Achievements: In 2024, Johnson Fistel was honored to be ranked in the Top 10 Plaintiff Law Firms by the ISS Securities Class Action Services. This recognition underscores our effectiveness in advocating for investors, having recovered approximately $90,725,000 for aggrieved clients in cases where we served as lead or co-lead counsel. This notable accomplishment marks the eighth occasion our firm has been recognized as a top plaintiffs' securities law firm in the United States, as determined by the total dollar value of final recoveries. [GN] EASTERN MICHIGAN: M&A Probes Merger With Mercantile Bank -------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Eastern Michigan Financial Corporation (OTCMKTS: EFIN) related to its merger with Mercantile Bank Corporation. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, each outstanding share of Eastern Michigan common stock will be converted into the right to receive $32.32 in cash and 0.7116 shares of Mercantile common stock. Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/eastern-michigan-financial-corporation/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] FAVORITE DAUGHTER: Partial Default Judgment Granted in ADA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Xinyue Hippe, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Favorite Daughter Holdings, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 25-C-475 (E.D. Wis.), Judge William C. Griesbach of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's motion for default judgment in a website accessibility lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Specifically, the court granted the Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief for Defendant's violation of Title III of the ADA. Defendant shall, within 180 days of this order, bring its website into full compliance with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2 Level AA and implement policies, practices, and training to ensure that compliance going forward. The court noted at the outset that Plaintiff has abandoned any attempt to further this case as a class action. She does not seek class damages and has not moved to certify a class as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1). Accordingly, the court construes Plaintiff's motion for default judgment as brought on behalf of herself as an individual. On April 1, 2025, Plaintiff filed this putative class action against Defendant alleging Defendant violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. Section 12181-12189, by owning and operating a website that denies visually impaired individuals full and equal access. Plaintiff also asserts a related claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. On April 11, 2025, service was perfected on Defendant, but Defendant failed to timely answer or otherwise respond. Plaintiff therefore requested the Clerk's entry of default on June 13, 2025. The Clerk entered default against Defendant on June 16, 2025. Judge Griesbach accepted the well-pleaded allegations of Plaintiff as true and ruled that Plaintiff is entitled to default judgment as to her claim under the ADA. The allegations in the complaint establish that Defendant owns or operates a place of public accommodation, https://Shopfavoritedaughter.com, and that Plaintiff was deprived of equal access and enjoyment of that public accommodation because Defendant failed to ensure that public accommodation was accessible to individuals like Plaintiff who are legally blind. The complaint sufficiently alleges negligent infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant negligently breached its duty of care to Plaintiff by failing to maintain the accessibility of https://Shopfavoritedaughter.com, thus causing Plaintiff severe emotional distress. As to her ADA claim, monetary damages as a general category are not available to Title III ADA plaintiffs. The court therefore denied Plaintiff's request for money damages related to Defendant's violation of Title III of the ADA. Plaintiff has also failed to submit any affidavits or other evidence to support an award of compensatory or punitive damages for her claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress. Accordingly, the court will only award nominal damages of $1.00 as to that claim. Plaintiff's motion was also granted as to her request for nominal damages for Defendant's negligent infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff is awarded $1.00 in nominal damages. In all other respects, Plaintiff's motion is denied. Judge Griesbach concluded that Plaintiff is entitled to the injunctive relief sought, with minor modification to tailor injunctive relief to the scope of the violation found. The court will not require Defendant to implement policies, practices, and training to ensure continued compliance with the ADA for all future website content and updates. Doing so would be overly burdensome as this case concerns an individual denied equal access on the basis of legal blindness. According to the Court, "Plaintiff's request for declaratory relief is inappropriate as it only seeks to address past conduct. It will therefore be denied. Plaintiff may submit a fee petition for the court's review on or before August 10, 2025." A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vWbBPe FINASTRA TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Polak Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- ELIZABETH POLAK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FINASTRA TECHNOLOGY, INC., Case No. 6:25-cv-01284-PGB-DCI (M.D. Fla., July 11, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted the Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information that was impacted in a data breach Defendant disclosed in June 2025. According to the complaint, as part of its business, and in order to gain profits, Defendant obtained and stored the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class members. By taking possession and control of the Plaintiff and Class Members' Private Information, the Defendant assumed a duty to securely store and protect it. The Defendant breached this duty and betrayed the trust of Plaintiff and Class Members by failing to properly safeguard and protect their Private Information, thus enabling cybercriminals to access, acquire, appropriate, compromise, disclose, encumber, exfiltrate, release, steal, misuse, and/or view it, says the suit. On Nov. 7, 2024, the Defendant identified a cybersecurity incident that impacted certain internal systems. Once the incident was discovered, Defendant launched an investigation, to determine the nature and scope of the Data Breach. The Defendant is a financial software company that provides solutions to banks, lenders, and other financial institutions. They offer a broad range of software and services for retail banking, lending, payments, treasury and capital markets, and universal banking.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com FINASTRA TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, West Says ------------------------------------------------------------- CASSANDRA WEST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FINASTRA TECHNOLOGY, INC., Case No. 6:25-cv-01358 (M.D. Fla., July 21, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information that was impacted in a data breach Defendant disclosed in June 2025. Accordingly, as part of its business, and in order to gain profits, the Defendant obtained and stored the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class members. By taking possession and control of Plaintiff and Class Members’ Private Information, Defendant assumed a duty to securely store and protect it. The Defendant breached this duty and betrayed the trust of Plaintiff and Class Members by failing to properly safeguard and protect their Private Information, thus enabling cybercriminals to access, acquire, appropriate, compromise, disclose, encumber, exfiltrate, release, steal, misuse, and/or view it, asserts the suit. On Nov. 7, 2024, the Defendant identified a cybersecurity incident that impacted certain internal systems. Once the incident was discovered, Defendant launched an investigation, to determine the nature and scope of the Data Breach. The Defendant's investigation revealed that an unauthorized third-party accessed a Secure File Transfer Platform at various times between October 31, 2024, and November 8, 2024. The Defendant uses this SFTP to provide technical and customer support to its customers related to certain products. The Defendant is a financial software company that provides solutions to banks, lenders, and other financial institutions. They offer a broad range of software and services for retail banking, lending, payments, treasury and capital markets, and universal banking.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Caroline Herter, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com herter@kolawyers.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Facsimile: (317) 636-2593 E-mail: ltoops@cohenmalad.com athomas@cohenmalad.com FIRST GUARDIAN: Slater and Gordon Probes Investment Schemes Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Independent Financial Adviser reports that following both Keystone Asset Management, the responsible entity for the Shield Master Fund, and Falcon Capital, the RE for the First Guardian Master Fund, entering liquidation, investors have been left with uncertainty over how much of the roughly $1 billion in combined assets held in the funds would be recoverable. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has launched a range of investigations across the parties involved. Earlier this month, deputy chair Sarah Court said the regulator's investigations are looking at the entire chain, including conduct of the lead generators, the financial advisers, the superannuation platforms, "who we think have a real role here", and the research houses that "listed these funds as investable". Noting concerns that First Guardian and Shield were "allegedly operating a Ponzi scheme with thousands of Australians' superannuation savings", Slater and Gordon announced it is investigating a potential class action on behalf of investors. Andy Wei, Slater and Gordon principal lawyer in class actions, said the firm is looking into the matter and the claims that investors were advised to put their super into "largely unreliable funds". "What we're seeing here is potentially deliberate misleading of investors, many of whom are everyday Australians looking to secure their nest eggs. They were repeatedly assured that their superannuation would flow into diversified portfolios with steady returns," Wei said. "However, recent information shows that these funds were largely illiquid with their values grossly overstated." Noting that the illiquid assets could be harder to recover without "significant loss of value", he added that the recovery process could still leave "more than 12,000 Australians out of pocket". "These are people's savings, and they deserve far better than this," Wei said. "Superannuation is meant to be tightly regulated, and many investors likely believed their money was safely managed by trusted, blue-chip superannuation companies." The class action lead also called for impacted investors to contact the firm, which will help it assess if a class action is viable. "We are particularly concerned for investors in First Guardian Master Fund, as FTI Consulting -- the liquidators for First Guardian -- have now confirmed that they expect 'a substantial shortfall of recoverable assets'," Wei added. The most recent class action involving a financial services firm's collapse ended with Dixon Advisory parent company E&P Financial settling for just $16 million despite client losses in the hundreds of millions -- leaving the tab to be picked up through the Compensation Scheme of Last Resort. The settlement, as announced in November 2023, included E&P covering $4 million and its professional indemnity insurance covering the remaining $12 million, and was reached without admission of liability. [GN] FISERV INC: Faces Securities Class Suit for Misleading Investors ---------------------------------------------------------------- Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP ("Labaton") has filed a securities class action lawsuit (the "Action") on behalf of its client the City of Hollywood Police Officers' Retirement System ("Hollywood Police") against Fiserv, Inc. ("Fiserv" or the "Company") (NYSE: FI) and certain of its executives (collectively, "Defendants"). The Action, which is captioned City of Hollywood Police Officers' Retirement System v. Fiserv, Inc., No. 25-cv- 06094 (S.D.N.Y.), asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Fiserv common stock between July 24, 2024 and July 22, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Fiserv is a global provider of transaction processing software for banks and retail merchants. Fiserv's flagship product and most important growth driver is Clover, which provides merchants with a payment "gateway" to facilitate the secure processing of credit, debit, and mobile payment transactions on behalf of financial institutions and their customers. The Action alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants misled investors by failing to disclose that: (a) due to cost issues and other problems with its older Payeezy platform, Fiserv forced Payeezy merchants to migrate to its Clover platform; (b) Clover's revenue growth and gross payment volume ("GPV"), the total monetary value of transactions processed through Clover, were temporarily and unsustainably boosted by these forced conversions, which concealed a slowdown in new merchant business; (c) shortly after these conversions, a significant portion of former Payeezy merchants switched to competing solutions due to Clover's high pricing, significant down time, and systematic compatibility issues; (d) as a result of these merchant losses, Clover's GPV growth was significantly slowing, and its revenue growth was unsustainable; and (e) based on the foregoing, Fiserv's positive Class Period statements about Clover's growth strategies, competition, attrition, GPV growth, and business prospects were materially false and misleading. The market began to learn the truth about Defendants' fraud on April 24, 2025. On that date, Fiserv shocked investors by reporting Clover GPV growth of only 8 percent for the first quarter of 2025, a material stepdown from 2024 GPV rates of between 14 and 17 percent. The Company attributed this slowing growth to lower 2025 transaction volumes from Payeezy merchants who had converted to Clover. On this news, Fiserv stock dropped 18.5 percent, closing at $176.90 per share on April 24, 2025. Then, on May 15, 2025, Fiserv disappointed investors by disclosing that GPV growth deceleration would continue throughout 2025. On this news, Fiserv stock dropped 16.2 percent, closing at $159.13 per share on May 15, 2025. Finally, on July 23, 2025, Fiserv lowered the top end of its full-year organic growth guidance range and confirmed that its quarterly organic revenue in the Merchant segment had decelerated to 9 percent year-over-year from 11 percent in the previous quarter. On this news, Fiserv stock dropped 13.9 percent, closing at $143.00 per share on July 23, 2025. If you purchased or acquired Fiserv common stock during the Class Period and were damaged thereby, you are a member of the "Class" and may be able to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff motion papers must be filed no later than September 22, 2025. The Lead Plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent members of the Class. You do not need to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in this action. If you are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an absent Class member. You may retain counsel of your choice to represent you in this action. If you would like to consider serving as Lead Plaintiff or have any questions about this lawsuit, you may contact Connor C. Boehme, Esq. of Labaton at (212) 907-0780, or via email at cboehme@labaton.com. You can view a copy of the Complaint online here. Hollywood Police is represented by Labaton, which represents many of the largest pension funds in the United States and internationally with combined assets under management of more than $4.5 trillion. Labaton's litigation reputation is built on its half-century of securities litigation experience, more than ninety full-time attorneys, and in-house team of investigators, financial analysts, and forensic accountants. Labaton has been recognized for its excellence by the courts and peers, and it is consistently ranked in leading industry publications. Offices are located in New York, Delaware, London, and Washington, D.C. More information about Labaton is available at labaton.com. Connor Boehme, Esq. Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP (212) 907-0780 cboehme@labaton.com [GN] FLORIDA: Plaintiffs in Medicaid Eligibility Suit Seek Revisions --------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Saunders of WLRN South Florida reports that nearly two years after filing a class-action lawsuit alleging Florida did not provide adequate notices when dropping people from the Medicaid program, plaintiffs are seeking to revise the lawsuit because of a U.S. Supreme Court opinion. Attorneys for the plaintiffs said in a motion filed Tuesday, July 22, in federal court that the revisions won't affect the underlying issues in the lawsuit. But the request is another twist in a dispute rooted in a state process to determine whether people remained eligible for Medicaid coverage after the 2023 end of a federal COVID-19 public health emergency. U.S. District Judge Marcia Morales Howard finished a trial in the case in August 2024 but has not issued a ruling. The lawsuit was filed in August 2023. The motion filed would effectively scale back the lawsuit so that it would allege a violation of Medicaid beneficiaries' constitutional due-process rights. It would do away with a claim that Florida's actions have violated part of a federal Medicaid law. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled June 26 in an unrelated case that individual beneficiaries could not pursue such legal claims against state officials for alleged violations of the Medicaid law. After the U.S. Supreme Court opinion, Howard ordered attorneys for the plaintiffs and the state to file briefs about how it could affect the Florida case. That ultimately resulted in the motion and a proposed amended lawsuit filed. The motion said the "plaintiffs -- with defendants' consent -- move to amend so that the final issues to be decided in this matter can be streamlined, ultimately preserving judicial resources that would otherwise be necessary to contend with the impact of Medina (the U.S. Supreme Court ruling) on the case at hand." It also said the due-process and Medicaid law issues are similar. "Because the claims are substantially similar, the evidence plaintiffs presented at trial is inextricably linked to both claims," the motion said. "Similarly, the relief that plaintiffs request flows equally from both claims, such that eliminating the Medicaid Act claim does not alter the relief requested on behalf of the class." The lawsuit stems from a process that the state started in spring 2023 to determine whether millions of people enrolled in Medicaid remained eligible for benefits. The process came after a three-year period when the state effectively could not drop people from Medicaid amid the COVID-19 public health emergency. The plaintiffs have argued, in part, that notices sent to beneficiaries by the state about discontinuation of coverage did not provide adequate information that could be used to contest the decisions. The state has disputed the allegations. In the proposed amended lawsuit filed, the plaintiffs argued for a requirement "to prospectively reinstate Medicaid coverage to plaintiffs and all affected class members until timely and legally adequate notice of termination has been provided to them." The number of Medicaid beneficiaries has steadily decreased in Florida since the end of the public-health emergency. In March 2023, for example, 5.75 million people were enrolled; last month, the total was 4.122 million, according to state Agency for Health Care Administration data. [GN] FREESTYLE SNACKING: Faces Trippett Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ ALFRED TRIPPETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. FREESTYLE SNACKING LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-05965 (S.D.N.Y., July 21, 2025) contends that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.freestylesnacking.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant is denying the blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Other Half Brewing Company provides to their non-disabled customers through its website, the suit alleges. The Plaintiff browsed and intended to buy a ticket on the website. Despite his efforts, however, Plaintiff was denied an online experience like that of a sighted individual due to the Website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations. Because Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Legends OWO's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. The Defendant owns and operates the Website, which offers healthy snack olives for sale directly to consumers. The Website is accessible nationwide, including to users in New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com FRESNO COMMUNITY: Court Stays PAGA Claims Pending Arbitration ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Lea Deneus-Coley, Plaintiff, v. Fresno Community Hospital and Medical Center, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00306-JLT-HBK (E.D. Cal.), Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and denied Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend. The Court denied Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. The Court ordered that within 14 days of the issuance of the arbitrator's decision, the Parties shall file a joint status report. The action is stayed pending arbitration of individual claims. The Court emphasized that when a district court finds that a lawsuit involves an arbitrable dispute, and a party requests a stay ending arbitration, Section 3 of the FAA compels the court to stay the proceeding. On November 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed her Original Class Action Complaint against Defendant Fresno Community Hospital and Medical Center in the Fresno County Superior Court, alleging violations of the California Labor Code and unlawful business practices arising from her employment with Defendant. The Plaintiff was employed as a registered nurse from approximately December 2023 until March 2024, during which time it misclassified her as an independent contractor to avoid paying her overtime wages. Using a straight time for overtime pay scheme, Defendant paid Plaintiff and other employees the same hourly rate for all "on the clock" hours worked up to 12 in a day." Additionally, Defendant failed to authorize, permit, and/or make available compliant meal and rest periods to employees, instead requiring them to remain on duty and perform work throughout their shifts without paying them required premium pay for missing the meal and rest periods. These practices also resulted in employees being deprived of wage statements that accurately reflect all their hours worked and all wages actually earned, and not being paid all wages due and owing upon termination of employment The First Amended Complaint contained seven counts: (1) failure to pay overtime pursuant to Labor Code Section 510; (2) Failure to authorize, permit, and/or make available rest periods pursuant to Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512; (3) Failure to provide accurate wage statements pursuant to Labor Code Section 226 (4) Waiting time penalties pursuant to Labor Code Sections 201-203 (5) Violation of California Unfair Competition Law pursuant to Business and Professional Code Sections 17200, et seq. (6) PAGA civil penalties pursuant to Labor Code Section 2699(a); and (7) PAGA civil penalties pursuant to Labor Code Section 2699(f). According to the Court, Plaintiff was presented with the Contractor Terms and engaged in conduct -- specifically clicking the separate boxes and 'I accept' -- that manifested her acceptance of those terms. The arbitration agreement was executed through CareRev's platform, which Plaintiff used to obtain nursing shifts at Defendant's facility. "The Arbitration Agreement applies to any and all disputes, controversies, or claims between you and CareRev, you and any Healthcare Facility, or you and CareRev jointly with any Healthcare Facility arising from or related to services provided at a Healthcare Facility." The Court determined that "Defendant uses CareRev for the supply of professionals such as Plaintiff, it qualifies as a Healthcare Facility." The Court concluded that Defendant is entitled to enforce the Agreement because "the Arbitration Agreement explicitly indicates that any Healthcare Facility that you perform work at or for is intended to be a third-party beneficiary of this Arbitration Agreement. Regarding the Private Attorneys General Act claims, the Court explained that the FAA preempts the rule of Iskanian insofar as it precludes division of PAGA actions into individual and non-individual claims through an agreement to arbitrate. However, the Arbitration Agreement does not prohibit Plaintiff from bringing her PAGA claims but does require that Plaintiff's individual PAGA claim be decided in arbitration. The Court determined that Plaintiff's individual claims -- including her individual PAGA claim -- are subject to arbitration and to the extent she wishes to pursue those claims in her individual capacity, she is required to arbitrate those claims. The Court denied Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend, finding that Plaintiff's motion to amend is a bad-faith attempt to engage in forum shopping. The Court noted Plaintiff's actions, including moving to amend only after being faced with Defendant's motion to compel arbitration, opposing Defendant's motion based only on the proposed amendment without addressing Defendant's specific arguments or the substance of the Agreement, and indicating at the hearing that refiling her claims later in state court would be within her rights. The Court concluded that Defendant would be prejudiced if the amendment were allowed because Defendant expended resources seeking an order on the arbitration issue and the matter is ripe for review by this Court. Additionally, the Court found amendment would be futile because Plaintiff cannot bring only a non-individual PAGA claim. The Court explained that Labor Code Section 2699(a) provides that a civil PAGA action may be brought by an aggrieved employee on behalf of the employee and other current or former employees and this statutory test's use of 'and' rather than 'or' specifies Plaintiff cannot bring a non-individual PAGA claim without also bringing claims on behalf of herself. A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=onP5Vq FRL AUTOMOTIVE: Loses Bid to Bifurcate Discovery in Karpiel Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Jason Karpiel, Plaintiff v. FRL Automotive, LLC d/b/a Toyota of North Miami, Defendant, Case No. 25-CV-21112-BLOOM/Elfenbein (S.D. Fla.), United States Magistrate Judge Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida denied the Defendant's Motion to Bifurcate Discovery and Stay Class Discovery Pending Limited Discovery on Plaintiff's Individual Consent and Contractual Agreement. The case arises from Defendant's alleged transmission of unsolicited telemarketing text messages and phone calls to Plaintiff, despite Plaintiff's clear opt-out request and the Defendant's acknowledgement of that request. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant employed an automated system to disseminate these messages and failed to implement or adhere to internal procedures necessary to comply with federal and state laws governing telephone solicitations. Plaintiff brings this case as a putative class action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. The Plaintiff asserts four claims: (1) unlawful telemarketing to numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227; (2) failure to honor opt-out requests and maintain an internal do-not-call list in violation of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. Section 227(c)(2); (3) failure to honor opt-out requests in violation of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act, Fla. Stat. Section 501.059(5); and (4) unlawful telemarketing to numbers without prior express written consent in violation of the FTSA, Fla. Stat. Section 501.059(8)(a). Plaintiff seeks statutory damages and injunctive relief on behalf of himself and multiple putative classes. In its Motion, Defendant requests that the Court split discovery into two phases by first allowing limited discovery focusing on Plaintiff's individual consent and contractual agreement while staying class discovery pending the outcome of that limited inquiry. Defendant argues that Plaintiff consented to Defendant's communications through his acceptance of the Kelley Blue Book Instant Cash Offer Program's terms and conditions. Defendant argues that Plaintiff expressly consented to be contacted by participating dealers, including Defendant, and to the terms of the KBB Consent Form, which included a binding arbitration clause and a non-severable class-action waiver. Defendant asserts that resolution of these "threshold issues" is potentially dispositive of Plaintiff's individual and class claims. Defendant contends that resolving these individual issues first would promote judicial efficiency, reduce litigation costs, and could end the case altogether if the Court finds that the arbitration clause binds Plaintiff or that he consented to the communications. Plaintiff opposes the request, arguing that bifurcating discovery and staying class discovery is unwarranted, unsupported, and prejudicial. He contends that Defendant cannot rely on a consent defense based on the alleged KBB Consent Form because: (1) Defendant is not a party to that agreement and thus cannot enforce or benefit therefrom; and (2) regardless of the enforceability of the KBB Consent Form, Plaintiff's alleged consent does not eliminate the claims arising from communications made after Plaintiff opted-out. Courts have broad discretion over the management of pre-trial activities, including discovery and scheduling." According to the Court that bifurcating discovery would neither promote efficiency nor conserve resources. Judge Elfenbein noted that Defendant failed to carry its burden of demonstrating that such a stay is necessary, appropriate, or reasonable. As a preliminary matter, Defendant conceded that it is unable to move for dismissal under Rule 12 because the Complaint withholds the critical facts that would establish Plaintiff's lack of standing and contractual bar to proceeding." Additionally, Defendant concedes that limited discovery is necessary to determine whether Plaintiff consented to be contacted and agreed to the KBB Consent Form that includes arbitration and class-waiver provisions. Defendant cannot say with certainty that this limited discovery will confirm the alleged facts or justify a motion for summary judgment; its argument rests entirely on speculation. According to the Court, using the Motion to Bifurcate as a means for a "preliminary peek," Defendant still fails to show that resolution of the KBB Form Consent issues will dispose of the entire case. Defendant fails to meaningfully address Plaintiff's contention that any alleged prior consent obtained through the KBB Consent Form is irrelevant to the claims arising from Defendant's continued text messages following Plaintiff's explicit opt-out request. The Court considered the eight factors outlined in Breines v. Pro Custom Solar LLC when determining whether to bifurcate discovery: (1) the likelihood of overlap between individual and class discovery; (2) the likelihood of ensuing discovery motions; (3) the likelihood of prejudice to the nonmovant; (4) whether there is evidence that the named plaintiff's claims lack merit; (5) the timing of the bifurcation motion; (6) whether the case can continue if the named plaintiff's claims are dismissed; (7) the interests of judicial economy; and (8) the Rule 23(c)(1)(A) requirement that class certification be decided at an "early practicable time." The first, second, third, fourth, sixth, and seventh Breines factors weigh against bifurcation, as they are all tied to the substantial factual overlap between individual and class discovery and the lack of a clearly dispositive threshold issue. The factual issues underlying Plaintiff's individual claims are inextricably linked to the putative class claims, which are based on the same course of conduct. Because of this overlap, bifurcation would not meaningfully limit the scope of discovery and would instead invite discovery disputes and motion practice. For the reasons stated, the Court concludes that Defendant has not shown good cause for bifurcation or a stay of class discovery. The proposed phasing would likely delay the case, increase costs, and prejudice Plaintiff, contrary to the principles of fairness and efficiency that govern discovery in class actions. Defendant retains the ability to raise dispositive motions on arbitration or consent after a fuller factual record is developed under the normal discovery process. A copy of the Court's order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4bSKe6 GEO GROUP: Class Cert Hearing Continued to August 25 ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HUGO GONZALEZ, JOSE BACA, ERICK LOPEZ, MARIO MANJARREZ, and RICARDO SANDOVAL GUADARRAMA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. The GEO Group, Inc., a Florida corporation, DOES 1-10, Case No. 2:22-cv-04014-JGB-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jesus Bernal entered an order granting joint stipulation to continue hearing on motion for summary judgment and class certification motions to Aug. 25, 2025. The hearing dates are continued as follows: Current Date Requested Date Hearing on Defendants' July 21, 2025 Aug. 25, 2025 Motion for Summary Judgment: Hearing on Plaintiffs' July 21, 2025 Aug. 25, 2025 Motion for Class Certification: This Order does not affect any other dates set in this matter. GEO is a publicly traded C corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated July 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ILHSJ8 at no extra charge.[CC] GO MACRO: Faces Class Suit Over Falsely Advertised Snack Bars ------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that GoMacro snack bars are falsely advertised as health-forward, given that the products, which are consumed by children, contain a substantial amount of added sugar per serving. The 40-page lawsuit stresses that a "vast body of reliable scientific evidence" establishes that consumption of added sugar in amounts above roughly five percent of the body's daily caloric intake is toxic and greatly increases the risk of certain chronic diseases. Although the GoMacro snack bars are advertised as healthy, the products contain between seven and 13 grams of added sugar, making up between 11 percent and 24 percent of the bars' calories per serving, depending on the flavor, the lawsuit says. The filing states that despite the snacks' added-sugar content, GoMacro's advertising and product packaging frequently include claims and slogans such as "live long," "have a healthy body," "eat positive," "be well" and "Finally -- a bar that's both delicious and good for you!" Additionally, the defendant's website boasts customer testimonials promoting the snack bars as "healthy snacks" for kids and adults, and contains a link to a Forbes article titled "Who Runs the Better-For-You Food World? These 6 Women," in which GoMacro is included in the list of top health-conscious food brands. The complaint claims that GoMacro is aware of the growing consumer demand for healthy food products and seeks to profit from that market, especially since consumers across the board are often willing to pay more for products they perceive as healthier. The lawsuit also cites several studies and surveys that report that the average American consumer relies far more on advertisements and product label claims to obtain information about a food item's health value, rather than the back-label nutrition facts panel. Additionally, the complaint alleges that GoMacro even encourages consumers to pay more attention to the ingredient list than the proportions, amounts or weights of those ingredients, as the company states on its website that "it is more important to know where your calories, carbohydrates, fat, etc. are coming from than just the numbers." The lawsuit contends that despite GoMacro's accurate reporting of its added sugar content on the nutrition facts panel, the disclosure is insufficient to properly inform consumers and does not supersede the alleged misrepresentations of the products as healthy. The GoMacro class action lawsuit seeks to represent anyone who purchased any GoMacro Protein Bars, Snack Bars or Kids MacroBars for personal or household use and not for resale within the last four years. [GN] GO NEW: Continues to Finalize Settlement of Balderramo Case ----------------------------------------------------------- Brandon D. Sherr, Esq., at the Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C., informed the Hon. Edgardo Ramos, United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, that the parties in the case captioned as Victor H. Alvarado Balderramo, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Go New York Tours Inc., and Asen Kostadinov, jointly and severally, Defendants, Civil Action No. 15 Civ. 2326 (ER) (S.D.N.Y.), are working on finalizing a class action settlement and preparing to move, pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to preliminarily approve that class action settlement. Because the settlement includes a waiver of claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the parties will seek approval pursuant to Cheeks in combination with the motion for final approval of the class action settlement. "With the motion for preliminary approval, we intend to include a pre-calculated share of the settlement fund for each member of the class without a claims process," Sherr said. He also disclosed that the plaintiffs have recently returned their response draft stipulation of settlement and updated motion papers to the defendants. "The parties have been discussing them and do not anticipate any issues preventing their completion," Sherr continued. Sherr's letter was in response to Judge Ramos' order directing the parties to submit a status letter regarding their pending class action settlement negotiations. The Plaintiff brought this putative class action against Go New York Tours, Inc., and its president and owner, Asen Kostadinov on March 27, 2015. The Court at that time granted in part and denied in part the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment." On April 10, 2023, the parties informed the Court they were engaging in private mediation. Subsequently, on December 5, 2023, the parties informed the Court that they were preparing a settlement agreement and "once executed, anticipated moving to preliminarily approve a class action settlement." On July 16, 2024, the Court directed the parties to submit a status letter by July 23, 2024 advising the Court on how they wished to proceed, including whether they intended to submit a settlement agreement for Cheeks review. On July 24, 2024, the parties informed the Court that they were "working on finalizing a class action settlement and preparing to move, pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to preliminarily approve that class action settlement. According to the Court, the parties also noted that they would seek approval pursuant to Cheeks in combination with the motion for final approval of the class action settlement. On April 14, 2025, the Court directed the parties to submit a status letter by April 18, 2025. On April 17, 2025, the parties filed a status letter informing the Court that they are finalizing a class action settlement and that the Plaintiff expected to share proposed motion papers with Defendants in the next few weeks. The Court observed that since then, there has been no activity in this case and therefore, the Court ordered the parties to submit a status letter by July 18, 2025. A copy of the Court's order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xrkZoa GOLDBELY INC: Faces Mackey Suit Over Telephonic Sales Calls ----------------------------------------------------------- HUNTER MACKEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GOLDBELY, INC., Case No. CACE-25-010321 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., July 11, 2025) is a class action for injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for violations of the Caller ID Rules of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. 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. The Plaintiff alleges 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, the Defendant made Text Message Sales Calls that promoted Goldbelly 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. The Plaintiff is the regular user of a cellular telephone number that receives Defendant's telephonic sales calls. Goldbely 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 Telephone: (202) 709-5744 Facsimile: (866) 893-0416 E-mail: : josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com GOURMET TECH: Kim Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------- JEFFREY KIM v. GOURMET TECH CORP. d/b/a MARCHE MADISON, MADISON GOURMET, LTD. d/b/a MARCHE MADISON, and KYUNG HO KIM, Case No. 1:25-cv-05747 (S.D.N.Y., July 11, 2025) is brought by the Plaintiff and on behalf of all other similarly situated, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against the Defendants for their unlawful actions and to recover unpaid wages, reimbursement of all money expended at the direction of the Defendants, past lost wages, future lost wages, liquidated damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff worked as a manager at Marche Madison from Sept. 26, 2022, to July 6, 2025. Gourmet owns, operates, and does business as Marche Madison, a deli/restaurant, located at 630 1st Avenue, New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is 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 GRANT MONEY: Revell Suit Removed to N.D. Calif. ----------------------------------------------- The case styled as JOHN REVELL, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff v. GRANT MONEY, LLC; KIKOFF INC.; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CGC-25-626107, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on July 16, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-05994 to the proceeding. In the state court action, the Plaintiff has alleged these claims for relief: (1) violations of the Military Lending Act; (2) violations of the Truth in Lending Act; and (3) violations of the Georgia Payday Loan Act. Grant Money, LLC is a California-based company.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Matthew Previn, Esq. Michael Morrill, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 318-6000 Facsimile: (212) 319-4090 E-mail: matthewprevin@paulhastings.com michaelmorrill@paulhastings.com - and - Sean D. Unger, Esq. Kelsey R. McQuilkin, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP 101 California Street, 48th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 856-7000 Facsimile: (415) 856-7100 E-mail: seanunger@paulhastings.com kelseymcquilkin@paulhastings.com HANOVER LIMITED: Faces Moz Class Suit Over Wage-Theft Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------ JOHNATHAN MOZ and EDWIN MEJIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HANOVER R.S. LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, BREEDEN MECHANICAL, INC., and ROXY MULTISERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01158 (E.D. Va., July 11, 2025) concerns a wage-theft scheme affecting laborers working on one of Northern Virginia's largest construction projects: a 439-unit apartment building at Springfield Town Center. The developer and general contractor of the Project, Hanover, sought and obtained permission from the Fairfax County Planning Commission for the construction of the new building, touting its economic benefits. Yet when the workers building the structure for Hanover's benefit were paid nothing at all for more than a month of work, Hanover did nothing -- even after the workers personally complained to multiple Hanover on-site supervisors. Contrary to its purpose of stimulating the local economy, the Project is hurting workers, their families, and the communities in which they live, says the suit. The Plaintiffs bring this wage-theft action against their joint employers, Breeden Mechanical, Inc. and Roxy, and against Hanover as the general contractor of the project. The Plaintiffs are construction workers who performed HVAC-related and other construction work on apartments at the Springfield Town Center, located at 6800 Spring Mall Road, Springfield, Virginia. The Project's 439-unit multifamily apartment building is expected to open in 2026. Hanover is a large, Texas-based real estate company that "specializes in the nationwide development of high-quality multi-family residential and industrial properties." Accordingly, the Defendants cheated the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated by: (a) misclassifying them as independent contractors even though they were employees under state and federal law, (b) failing to pay the Plaintiffs anything for the many hours Plaintiffs worked beyond 40 in a workweek; and (c) entirely failing to pay Plaintiffs anything at all for their last approximately five weeks of work—even after Plaintiffs complained to each Defendant about this wage theft.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark Hanna, Esq. David Rodwin, Esq. Samantha Sloane, Esq. Murphy Anderson PLLC 1401 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 223-2620 Facsimile: (202) 296-9600 E-mail: mhanna@murphypllc.com drodwin@murphypllc.com ssloane@murphypllc.com HEARTLAND PAYMENT: 33 Taps Appeals Suit Dismissal to 3rd Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- 33 TAPS LLC, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Black Ship LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Heartland Payment Systems LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-13855, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Plaintiffs filed a complaint against the Defendant for breach of contract. On Oct. 11, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the Defendant moved to dismiss on Nov. 10, 2021 for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. On May 22, 2023, Judge Zahid N. Quraishi denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended complaint. On Oct. 22, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed second amended complaint. On May 27, 2025 Judge Quraishi entered an Order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The second amended complaint is hereby dismissed without prejudice. The appellate case is captioned 33 Taps LLC, et al. v. Heartland Payment Systems LLC, Case No. 23-2327, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on July 17, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants 33 TAPS LLC, et al., are represented by: Stephen J. Fearon, Jr., Esq. Paul V. Sweeny, Esq. SQUITIERI & FEARON 305 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 421-6492 Defendant-Appellee HEARTLAND PAYMENT SYSTEMS LLC, successor-in-interest to Heartland Payment Systems, LLC, formerly known as Heartland Payment Systems Inc., is represented by: Ryan T. Kearney, Esq. KING & SPALDING 1180 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 1600 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 572-4656 HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Final Court Hearing for $18.25M Deal Set Sept 25 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that an $18.25 million settlement will resolve a class action lawsuit over Heartland Payment Systems' alleged mislabeling of certain credit/debit card surcharge fees as "program fees." The Heartland class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on May 23, 2025 and covers anyone who used a credit or debit card to upload money to MySchoolBucks to buy school lunches between June 18, 2013 and July 31, 2019. The official settlement website specifies that consumers who did not upload money to MySchoolBucks for school lunches on or after January 1, 2015 are not included in the settlement class and cannot receive a payment from the deal. The court-approved website for the Heartland settlement can be found at MSBFeeSettlement.com. Heartland Payment Systems settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form may receive a pro-rata, or equal share, portion of the $18.25 million settlement after the payment of legal fees and lead plaintiff awards. According to the class action settlement website, how much each eligible consumer will receive from the Heartland Payment Systems settlement depends on how many program fees they paid on MySchoolBucks for school lunches during the relevant time period, and the total number of valid claims that are submitted. "We cannot calculate exactly how much money you have received until the deadline to submit Claims has passed," the website states. To submit a claim form online, class members can head to this page on the settlement website and log in with the unique settlement claim ID found in the email or postcard settlement notice sent out to all eligible consumers. If you do not have a settlement claim ID and wish to check whether you are included in the settlement class, you may do so on the claim-filing page by selecting the appropriate option. All class action settlement claim forms must be submitted by August 20, 2025. A hearing is set for September 25, 2025 to determine whether the settlement will receive final court approval. Payments will begin to be distributed to claimants only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Heartland Payment Systems class action lawsuit alleged that consumers who used the company's MySchoolBucks website were illegally charged "program fees," which the suit claimed were disguised as credit and debit card surcharges, each time they used the website to input money for school lunches. The suit alleged that Heartland Payment Systems was not legally allowed to charge program fees to MySchoolBucks users and that consumers paid more money than they should have to upload money for students to purchase lunch. [GN] HNTB CORP: $490K Class Settlement in Morel Suit Has Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Anthony J. Battaglia of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California grants the motion for final approval of class action and PAGA settlement in the lawsuit styled MATTHEW MOREL, an individual on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HNTB CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00408-AJB-AHG (S.D. Cal.). The settlement provides for, among other things, a "Gross Settlement Amount" of $490,000 to be paid by the Defendant. Before the Court is a motion for final approval of class action and PAGA settlement and a motion for award of attorneys' fees, costs, and the Plaintiff's service payment, both filed by Plaintiff Matthew Morel. Defendant HNTB Corporation filed a notice of non-opposition to both motions. To date, no objections have been filed or otherwise brought to the Court's attention. For the reasons set forth in this Order, the Court grants the Plaintiff's motion for final approval and grants the Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and the Plaintiff's service pay. This wage and hour class action centers around the Plaintiff's allegations that the Defendant failed to reimburse him and the other Class Members for necessary business-related expenses, in violation of California Labor Code, California Business & Professional Code and the Private Attorney Generals Act of 2004 ("PAGA"). The Defendant is an infrastructure engineering and design firm that operates throughout the United States, including eight locations in California. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from Jan. 4, 2021, to July 20, 2021, as a Project Controls Manager out of the Defendant's Ontario, California location. The Plaintiff filed the initial complaint on Feb. 23, 2022, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego, as Case No. 37-2022-00007029-CU-OE-CTL. On March 28, 2022, the Defendant timely removed the case to this Court. On June 9, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim under Rules 8 and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which the Court granted on the papers after briefing by both parties. On Dec. 5, 2022, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which the Defendant answered on Dec. 19, 2022. The parties attended an early neutral evaluation conference with Magistrate Judge Goddard to attempt to reach early resolution of the case on Dec. 21, 2022; however, the parties were unable to reach a settlement at that time. The parties then engaged in informal and formal discovery, including exchange of documents related to the Defendant's relevant policies and procedures and the Plaintiff's personnel file, depositions of the Plaintiff and the Defendant's 30(b)(6) representative, and extensive meet and confer. In the midst of discovery, the parties attended a private mediation with the Honorable Raul Ramirez (Ret.) on July 20, 2023, but settlement was not reached. The parties attended an informal discovery conference with Judge Goddard on Dec. 11, 2023, after which Judge Goddard set a Settlement Conference for Jan. 11, 2024. The parties made significant progress at the Settlement Conference, so Judge Goddard set a follow up Settlement Conference for Feb. 22, 2024. After attending the second Settlement Conference, the parties accepted the mediator's proposal proffered by Judge Goddard, reaching a settlement in principle. Over several weeks, the parties extensively negotiated and revised the terms of the settlement. On May 23, 2024, the parties executed the "Joint Stipulation of Class Action and PAGA Representative Action Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims" ("Settlement Agreement" or "Settlement"). On Aug. 1, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary approval of the class action and PAGA settlement, which the Defendant did not oppose. The Court granted the Plaintiff's motion and entered the order granting preliminary approval (the "Preliminary Approval Order"), which inter alia approved the Notice in form and content, appointed Phoenix Settlement Administrators ("PSA") as Settlement Administrator, set administrative dates, conditionally certified the class, and tentatively approved the Settlement. On May 7, 2025, the Plaintiff filed the instant motions for final approval and for award of attorneys' fees, expenses, and his service payment. On July 3, 2025, the Court held hearings on both motions. To date, the Court has not been made aware of any objections. According to the Settlement, the Defendant will pay $490,000 (the "Gross Settlement Amount"), subject to the Escalator Clause. The Gross Settlement Amount includes the Plaintiff's attorneys' fees (not to exceed 33.33% of the Gross Settlement Amount or $163,317) and litigation costs (not to exceed $15,000), the Plaintiff's Service Payment ($15,000), the Settlement Administration Costs (currently estimated to be $12,500), the PAGA Settlement and Penalty Payments ($9,800), and the Settlement Class Payments to both the Settlement Class Members and the PAGA Employees (currently estimated to be $274,383). For the Class Action Settlement, Individual Settlement Shares to be paid ranges from $10.69 (lowest) to $1,087.10 (highest), with an average Individual Settlement Share of approximately $298.24. For the PAGA Settlement, the average Individual PAGA Payment to be paid is approximately $2.70. Of the total PAGA Allocation, $7,350 (75%) will be paid to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA") as the PAGA Penalty Payment, and $2,450 (25%) will be distributed to PAGA Employees as the PAGA Settlement Payment. Each PAGA Employee will be paid a pro-rata share of the PAGA Settlement Payment portion of the Net Settlement Amount. The Court finds the Settlement meets PAGA's statutory requirements and is fair, adequate and reasonable. The Court concludes the Settlement Administrator's costs are fair and reasonably incurred for the benefit of the Class. Having found the effectuated Notice adequate, the Settlement and Plan of Allocation fair, adequate and reasonable, and the Settlement Administrator's costs reasonable, the Court grants the Plaintiff's motion for final approval, subject to a final accounting of itemized settlement administration costs. The Court finds Counsel's request for 33.33% of the $490,000 Gross Settlement Amount reasonable under the circumstances, given the records, declarations, and testimony provided by Counsel, and considering the complex nature of a class action lawsuit, the favorable result obtained both monetary and otherwise, the lack of objections, and lodestar cross-check. Accordingly, the Court grants the instant motion with regard to Counsel's requested attorneys' fees. Counsel seeks an award of $15,000 for reimbursement of costs expected in prosecuting this action, which Counsel asserts is less than the $16,056.80 actually incurred. Based on the briefing, hearing testimony, and documentation provided, the Court grants Counsel's request for expenses. Finally, in the instant motion, the Plaintiff seeks an award $15,000 for his service as Class Representative. Though the request is high for the district, the Court acknowledges the Plaintiff invested significant time and energy into prosecuting this action, took on risks to his professional reputation, and suffered from the emotional toll of his role. Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiff's request for an incentive award of $15,000. Based on the foregoing, the Court grants the Plaintiff's motion for final approval and grants the Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and his service payment. The Court approves the Settlement, and all of its terms, and directs the parties to effectuate the Settlement Agreement according to its terms, including inter alia that: (i) the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency be paid $7,350 out of the $9,800 total PAGA Allocation; (ii) Phoenix Settlement Administrators be paid $12,500 for its services rendered as Settlement Administrator; (iii) Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP and W Employment Law Group, APC be paid $163,317 in attorneys' fees and $15,000 in reasonable litigation costs for their work as Class Counsel; and (iv) Plaintiff Matthew Morel be awarded $15,000 for his service as Class Representative. The Court further directs the Clerk of Court to close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2vvjewcn from PacerMonitor.com. HP INC: Hall Appeals 2nd Amended Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit -------------------------------------------------------------- DONALD HALL is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss his second amended complaint in the lawsuit entitled Donald Hall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HP Inc., Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-02507-DOC-KES, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is a class action against the Defendant for breach of contract, fraud by omission and misrepresentation, and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. On Feb. 10, 2025, the Plaintiff filed first amended complaint, which the Defendant moved to dismiss on Mar. 25, 2025. On Apr. 23, 2025, Judge David O. Carter granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss and dismissed the entirety of the first amended complaint with leave to amend within 14 days. On May 6, 2025, the Plaintiff filed second amended complaint, which the Defendant moved to dismiss on May 30, 2025. On June 23, 2025, Judge Carter granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's second amended complaint. The appellate case is captioned Hall v. HP Inc., Case No. 25-4534, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 22, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on July 28, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on September 2, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on October 2, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant DONALD HALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Richard Carroll, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD D. CARROLL 11965 Venice Boulevard, Suite 309 Los Angeles, CA 90066 Defendant-Appellee HP INC. is represented by: James H. Moon, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP 350 S. Grand Avenue, 27th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 - and - Scott R. Commerson, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP 50 California Street, 23rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 HYATT CORPORATION: Jimenez's Bid to Compel Production OK'd in Part ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Flor Jimenez, Plaintiff v. Hyatt Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-03028-TLN-CSK (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Chi Soo Kim of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiff's motion to compel document production. The Plaintiff wants the Defendant to further respond to Plaintiff's Requests for Production ("RFP"), Set One, and Plaintiff's Interrogatories, Set One. The Court granted in part Plaintiff's motion to compel as to RFP Nos. 7, 13, 18, and 22. By close of business July 22, 2025, Defendant shall produce and supplement its responses, producing responsive documents from January 1, 2022 to December 31, 2024 that relate to Defendant's website as to its California-related webpages. A hearing was held on June 20, 2025, where Jesenia Martinez appeared as counsel for Plaintiff, and Nathan Chapman and Jonathan Marvisi appeared as counsel for Defendant. At the hearing, the Court granted in part and denied in part a portion of Plaintiff's motion to compel, and ordered Plaintiff to file a supplemental brief to address the remaining discovery requests in dispute. The Court noted that "Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defence and proportional to the needs of the case." In this putative class action case, certification-related discovery is different than merits discovery, though there may be some overlap. Plaintiff has the burden and must make a prima facie showing that the discovery requested is likely to substantiate class allegations. The Court issued the following initial orders: Mobile App: Denied as to all of Plaintiff's RFPs and Interrogatories related to Defendant's mobile app where the Complaint does not challenge Defendant's mobile app. RFP Nos. 2 and 3: Where Defendant has proposed searching for and producing responsive WCAG compliance-related documents, Defendant shall produce and supplement its responses by close of business 7/7/2025, responsive documents from January 1, 2022 to December 31, 2024 that relate to Defendant's website as to its California-related webpages. 3. RFP Nos. 4-6, 17, 20, 26-29, 32-35, 38-50: Denied. 4. RFP No. 25: Granted in part. Defendant shall produce and supplement its response by close of business 7/7/2025 as to website accessibility plans for visually impaired individuals from January 1, 2022 to December 31, 2024 that relate to Defendant's website as to its California-related webpages. 5. RFP No. 30: Granted in part. Defendant shall produce and supplement its response by close of business 7/7/2025 as to visitors who accessed Defendant's website as to its California-related webpages with a screen reader from January 1, 2022 to December 31, 2024. 6. RFP No. 31: Denied as moot based on Defendant's representation that all responsive documents have been produced. 7. Interrogatory Nos. 8, 9, 12 & 24:** Defendant is ordered to complete its production and supplement its responses by close of business 7/7/2025. 8. Interrogatory Nos. 2-7, 10, 11, 14, 16, 18, and 25-27:** Denied. RFP Nos. 7, 13, 18, and 22: The Court granted in part Plaintiff's motion to compel as to these requests, which Plaintiff confirmed represent barriers that she encountered on May 15, 2023 and/or October 29, 2023 when she visited Defendant's website. By close of business July 22, 2025, Defendant shall produce and supplement its responses, producing responsive documents from January 1, 2022 to December 31, 2024 that relate to Defendant's website as to its California-related webpages. RFP Nos. 8, 9, 15, 16, 19, and 21: The Court denied Plaintiff's motion to compel as to these requests. Plaintiff has not met her burden to make a prima facie showing that these RFPs are related to class certification. Plaintiff indicated that she lacks information as to whether she encountered the issues raised in these RFPs. RFP No. 10: The Court denied Plaintiff's motion to compel as this request is overly broad and goes beyond the accessibility barriers Plaintiff actually encountered on May 15, 2023 or October 29, 2023. RFP Nos. 11 and 12: The Court denied Plaintiff's motion to compel as irrelevant and not related to class certification. Plaintiff conceded that she did not encounter these accessibility barriers. RFP Nos. 14 and 23: The Court denied Plaintiff's motion to compel as Plaintiff has not met her burden to make a prima facie showing that these RFPs are related to class certification. RFP No. 24: The Court denied Plaintiff's motion to compel as this request is overbroad and duplicative of RFP No. 7. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dMqKhQ HYDE SCHOOL: Faces Fuller Suit Over Child Exploitation Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA FULLER, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. HYDE SCHOOL; LAURA GAULD; MALCOLM GAULD; GEORGIA GAULD MACMILLAN; MALCOLM MACMILLAN; LAURIE GAULD HURD, Case No. 2:25-cv-00354-NT (D. Maine, July 11, 2025) exposes a systematic child exploitation scheme operating under the guise of "character development" for troubled teenagers. According to the complaint, for nearly 60 years, the Gauld family has operated Hyde School in Bath, Maine as a profitable family enterprise designed to extract maximum tuition revenue from vulnerable teenagers while subjecting them to forced labor, abuse, and exploitation. The Defendants in this action are all participants in what has been collectively termed the Troubled Teen Industry, a multi-billion-dollar network of for-profit residential facilities that prey on parents’ desperation to help their struggling children. Hyde marketed itself as providing a unique and innovative character-building education while systematically concealing and manipulating the abuse and forced labor that all students were required to endure. The Gauld family founded, owned, and has operated Hyde School for over five decades, asserts the suit. For decades, defendants marketed Hyde as a safe, cutting-edge educational facility with "expert staff" promising to foster student self-confidence. Hyde's founding principle is that every student has a unique potential that defines their destiny. They promised families that their children would receive a life-changing education, unconditional acceptance of meeting students where they were, and all in a safe environment focused on building character rather than breaking students down. None of this was true, the suit adds. Joseph Gauld founded Hyde in 1966. He developed Hyde's curriculum, which the school still uses today.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Steed, Esq. ISLAND JUSTICE PO Box 771 Stonington, ME 04681 Telephone: 207-200-7077 E-mail: john@islandjusticelaw.com - and - Guagenty, Esq. Kimberly Dougherty, Esq. JUSTICE LAW COLLABORATIVE 210 Washington St. North Easton, MA 02356 Telephone: (508) 230-2700 E-mail: kelly@justicelc.com kim@justicelc.com IDEXX LABORATORIES: 16-Month Delay Forfeits Class Action Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ Magistrate Judge Karen Frink Wolf of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine denies the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend complaint in the lawsuit captioned JAMIE LEAVITT, f/k/a JAMIE CAVANAGH, Plaintiff v. IDEXX LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00273-NT (D. Maine). Jamie Leavitt, the Plaintiff in this sex-based discrimination and retaliation case, seeks leave to amend her complaint to allege a class action nearly 16 months after filing suit. Defendant IDEXX Laboratories, Inc., opposes the proposed amendments. The matter arises from Leavitt's employment at IDEXX from May 2011 to May 2021. She was originally hired as a recruiter (a grade level 500 position) and was then promoted to the following roles: (1) junior human resources business partner (HRBP) (grade level 500) in January 2013; HRBP (grade level 600) in May 2015; senior HRBP I (grade level 700) in March 2016; and senior HRBP II (grade level 800) in April 2018. In the fall of 2017, Leavitt began reporting to Zach Nelson. After a colleague began interacting with her in a way that she perceived as "flirtatious" and professionally "distracting," Leavitt sought to distance herself from the situation by asking Nelson to transfer her to a different client group. Instead of taking appropriate action, Nelson gossiped about Leavitt's request to other IDEXX employees with whom he had no professional reason to discuss it. When Leavitt complained about Nelson's conduct to employee relations, his behavior worsened; he gave her a negative performance review; and cabined her in a role she did not want in the hope that she would resign. Leavitt maintains that Nelson's behavior created a hostile, abusive, and retaliatory work environment at IDEXX in which she was evaluated differently from her peers for the same promotions, denied advancement and merit-based salary increases, and eventually constructively discharged. Leavitt filed discrimination charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Maine Human Rights Commission (MHRC) and received notice of right to sue letters on April 15, 2023, and Oct. 10, 2023, respectively. She filed a complaint in this Court on July 13, 2023, and an amended complaint on Nov. 28, 2023, alleging IDEXX engaged in sex-based discrimination and retaliation against her in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as the Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA), and engaged in disability discrimination against her in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). IDEXX was granted two extensions of time to file an answer, and on Dec. 12, 2023, filed a motion to dismiss Leavitt's entire first amended complaint for failure to state a claim. On May 28, 2024, the Court granted the motion to dismiss only as to Leavitt's ADA claim, prompting IDEXX to file a motion for partial reconsideration, which the Court denied on Aug. 7, 2024. Leavitt was granted extensions of time to file oppositions to both the motion to dismiss and the motion for partial reconsideration. IDEXX then filed its answer to Leavitt's first amended complaint on Aug. 19, 2024. On Oct. 28 and Nov. 5, 2024, Leavitt filed motions to stay proceedings or amend the scheduling order in anticipation of the instant motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, which she ultimately filed on Nov. 7, 2024. In response, Judge Wolf retroactively amended the deadline to join parties and alter or amend pleadings to Nov. 7, 2024, and ordered remaining discovery deadlines stayed pending resolution of this motion. In her proposed second amended class action complaint, Leavitt asserts a class action against IDEXX alleging the company engaged in a pattern of sex-based discrimination and retaliation against its female employees in violation of Title VII and the MHRA. Leavitt names herself, Jessica Mayhew, and Molly Hoisser as class representatives bringing claims against IDEXX on behalf of a putative class "of all female citizens of the United States who are, or have been, employed by IDEXX in the United States and have experienced gender discrimination or retaliation at any time during the applicable liability period." Leavitt states there are hundreds, if not thousands, of members of the proposed class. Like Leavitt, Mayhew and Hoisser allege they experienced sex-based discrimination and retaliation while employed by IDEXX, and they have each exhausted their administrative remedies at the EEOC and the MHRC. In this case, IDEXX opposes Leavitt's motion to amend on the bases of undue delay, dilatory motive, undue prejudice, and futility. The Court finds that the nearly 16-month gap between filing the original complaint and seeking to amend it as a class action was too long, especially since Leavitt's attorney had knowledge of potential class members much earlier. Even by August 2024, Judge Wolf points out that when two more potential class members retained her, she waited an additional three months to file. Judge Wolf notes that Leavitt's attorney represented multiple clients with similar allegations against IDEXX for over a year and should have known earlier whether a class action was viable. Granting the motion would have restarted the litigation process, caused major delays, and forced IDEXX to revise its legal strategy, Judge Wolf opines. The proposed class potentially included "hundreds, if not thousands" of members, which would dramatically expand discovery and litigation scope. This was seen as unfairly burdensome to the Defendant. IDEXX argues, among other things, that Leavitt's proposed second amended class action complaint is futile because the allegations therein fall short of the threshold class action requirements under Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure--specifically, commonality and typicality--as well as Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement. The Plaintiff disputes IDEXX's position, stating that it ignores the allegations that the proposed class representatives were "identically" affected by its cultural mandate, or "pattern and practice," of discriminating against women "any time they asserted their rights." Judge Wolf concludes that the proposed second amended class action complaint fails to satisfy Rule 23's commonality, typicality, and predominance requirements, and need not reach IDEXX's other arguments in support of futility. For these reasons, the Court denies Plaintiff Jamie Leavitt's motion for leave to amend her complaint to assert a class action. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2546wc6d from PacerMonitor.com. ILLINOIS: Golbert Appeals Suit Dismissal Order to 7th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------- CHARLES P. GOLBERT, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Charles P. Golbert, Cook County Public Guardian, on behalf of J.B., K.J., M.J., D.M., J.R., J.S., T.W., and named Plaintiffs Janiah C., and E.C., on behalf of themselves and a class of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Marc Smith, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00300, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Plaintiffs filed this complaint on behalf of themselves and a putative class of persons who were allegedly detained by the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services ("DCFS") for an extended period of time without lawful basis. The Plaintiffs sue twelve department officials under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 12132 et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 794(a). With respect to their Section 1983 claims, the Plaintiffs allege that the individual Defendants violated the Plaintiffs' rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Plaintiffs also sue the Department itself under Title II and the Rehabilitation Act. On June 1, 2023, the Defendants moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims under Rule 12(b)(6) and to strike class allegations under Rule 12(f). On Mar. 31, 2025, Judge Martha M. Pacold granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court concludes that because the Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claims are "only nominally against the official[s] and in fact [are] against the sovereign itself," they are barred by sovereign immunity. Thus, the Plaintiffs' Sec. 1983 claims are dismissed. The Court further finds the complaint adequately alleges that the Department was deliberately indifferent to the Plaintiffs' disabilities in funding and managing the placement program, in violation of both Title II and the Rehabilitation Act. As to these claims, the Department's motion to dismiss is denied. The appellate case is entitled Charles Golbert, et al. v. Marc Smith, et al., Case No. 25-2235, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on July 22, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants CHARLES P. GOLBERT, Cook County Public Guardian, on behalf of J.B., K.J., M.J., D.M., J.R., J.S., T.W., and named Plaintiffs Janiah C., and E.C., on behalf of themselves and a class of others similarly situated, are represented by: Russell R. Ainsworth, Esq. Ruth Z. Brown, Esq. Megan Pierce, Esq. LOEVY & LOEVY 311 N. Aberdeen Street Chicago, IL 60607 Telephone: (312) 243-5900 Defendants-Appellees MARC D. SMITH, et al. are represented by: Frank Henry Bieszczat, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 115 S. LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 814-2234 JAMES ALPHA: Victorson Sues Over Risk of Share Price Drop --------------------------------------------------------- TROYT M. VICTORSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JAMES ALPHA FUNDS TRUST d/b/a EASTERLY FUNDS TRUST; MANAGED PORTFOLIO SERIES; EASTERLY INVESTMENT PARTNERS LLC; PRINCIPAL STREET PARTNERS, LLC; EASTERLY SECURITIES LLC; QUASAR DISTRIBUTORS, LLC; TROY E. WILLIS; CHARLIE S. PULIRE; DARRELL CRATE; NEIL MEDUGNO; A. CLAYTON SPENCER; MICHAEL MONTAGUE; ROBERT J. KERN; DAVID A. MASSART; LEONARD M. RUSH; DAVID M. SWANSON; BRIAN WIEDMEYER; and BENJAMIN EIRICH, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-06028 (S.D.N.Y., July 22, 2025) is a securities class action on behalf of all persons who purchased shares of the Fund between May 5, 2023 and June 12, 2025, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants were sellers and offerors and/or solicitors of purchasers of the shares of the Easterly ROCMuni High Income Municipal Bond Fund f/k/a Principal Street High Income Municipal Fund (the "Fund") offered pursuant to the Offering Materials, which constituted the prospectuses for the Fund, and were motivated by a desire to serve their own financial interests. The Offering Materials contained untrue statements of material fact, omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading, and omitted to state material facts required to be stated therein. The Defendants solicited investors for the Fund, including by participating in the preparation and dissemination of the false and misleading Offering Materials, and participating in marketing the shares of the Fund to investors, says the suit. As a result of the Defendants' actions, the Fund was subject to a material undisclosed risk of a sudden collapse in the price of Fund shares. James Alpha Funds Trust d/b/a Easterly Funds Trust engages in business as an open-end management investment company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com - and - Brian E. Cochran, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-8498 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 Email: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com JBS SOUDERTON: Partial Bid to Dismiss Edwards' Claims OK'd in Part ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Robert Edwards, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JBS Souderton, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 23-1789 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike. Defendant's motion is granted with prejudice as to the following claims: * Plaintiffs Edwards, Butts, Meyers, Jones, Prince, and H. Robinson's failure to promote claims; * Plaintiff Prince's unlawful termination claims; * Plaintiff's Edwards, Butts, Meyers, Megginson, Skinner, Prince, and J. Robinson's retaliation claims; * Plaintiff Skinner's FMLA interference claim; and * Plaintiffs Skinner and Prince's FMLA retaliation claims. The motion is denied as to the following claims: * Plaintiff J. Robinson's hostile work environment claim; * Plaintiff Skinner's unlawful termination claim; * Plaintiff Skinner's failure to promote claim; * Plaintiffs Edwards, Butts, Meyers, and Jones's failure to hire claims; * Plaintiffs Myers, Jones, Megginson, Skinner, J. Robinson, and H. Robinson's disparate wage and overtime claims; * Plaintiffs Butts, Jones, and J. Robinson's unlawful termination and demotion claims; and * Plaintiffs Jones and H. Robinson's retaliation claims. Judge Goldberg also denied the motion to dismiss/strike the class action. A copy of the court's order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3OI25t JEMMA GROUP: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Pittman Says -------------------------------------------------------------- DEBBIE PITTMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Jemma Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08095 (N.D. Ill., July 16, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://jemmabag.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. On May 13, 2025, the Plaintiff wanted to purchase a tote bag for her everyday use. She visited the Defendant's website and found out that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by her 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, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, lack of alt-text on graphics, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Jemma Group'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. Jemma Group, Inc. operates the website that offers designer bags and related items, such as jewelry cases, laptop sleeves, insulated bottle pouches, stroller straps, and travel organizers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law JOHN PAUL: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Heagney Suit to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN PAUL MITCHELL SYSTEMS is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Randall Heagney, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. John Paul Mitchell Systems, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00687-VC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The suit is brought under the Defendant's violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act; the California's False Advertising Law; and the California's Unfair Competition as a result of the Defendant's "Cruelty Free" advertisement which is false and misleading. On Mar. 6, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Vince Chhabria granted on June 27, 2025. The motion for class certification is granted, although with respect to a narrower class than proposed by the Plaintiffs. The Defendant's motion to exclude the Plaintiffs' expert witness and the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend are denied. The appellate case is entitled Randall Heagney, et al. v. John Paul Mitchell Systems, Case No. 25-4304, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 11, 2025. [BN] Defendants-Petitioners JOHN PAUL MITCHELL SYSTEMS is represented by: William A. Delgado, Esq. DTO LAW 915 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1950 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Email: wdelgado@dtolaw.com - and - Megan O'Neill, Esq. DTO LAW 702 Marshall Street, Suite 640 Redwood City, CA 94063 Email: moneill@dtolaw.com - and - Donald M. Falk, Esq. SCHAERR JAFFE LLP One Embarcadero Center, Suite 1200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 562-4942 Email: schaerr-jaffe.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: S.A.S.B. Appeals Suit Dismissal to 3rd Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- S.A.S.B. CORP., doing business as OKEECHOBEE DISCOUNT DRUGS, is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing its lawsuit entitled S.A.S.B. CORP., doing business as OKEECHOBEE DISCOUNT DRUGS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-21124, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On Oct. 12, 2023, the Plaintiff filed its initial class action complaint against the Defendants, alleging a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on Jan. 4, 2024. The Court granted that motion, partly on the basis that the alleged Defendants' fax was merely an informational message, and not an advertisement. The Court also found that even if the Plaintiff could cure the complaint and allege facts to somehow support its claim that the fax is an advertisement, the TCPA claim must also be dismissed because the pleading is deficient of factual allegations to support that the Defendants were the sender of the fax. The Plaintiff timely filed an amended complaint on Sept. 30, 2024, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Oct. 31, 2024. On June 25, 2025, Judge Zahid N. Quraishi entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The amended complaint is hereby dismissed with prejudice. The Court finds the amended complaint fares no better than the initial one. Nothing in the amended complaint alters the Court's prior view that the fax fails to notify a potential buyer that he or she can purchase a product, good, or service from the Defendants. Moreover, the fact that a phone number and a website are provided in the fax is not dispositive of whether it is an advertisement. Accordingly, the Court concludes the fax is merely an informational message, and not an advertisement. The appellate case is entitled S.A.S.B. CORP. v. Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems Inc., et al., Case No. 25-2302, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on July 14, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant S.A.S.B. CORP., doing business as OKEECHOBEE DISCOUNT DRUGS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Michael J. Canning, Esq. GIORDANO HALLERAN & CIESLA 125 Half Mile Road, Suite 300 Red Bank, NJ 07701 Telephone: (732) 741-3900 Defendants-Appellees JOHNSON & JOHNSON HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS INC., et al. are represented by: Jennifer G. Chawla, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH 600 Campus Drive Florham Park, NJ 07932 Telephone: (973) 549-7176 JOHNSON CONTROLS: Wins Bid to Transfer Greenberg Case to Wisconsin ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Gail A. Weilheimer of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted Johnson Controls, Inc.'s motion to transfer the case captioned as JOHNATHAN GREENBERG, CHRISTOPHER GALE, ROBERT GIZA, and MICHAEL TURRIZIANI Plaintiffs, v. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-02521 (E.D. Pa.) to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Plaintiffs' motion to compel deposition of Blake Lea Ewing and motion for sanctions for refusal to produce Ewing for a deposition is denied. This litigation, involving both company employees and management, stems from a disagreement over the commission payment structure utilized by JCI in the employment of Plaintiffs Jonathan Greenberg, Christopher Gale, Robert Giza, and Michael Turriziani. Plaintiffs are HVAC Account Executives, who serve as commissioned salespersons of HVAC systems to commercial enterprises through JCI's Horsham, PA branch office. Plaintiffs have been employed by JCI for 12 to 19 years and each has held their position during the pertinent period in question. Plaintiffs commenced this action against JCI on June 10, 2024, alleging breach of contract (Count I), promissory estoppel (Count II), and unjust enrichment (Count III) claims, all of which they allege also amount to violations of the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law ("WCPL"). Judge John Milton Younge dismissed Plaintiffs' promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment claims. Only the breach of contract claim remains. Payment of commissions to Account Executives is governed by JCI's written incentive plan, by which the Plaintiffs have received compensation during each year of their employment with JCI. In this action, the specific incentive plan that is in dispute is entitled "Incentive Plan – HVAC Smart Building, Complex and Account Sales" (the "2023 Plan"). The 2023 Plan went into effect on Oct. 1, 2022 and expired on Sept. 30, 2023. According to [Plaintiffs' representation of the plan, for most sales, Account Executives were due commissions of 6% of the profits of each sale. Of this commission, Plaintiffs were to be paid 20 to 25% of the total commissions at the time a sale is booked, while the balance of 75 to 80% percent of the commissions were to be paid to Plaintiffs over the duration of the project until the job transferred to warranty. The Plaintiffs further allege that irrespective of whether booked jobs were completed during the time when the 2023 plan was in effect or in subsequent years thereafter, the incentive plan required that Plaintiffs be paid all remaining commissions owed one month after the completed jobs went to warranty. At the conclusion of the period that the 2023 Plan was in effect, several of Plaintiffs' booked jobs were not completed to warranty, leaving balances of what Plaintiffs assert they are owed as commissions for said jobs that would later be completed to warranty. According to a spreadsheet provided to Plaintiffs by JCI that tracked their "Estimated Remaining Incentive," Plaintiffs were expecting the following commissions: $188,725 for Greenberg, $137,885 for Gale, $184,745 for Giza, and $206,260 for Turriziani. After the 2023 Plan expired, JCI implemented a 2024 Incentive Plan in November 2023. The 2024 Plan contained a new commission payment structure for HVAC sales that differed from the 2023 Plan, including paying out commissions at the time the job is booked. In addition to implementing new terms for future jobs, the 2024 Plan also provided that JCI would not pay commissions from jobs that were booked under the 2023 Plan but not completed to warranty as of Nov. 1, 2023. As such, Plaintiffs would not be paid the abovementioned commission balances that they expected. Plaintiffs in this case are not the only aggrieved employees suing JCI for its alleged failure to pay commissions consistent with the 2023 Plan. Between January and March of 2024, at least six separate suits in several different jurisdictions allege the same or similar behavior on the part of JCI. Wisconsin Class Action On Jan. 12, 2024, six commissioned salespersons from Kansas and Missouri filed a class action complaint (Novin et al. v. Johnson Controls, Inc., Case No. 2:24- cv-00046-PP) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, where JCI is headquartered and maintains its principal place of business. That complaint was later amended to include 22 complainants from 13 states. JCI asserts that the Eastern District of Wisconsin will be more convenient for the parties and the witnesses. It further argues that a transfer under Section 1404(a) will be in the interest of justice. Plaintiffs contend that JCI has waived the opportunity to move for a change of venue under Section 1404(a) because it did not assert improper venue as a pre-answer defense. The Wisconsin class action involves several plaintiffs hailing from multiple states. Further, the Honorable Chief Judge Pepper has already taken administrative steps to organize the suits against JCI and field related litigation transferred to Wisconsin from other districts. Not only is the Wisconsin class action the first-filed suit, but subsequent cases have already been transferred there in furtherance of efficiency and consolidation. Stated differently, the track has already been laid in Wisconsin to adjudicate claims challenging JCI's compensation practices. Alternatively, were this Court to rule in favor of Plaintiffs and against transfer, it would create a situation in which multiple cases involving precisely the same issues are simultaneously pending in different district courts, leading to the waste of time, energy, and money that Section 1404(a) was designed to prevent. However, transfer and consolidation of this matter accords with "sound judicial administration and promotes comity among federal courts of equal rank." Thus, judicial economy cuts only one way in this matter, and that is in favor of transfer to the Eastern District of Wisconsin, the Court concludes. According to Judge Weilheimer, "Plaintiffs are correct that JCI has waived the ability to challenge the Eastern District as an improper venue under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3). But this is not the substance of JCI's motion. JCI accepts, as it must for the purposes of its motion, that venue in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is properly laid pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1391. According to JCI, the impetus for its motion is not that venue is improper in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, but that convenience of the parties and witnesses, and the interest of justice, counsel in favor of a transfer to the Eastern District of Wisconsin. This argument is distinct from the defense of improper venue under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3). Recognizing this distinction, it is axiomatic that a named party's ability to move for change of venue under Section 1404(a) is unwaivable." JCI concedes that Plaintiffs' initial choice of Pennsylvania weighs against transfer. However, JCI asserts that the weight afforded Plaintiffs' choice of forum in this case is weakened in that the central facts of their remaining claim took place in Wisconsin. In reviewing the whether the claim arose elsewhere, the Court agrees with JCI that this factor weighs in favor of transfer. Plaintiffs' remaining claim sounds in breach of contract. Specifically, the Plaintiffs in the case allege that upon JCI's implementation of the 2024 incentive compensation plan, it refused to pay Plaintiffs their earned commissions under the 2023 Plan. These plans are undoubtably contracts between employees and their employer. A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ym1xgt from PacerMonitor.com. KIMCO REALTY: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Pardo Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO v. KIMCO REALTY CORPORATION; SUNSHINE RETAIL INVESTMENTS, LLC; and WESTCHESTER COOKIE CO, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-23115-CMA (S.D. Fla., July 11, 2025) is a class action seeking injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant owns, operates and/or oversees the commercial property; to include its general parking lot, parking spots, and entrance access and path of travel specific to the tenant business therein and all other common areas open to the public located within the commercial property. The Plaintiff contends that the he found the commercial property and commercial mini mart business located within the commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. He encountered architectural barriers at the commercial property and commercial mini mart business located within the commercial property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises, says the Plaintiff. The Defendant owned and/or operated a commercial retail business within the Commercial Property located at 8855 Coral Way, Miami, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfredo Garcia-Menocal,Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 553-3464 E-Mail: aquezada@lawgmp.com 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 Telephone: (305) 350-3103 E-Mail: rdiego@lawgmp.com ramon@rjdiegolaw.com KVDAR INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Ortiz Says ---------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH ORTIZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KVDAR INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00643 (W.D.N.Y., July 17, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://vandangfragrances.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, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on July 11, 2025, in an attempt to purchase a Room & Linen Mist - Buddhapada from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, he encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff 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. He was able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's Website. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. KVDAR Inc. operates the website that offers a variety of fragrances.[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 LEDGER SAS: Baton Appeals Denied Motion for Entry of Judgment ------------------------------------------------------------- EDWARD BATON, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion for entry of judgment under Rule 54(b) in the lawsuit entitled Edward Baton, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Ledger SAS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-02470-EMC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs' claims arise of two security incidents involving data breaches exposing their contact information. First, the Plaintiffs allege that between April and June 2020, rogue Shopify, Inc. employees exported a trove of data, including Ledger's customer transactional records. Shopify allegedly publicly announced the theft on Sept. 22, 2020, which involved the data of approximately 272,000 people. The Plaintiffs allege that Ledger did not inform them that their data was involved in the Shopify breach at that time. Second, the Plaintiffs allege that Ledger publicly announced that an unauthorized third-party gained access to Ledger's e-commerce database through an application programming interface key on June 25, 2020 and acquired the email addresses of one million customers and physical contact information of 9,500 customers. They allege that Ledger did not disclose that the attack on its website and the theft of Shopify's data was connected, that Ledger downplayed the scale of the actual attack, and, as a result, the Plaintiffs and the putative class members were subject to phishing scams, cyber-attacks, and demands for ransom and threats. The Plaintiffs contend that Ledger knew that its customer list was highly valuable to hackers, because it was a list of people who have converted substantial wealth into anonymized crypto-assets that are transferrable without a trace. On July 16, 2024, Judge Edward M. Chen granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss. On Sept. 19, 2024, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss, which Judge Chen granted in part and denied in part on Feb. 6, 2025. On Mar. 7, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for entry of judgment under Rule 54(b), which Judge Edward M. Chen denied on July 7, 2025, and instead, certified under Section 1292 the Court's prior July 16 and Feb. 6 Orders, specifically as to issue whether Defendants Shopify and TaskUs may avail themselves of Ledger's forum-selection clause. The appellate case is captioned Baton, et al. v. Ledger SAS, et al., Case No. 25-4437, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 18, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners EDWARD BATON, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Yana A. Hart, Esq. Brent A. Robinson, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, PC 95 3rd Street, 2nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94103 - and - Glenn A. Danas, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, PC 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 - and - Todd M. Schneider, Esq. Matthew S. Weiler, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY, LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 - and - Jason H. Kim, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KIM LLP 300 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Defendants-Respondents LEDGER SAS, et al. are represented by: Purvi Govindlal Patel, Esq. Christopher Adler, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP 707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 6000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 - and - Moez Kaba, Esq. HUESTON HENNIGAN, LLP 523 W. 6th Street, Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90014 - and - Allison Libeu, Esq. Sourabh Mishra, Esq. HUESTON HENNIGAN, LLP 620 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1300 Newport Beach, CA 92660 LEDGER SAS: Court Denies Baton's Bid for Partial Final Judgment --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denies the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Final Judgment in the lawsuit entitled EDWARD BATON, et al., Plaintiffs v. LEDGER SAS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-02470-EMC (N.D. Cal.). Before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Final Judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) as to (1) the dismissed Defendants Shopify and TaskUs pursuant to Ledger's forum-selection clause; and (2) the dismissed Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") claim against Ledger. For reasons set forth in this Order, the Court denies the Plaintiffs' Motion and instead, certifies its prior orders at Docket Nos. 148 and 167, specifically as to issue (1), whether Defendants Shopify and TaskUs may avail themselves of Ledger's forum-selection clause. The Plaintiffs are customers, who purchased a Ledger SAS hardware wallet to protect their cryptocurrency assets. Ledger's hardware wallets store customer's "private keys" for their crypto-assets. The private keys are similar to a bank-account password in that the private key can be used to allow an individual to transfer their crypto-assets. In 2020, Ledger's customer database was hacked, and the Plaintiffs' personal identifying information ("PII") was accessed by hackers. The Plaintiffs bring a putative class action seeking redress for harms they allegedly suffered stemming from the data breach. The data breach occurred when two of TaskUs's "rogue" employees conspired with a "California man," who accessed and distributed Ledger users' PII. The Plaintiffs brought this action against Ledger, Shopify, and TaskUs. Shopify is Ledger's subcontractor, who helps Ledger handle purchases over its website. Shopify was dismissed from the case for forum non conveniens in the last round of briefing based on a forum-selection clause. TaskUs is Shopify's subcontractor, who helps Shopify with Ledger's customer service operations. The alleged breach was instigated by employees or agents of TaskUs. Previously, the Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint ("FAC") against Ledger for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs appealed and the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part (Baton v. Ledger SAS, 2022 WL 17352192, at *3 (9th Cir. 2022)). The Ninth Circuit explained that Ledger's forum selection clause was enforceable and that the Plaintiffs remaining claims against Ledger should be sent to France, except with respect to the Plaintiffs, who are California resident plaintiffs bringing class action claims under California consumer law (Baton v. Ledger SAS, No. 21-17036, 2022 WL 17352192, at *2 (9th Cir. Dec. 1, 2022)) Those limited claims against Ledger remain in this Court. Upon remand, the Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"). In this Court's Order re: the Motion to Dismiss the SAC ("Prior Order SAC"), the Court found the "Plaintiffs have standing except with respect to Mr. Seirafi's injunctive relief claim against Ledger, the California Consumer Subclass is stricken with leave to amend, the Court has personal jurisdiction over Shopify and TaskUs, Ledger's forum selection clause does not apply to Plaintiffs' Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") claim against Ledger, and Shopify may avail itself of Ledger's forum selection clause." Further with respect to Ledger's Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court said the Plaintiffs have plausibly pled a UCL claim under the "unfair" and "unlawful" prongs, but the Plaintiffs' CRLA and "fraudulent" UCL claim is dismissed. With respect to TaskUs's Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Plaintiffs have plausibly pled a negligence claim and a New York Deceptive Trade Practices Act claim, but the Plaintiff's negligence per se claim is dismissed. This effectively removed Shopify from this case (based on enforceability of the forum selection clause), left only UCL and CLRA claims against Ledger, and left unresolved several claims against TaskUs. Defendant TaskUs then brought a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens arguing it is similarly situated to and is as "closely related" as Shopify for purposes of enforceability of the forum selection clause. It, thus, argued should it similarly be dismissed. Defendant Ledger also brought another motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint ("TAC") arguing Plaintiff Seirafi (a) lacks Article III standing for injunctive relief; (b) Seirafi fails to satisfy basic pleading standards and the heightened pleading standard for his UCL and CLRA claims, which sound in fraud; (c) Seirafi fails to state a claim for relief under the UCL or CLRA; and (d) Seirafi's California Consumer Subclass allegations are facially overbroad. The Court granted Defendant TaskUs's Motion and granted in part and denied in part Defendant Ledger's Motion ("Prior Order TAC"). Specifically, the Court concluded TaskUs may avail itself of Ledger's forum selection clause as an agent (or sub-agent) or third-party vendor to the Ledger contract. TaskUs was, thus, dismissed from the case. The Plaintiff's CLRA claim and UCL claim under the "fraudulent" prong of the UCL were dismissed as inadequately pled in the third amended complaint. The Plaintiffs' third cause of action against Ledger under the "unjust" and "unlawful" prongs of the UCL is all that remains in this Court. The Plaintiffs now ask the Court to enter partial final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) as to (1) the dismissed Defendants Shopify and TaskUs pursuant to Ledger's forum-selection clause; and (2) the dismissed CLRA claim against Ledger. As an alternative to entry of partial judgment under Rule 54(b), the Plaintiffs ask for certification of the questions under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b). Issue 1: Dismissing Defendants Shopify and TaskUs pursuant to Ledger's forum-selection clause The Court concludes that certification of an interlocutory appeal is appropriate. It acknowledges, however, that Section 1292(b) provides for an interlocutory appeal of "an order," and not, e.g., an issue within that order. The Court's two 12(b)(6) orders addressed not only whether non-parties to a contract may enforce a forum-selection clause, but the sustainability of a number of other substantive claims brought by the Plaintiffs. For these reasons, the Court certifies its prior two order on motions to dismiss for an interlocutory appeal, but it does so only because such is warranted by reason of the issue whether Shopify and TaskUs may invoke the forum selection clause. Issue 2: Dismissing Ledger's CLRA claim as inadequately pled As to Issue 2, the Court finds it does not meet the requisites for either Section 1292(b) certification or entry of partial judgment under Rule 54(b). As to the former, Judge Chen finds the Plaintiff fails after multiple amended complaints to adequately plead fraud under the CLRA. Judge Chen opines that there is no substantial ground for difference of opinion here. Thus, the Court denies the Plaintiff's motion as to the dismissed CLRA claim. The Court denies to motion for entry of partial judgment under Rule 54(b) but grants certification under Section 1292(b) as to issue (1), whether Defendants Shopify and TaskUs may avail themselves of Ledger's forum-selection clause. It stays proceedings in this case pending a decision from the Ninth Circuit as to whether it will accept the case for an interlocutory appeal. The Parties are ordered to file a status report within one week after the Ninth Circuit issues its decision on whether to accept the interlocutory appeal. This order disposes of Docket No. 170. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3wy63xm3 from PacerMonitor.com. LVNV FUNDING: Shaw Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Reply ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BETSY SHAW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LVNV FUNDING LLC, a foreign limited liability co., and LLOYD & MCDANIEL, PLLC d/b/a LLOYD & MCDANIEL, PLC, a foreign limited liability co., Case No. 4:24-cv-00205-MW-MAF (N.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for leave to file reply in support of motion for class certification. The Plaintiff filed her motion for class certification on June 18, 2025. On July 16, 2025, the Defendants filed their opposition to the Certification Motion, raising a litany of arguments that were not addressed in the Plaintiff's initial motion. LVNV is a company that buys charged-off accounts from companies like credit card issuers and personal loan lender. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=J9dGsZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Jacobson, Esq. JACOBSON PHILLIPS PLLC 2277 Lee Road, Suite B Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (321) 447-6461 E-mail: joshua@jacobsonphillips.com MARTIN MARIETTA: Torre Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Reyes De La Torre, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS, INC., a North Carolina corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive Case No. 25CV122119 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on July 24, 2025, and assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-06229. In his Complaint, the Plaintiff pleads six causes of action and requests civil penalties, attorneys' fees and costs of suit, compensatory damages, general damages, special damages, punitive damages, restitution, and pre and post-judgment interest.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Mike Birrer, Esq. Jordan R. Brownlow, Esq. CARRINGTON, COLEMAN, SLOMAN & BLUMENTHAL, L.L.P. 901 Main Street, Suite 5500 Dallas, TX 75202 Phone: 214-855-3000 Facsimile: 214-580-2641 Email: mbirrer@ccsb.com jbrownlow@ccsb.com - and - Cassandra M. Ferrannini, Esq. Daria A. Gossett, Esq. DOWNEY BRAND LLP 621 Capitol Mall, 18th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: 916-444-1000 Facsimile: 916-444-2100 Email: cferrannini@downeybrand.com dgossett@downeybrand.com MAX INSURANCE: Allegedly Recording Calls, Wilson Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- TERRANCE WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MAX INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 5:25-cv-01839 (C.D. Cal., July 21, 2025) is a class action suit in connection with the Defendant's practice of recording calls to consumers without having first notified said consumers or obtaining their consent to have the call recorded, in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. On April 19, 2025, the Plaintiff placed an inbound telephone call from his personal cellular phone to Defendant in connection with an inquiry about automobile insurance. The Plaintiff dialed Defendant directly and was immediately connected to a representative named Angela, without going through an automated menu or recorded advisement. During the course of the conversation, Plaintiff and Angela discussed coverage options, including the amount of the deductible. At no time during the beginning of the call did Defendant, or its representative, inform Plaintiff that the call was being recorded, asserts the suit. Only after Plaintiff explicitly asked whether the call was being recorded did Angela confirm that yes, the call was being recorded. By that time, the call had already been recorded in part, without Plaintiff's knowledge or consent. At no point did Plaintiff consent to the recording of the call, nor was he provided any prior warning or advisement that the call would be monitored or recorded, the suit adds. The Defendant is a property and casualty insurance agency offering automobile insurance and related services to consumers through California and other states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21031 Ventura Blvd., Suite 340 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Telephone: (818) 619-3774 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com MCKESSON MEDICAL-SURGICAL: Kramer Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Paul Kramer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MCKESSON MEDICAL-SURGICAL INC., a Virginia corporation, Case No. 25-2-14118-7 KNT was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of King, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on July 23, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01384. The Complaint sets forth the following causes of action against Defendant: Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Pay Overtime; Payment of Wages Less than Entitled; Failure to Accrue and Allow Use of Paid Sick Leave; Unlawful Deductions and Rebates; Failure to Pay All Wages Due at Termination; Willful Refusal to Pay of Wages; and Failure to Pay All Compensation Owed.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq. Dean Petitta, Esq. Michael Doering, Esq. April Rheaume, Esq. Justice Law Corporation 751 North Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101 Pasadena, CA 91103 Phone (818) 230-7502 Email: dhan@justicelawcorp.com statavos@justicelawcorp.com dpetitta@justicelawcorp.com mdoering@justicelawcorp.com arheaume@justicelawcorp.com The Defendants are represented by: Peter H. Nohle, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 520 Pike Street, Suite 2300 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 626-6436 Email: Peter.Nohle@jacksonlewis.com - and - Peter V. Montine, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 520 Pike Street, Suite 2300 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 626-6414 Email: Peter.Montine@jacksonlewis.com MEDAMERICA BILLING: Fite Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against MedAmerica Billing Servs., Inc. The case is styled as Alexandria Fite, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MedAmerica Billing Servs., Inc., Case No. 25CV131860 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., July 16, 2025). Medamerica Billing Services, Inc. offers financial services. The Company provides billing, billing record request, coding, accounting, book keeping, and auditing services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Sandoval, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 660 S. Figueroa St., Sky Lobby Los Angeles, California 90017 Phone: (213) 381-9988 Fax: (213) 381-9989 Email: andrew.sandoval@wilshirelawfirm.com MEDICINENET INC: Penning Privacy Suit Removed to N.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case styled as STACY PENNING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEDICINENET, INC. and WebMD LLC, Defendants, Case No. C25-01456, Defendant WebMD LLC removed the suit from the Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on July 16, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-05992 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint for Defendants' alleged violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. The Plaintiff's complaint asserts a single claim for Defendants' installation of Amazon Pixel software on the website www.medicinenet.com WebMD, Inc. provides a full-service Internet healthcare portal. The Company offers consumers medical and healthcare information through its free health and wellness web site.[BN] Defendant WebMD LLC is represented by: Paul A. Rosenthal, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 600 Campus Drive Florham Park, NJ 07932 Telephone: (973) 549-7000 Facsimile: (973) 360-9831 E-mail: 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 Telephone: (310) 203-4000 Facsimile: (310) 229-1285 E-mail: freddy.fonseca@faegredrinker.com kaylee.racs@faegredrinker.com MEDSTAR HEALTH: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $1.35-Mil. --------------------------------------------------------------- William C. Gendron of ClaimDepot reports that consumers whom MedStar Health Inc. identified as having their personal information potentially exposed in a recent data incident may qualify to claim up to $5,000 from a class action settlement. MedStar Health Inc. agreed to pay $1.35 million to resolve a class action lawsuit alleging it failed to adequately protect sensitive personal information, resulting in unauthorized access to employee email accounts and files containing patient and employee data. Who can file a MedStar Health claim? Class members must meet all of the following criteria: -- They reside in the United States. -- MedStar Health Inc. identified them as having personal information that was potentially compromised in the data incident. This includes both former and current patients and employees whose information was potentially accessed between Jan. 25, 2023, and Oct. 18, 2023. MedStar began mailing notifications to impacted individuals on May 3, 2024. How much can class members receive? -- Cash payment A -- documented losses: Up to $5,000 per person for documented losses related to the data incident -- Cash payment B -- alternate cash payment: An estimated $100 subject to pro rata adjustment depending on the number and type of valid claims submitted. -- Medical data monitoring: One year of CyEx's Medical Shield Complete service, which monitors medical and health care data How to claim a data breach class action rebate Class members can file a claim online or download, print and complete the PDF claim form to mail to the settlement administrator. Claims must be submitted online or postmarked by Oct. 14, 2025. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Riddick v. MedStar Health Inc., c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC, P.O. Box 225391, New York, NY 10150-5391 What is required to submit a claim? -- Class members must provide the class member ID number located on their postcard notice. Those who do not have this information but believe they may be a settlement class member should contact the claims administrator. -- For cash payment A (documented losses), class members must provide reasonable and sufficient documentation of their losses, such as receipts, bank statements or other proof of out-of-pocket expenses. -- For cash payment B (alternate cash payment) and medical data monitoring, class members only need to check the appropriate box. Payout options -- Electronic payment (online claims only) -- Paper check -- Medical data monitoring activation code $1.35 million data incident settlement fund breakdown The $1,350,000 settlement fund covers: -- Settlement administration costs: $250,000 -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $450,000 -- Attorneys' expenses: To be determined -- Service awards to class representatives: Up to $2,500 per representative -- Medical data monitoring costs: To be determined -- Payments to eligible class members: Remainder of the fund Important dates -- Opt-out deadline: Sept. 15, 2025 -- Deadline to file a claim: Oct. 14, 2025 -- Final approval hearing: Nov. 4, 2025 When is the MedStar Health Inc. settlement payout date? Payments and benefits will be distributed 30 to 60 days after the court grants final approval and any appeals are resolved. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit alleged MedStar Health Inc. failed to adequately protect personal information, leading to unauthorized access to employee email accounts and files containing sensitive data. MedStar Health Inc. denies any wrongdoing. Both sides agreed to settle to avoid the cost and risk of trial and provide benefits to affected individuals. [GN] META PLATFORMS: D'Ambrosio Appeals Court Order to 7th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------- NIKKO D'AMBROSIO is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Nikko D'Ambrosio, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Meta Platforms, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00678, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief and for damages against the Defendants for the false and defamatory statements made and published by the Defendants concerning the Plaintiff under the Illinois Slander and Libel Act, to protect the Plaintiff's rights to be free from the deliberate unauthorized dissemination of his personal identifying information under the Illinois Civil Liability for Doxing Act, misappropriation under the Illinois Right to Publicity Act, and common law causes of action. On July 22, 2024, the Plaintiff filed first amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim on Aug. 21, 2024. On Oct. 11, 2024, the Plaintiff filed second amended complaint. The Defendants filed motions to dismiss the second amended complaint for failure to state a claim. The appellate case is captioned Nikko D'Ambrosio v. Meta Platforms, Inc., et al., Case No. 25-2231, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on July 22, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant NIKKO D'AMBROSIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Marc P. Trent, Esq. TRENT LAW FIRM, P.C. Two Transam Plaza Drive Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181 Telephone: (630) 682-3100 Defendants-Appellees META PLATFORMS, INC., et al. are represented by: Gary Feinerman, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 330 N. Wabash Avenue Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (312) 876-7700 - and - Andrew D. Finke, Esq. BLAINE & VANZANT LLP 922 Davis Street Evanston, IL 60201 Telephone: (708) 475-5109 - and - Amanda N. Catalano, Esq. TABET, DIVITO & ROTHSTEIN LLC 209 S. LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 762-9450 META PLATFORMS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Deepfake Scams -------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Chen Kugel, director of Israel's National Institute of Forensic Medicine and a public figure, has filed a motion with the District Court to approve a class action lawsuit against Meta. Kugel alleges that Meta enables what he calls a "wave of online fraud," dubbed the "algorithmic sting," through its paid advertising platforms on Facebook and Instagram. According to the claim, Meta's paid advertising tools have become a fertile ground for distributing fake, manipulative, and persuasive content to carefully segmented audiences, with the goal of stealing money from unsuspecting victims. These scams specifically target Israeli users, are conducted in Hebrew, and often impersonate well-known Israeli celebrities and brands. In the class action, filed through attorneys Ohad Rosen and Yael Wiesel of Kalai-Rosen & Co., Dr. Kugel, one of Israel's most senior pathologists, says he recently discovered that his name, image, and even voice have been hijacked for a sophisticated online scam. According to Kugel, sponsored ads on Meta's networks promoted dubious health products using his likeness without consent. One scam used his image next to the Israeli Ministry of Health logo to promote a food supplement for diabetes treatment, a fake cure made from onions soaked in cola. The ads even included fabricated "interviews" and transcripts of things he never said. Later, deepfake videos emerged showing a fake version of Kugel, speaking in his real voice, pushing additional bogus products. The goal was to steal victims' credit card details by exploiting vulnerable people searching for medical solutions. Kugel and the Institute have since received countless inquiries from people exposed to the ads, some asking for more information about his supposed recommendations, others demanding refunds after being overcharged. Some people even considered stopping their prescribed diabetes medication, a proven treatment, to try the fake "solution" falsely endorsed by Kugel. "My good name is priceless to me," Kugel wrote in his affidavit. "As head of the National Institute of Forensic Medicine, my credibility and trustworthiness are critical." The request argues that social networks, with Meta at the forefront, have become the main channel for sophisticated online fraud. A recent Israeli Internet Association report states that scams once spread mainly by text or email have shifted to closed, algorithm-driven platforms like Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube. On these platforms, scammers exploit targeted advertising tools to reach people based on personal data and behavior, adapting scams in real time. Deepfake technology plays a central role. By using AI tools to create fake videos that appear to show respected public figures endorsing scams, criminals create a veneer of legitimacy. For example, the request claims that fake "stock investment" operations now use deepfakes to lure victims into "exclusive groups" on WhatsApp, another Meta-owned platform. Inside these groups, fake stock tips are used to pump share prices so scammers can dump their holdings for huge profits, leaving victims with the losses. The lawsuit says there are two main types of victims: public figures whose identities are forged (like Dr. Kugel) and consumers who fall for the fake content (like a teacher named in the lawsuit who lost thousands of dollars buying shares in worthless companies after being targeted by fraudulent Facebook ads). The plaintiffs argue that Meta's entire business model is built on advertising, which accounts for about 97% of its revenue. "Meta has a clear interest in not truly tackling this fraud, because it profits massively from it," the lawsuit states. They claim Meta fails to block scam ads or monitor them quickly and effectively. Dr. Lior Zalmanson, a researcher in digital media user behavior, provided an expert opinion: "The findings show a clear systemic failure, an economic model that encourages fraud, technology that amplifies it, and an unwillingness to implement real solutions. Meta's platform isn't neutral, it's an active infrastructure for fraud. Unless incentives change, the problem will only grow." [GN] METAL TRANSPORT: Loses Bid to Dismiss Guimaraes, et al. Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Julia K. Munley of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania denied the motions of Metal Transport, LLC and Evans Delivery Company to dismiss the plaintiffs' third amended complaint in the case captioned as EDGAR GUIMARAES and ALEXANDER DURAN, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. METAL TRANSPORT, LLC (individually and d/b/a CENTURY EXPRESS); EVANS DELIVERY COMPANY, INC. (individually and d/b/a CENTURY EXPRESS); CENTURY EXPRESS; ABC CORPS. 1-10 (fictitious parties) and JOHN/JANE DOES 1-10 (fictitious parties), Defendants Case No. 3:24-cv-01232-JKM (M.D. Pa.). Plaintiffs Edgar Guimaraes and Alexander Duran signed owner-operator agreements with a motor carrier and worked as truck drivers. The agreements called for the plaintiffs to be paid a percentage of the revenue from each load transported subject to chargebacks and other deductions by the defendants. In this action, plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated individuals against Defendants Metal Transport, LLC (individually and d/b/a Century Express); Evans Delivery Company, Inc. (individually and d/b/a Century Express); and Century Express alleging that, despite the agreements, they were employees and not independent contractors. As citizens of New Jersey, plaintiffs advance claims pursuant to the New Jersey Wage Payment Law ("NJWPL"), N.J. STAT. ANN. Secs. 34:11-4.1-4.14, for allegedly unlawful withholdings and deductions from their wages as the result of this purported misclassification. Plaintiffs also contend that defendants failed to pay them overtime in violation of the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"), N.J. STAT. ANN. Sec. 34:11-56a. Before the Court are two motions to dismiss plaintiff's third amended complaint filed by Defendants Evans and Metal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Based on the allegations made on behalf of the plaintiffs and the putative class members, Count I asserts violations of the NJWPL regarding the allegedly unlawful deductions. Count II claims that defendants violated the NJWHL by failing to compensate workers with overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours. Count II is asserted on behalf of Duran and the putative class only, not Guimaraes. Plaintiffs seek to certify this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Defendants argue that the third amended complaint fails to set forth plausible allegations that the deductions taken by the defendants were from the plaintiffs' "wages" as that term is defined by New Jersey law. According to the Court, Plaintiffs' allegations are assumed to be true at this posture. The third amended complaint alleges that the plaintiffs drove trucks and made deliveries according to assignments arranged and monitored by the defendants. Plaintiffs aver that they used trucks obtained through a program facilitated by Defendant Evans, and, in Guimaraes's case, in a replacement vehicle provided by Evans. The third amended complaint also contains various factual allegations to support the plaintiffs' position that they worked as defendants' employees and not as independent contractors. Furthermore, plaintiffs assert that they were paid wages from which the defendants took allegedly unlawful deductions. Thus, the plaintiffs state plausible claims for violation of the NJWPL, the Court finds. Plaintiff Duran asserts a claim under the NJWHL for unpaid overtime on behalf of himself and the putative class. Duran's averments in the third amended complaint are straightforward, this is, he alleges that: 1) the NJWHL required defendants to compensate individuals like Duran with an overtime rate of pay when they worked more than 40 hours per week; 2) Duran and the other putative class members worked well over that amount at the instruction of the defendants; and 3) defendants never compensated Duran and others with an overtime rate of pay. In moving to dismiss Duran's NJWHL claims, defendants argue that Duran's allegations regarding overtime are asserted in a general, conclusory manner and fail to allege what he was actually paid versus what he contends he should have been paid. Defendants essentially contend that Duran must plead, in detail, each week in which he worked more than forty (40) hours and was not paid an overtime rate. The Court finds even without granular detail about hours worked and compensation received, Duran's NJWHL claims are plausible on their face in light of the hours that truck drivers are permitted to work each week under federal regulations and the qualms over wage payment as asserted in this case. Although Duran's allegations are not fact-heavy, the Court is able to draw a reasonable inference that the defendants are liable for the misconduct alleged in the third amended complaint. Defendants' motions to dismiss Duran's NJWHL claim will thus be denied. A copy of the Court's Memorandum is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=slJZGh from PacerMonitor.com. MOHAWK GAMING: Light & Wonder Appeals Court Order in Civil Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- LIGHT & WONDER, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Light & Wonder, Inc. et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Mohawk Gaming Enterprises LLC, Defendant, Case No. 650148/2025, in the Lower Court of New York. The case type is stated as Civil Action - General. The appellate case is entitled Light & Wonder, Inc. et al. vs. Mohawk Gaming Enterprises LLC, Case No. 25-04373, in the New York Appellate Division's First Judicial Department, filed on July 16, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners LIGHT & WONDER, INC., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Kevin Joseph Orsini, Esq. CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE 2 Manhattan West, 375 9th Ave. New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 474-1596 NATIONAL COLLECTION : Court Dismisses FDCPA Class Action Claim -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Matthew Gurdack, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Collection Systems, Inc., d/b/a National Credit Management, Defendant, Civil Action No. 24-6916 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Perez of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted Defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice. The Court noted that the alleged misrepresentations by the plaintiff are not material and the complaint fails to state a claim under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e. The Court grants Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Additionally, the Court denies any further leave to amend the complaint, as the amendment would be futile. Gurdack's complaint is thus dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff Matthew Gurdack commenced this class action against Defendant National Collection Systems, Inc. on December 31, 2024. Gurdack filed an amended complaint on January 3, 2025, alleging that Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by using different dates to refer to his debt in the two collection letters it sent him. Additionally, the Court denied any further leave to amend the complaint, as amendment would be futile. Gurdack's complaint was thus dismissed with prejudice. Defendant is a debt collector engaged by Gurdack's creditor. On May 26, 2022, Defendant sent Gurdack its first collection letter, which stated "As of 04/19/22, you owed: $2325.51." On January 4, 2024, Defendant sent its next letter, which stated "As of 5/25/2022 You owed: $2,325.51." The name of the creditor and the total amount owed remained the same in both letters. The line item amounts of fees, interest, and payment or credit also remained unchanged at $0.00 across both letters. Gurdack specifically alleges that Defendant's action constitutes a false, deceptive, or misleading representation in connection with debt collection prohibited under Section 1692e and Section 1692e(10), as well as non-compliance with 12 C.F.R. Section 1006 et seq. ("Regulation F") prescribed pursuant to the FDCPA. Gurdack provides two grounds for relief. The first is that the change in date is a false, deceptive, or misleading representation prohibited under Section 1692e. The second is that the date change violates Regulation F. Gurdack asserts that the use of two different itemization dates is materially false, deceptive, or misleading because it would cause the least sophisticated consumer to be "confused about his or her rights." He further contends that the change would lead the least sophisticated consumer to question whether the two collection letters refer to the same payment obligation, which would in turn affect the consumer's decision of whether to pay. To prevail on an FDCPA claim, a plaintiff must prove that (1) she is a consumer, (2) The defendant is a debt collector, (3) The defendant's challenged practice involves an attempt to collect a 'debt' as the Act defines it, and (4) The defendant has violated a provision of the FDCPA in attempting to collect the debt. Defendant contests only the fourth element—that its use of a different itemization date in its second collection letter to Gurdack violates the FDCPA. According to the Court "To be actionable under Section 1692e, representations must be material—meaning that they must be capable of influencing the decision of the "least sophisticated debtor." The least sophisticated debtor standard is an objective one, where the inquiry is not whether the specific plaintiff was misled, but whether the objective least sophisticated debtor would have been. The standard is less demanding than the reasonable debtor standard because it is intended to protect "naive" or "gullible" consumers. However, the standard prevents liability for bizarre or idiosyncratic interpretations of collection notices by preserving a quotient of reasonableness and presuming a basic level of understanding and willingness to read with care." In sum, if a misrepresentation would not affect the decision of even the least sophisticated debtor, it is not material, and therefore does not amount to a violation of Section 1692e. The Court found that the Defendant's use of a different itemization date in its second collection letter to be immaterial. The change in date does not have the capacity to influence the least sophisticated debtor's decision. It does not make the second letter, or both letters, susceptible to an inaccurate interpretation. The chronological order of the dates precludes the possibility that the most recent itemization of the debt Gurdack received is not up to date. This is corroborated by the fact that the amounts for the line items of interest, fees, payment, and credit remained the same, at $0.00, in the second letter. The Court observed that "Because the least sophisticated debtor is presumed to have a quotient of reasonableness and a basic level of understanding, they would not conclude that a new itemization date bears on their legal rights as a debtor. Itemization dates do not implicate the right to dispute the validity of a debt, nor relate to the debt collection process or the possibility of legal action therein as in Brown or Lesher." Lastly, Gurdack claims that the change in dates could cause the least sophisticated debtor to think that the debt obligations in the two letters could be distinct. Such an interpretation would be idiosyncratic. Both letters were sent by the same debt collector, reference the same creditor, and state the same balance. Even the least sophisticated debtor would understand that the two letters refer to the same debt obligation upon reading with care beyond the itemization dates. A copy of the Court is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kc9Lor NATIONAL EWP: Adams Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------ Austin Adams, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. NATIONAL EWP, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00375 (D. Nev., July 23, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Nevada law. The Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more than 40 hours workweek. However, the Defendant does not pay the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees for all their hours worked, including overtime hours. Rather, the Defendant requires the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees suit out in protective clothing and safety gear fundamentally necessary to perform their job duties, and gather tools and other equipment fundamentally necessary to perform their job duties, "off the clock" prior to the start of their shifts. Likewise, the Defendant requires the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees to change out of and store their safety gear and protective clothing, and store other tools and equipment, "off the clock" following the end of their shifts. But the Defendant does not pay the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees for this time before and after their shifts. the Defendant's pre/post shift off the clock policy violates the FLSA and Nevada law by depriving the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees of wages, including overtime wages, for all hours worked. The Defendant's per diem pay scheme violates the FLSA and Nevada law be depriving the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees of overtime at rates of at least 1.5 times their regular rates of pay--based on all remuneration--for hours worked in excess of 40 a workweek. Likewise, the Defendant's bonus pay scheme violates Nevada law by depriving the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees of timely payment of earned wages for all hours worked, including overtime hours, upon termination of employment, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from December 2022 until March 2025, including in Nevada from August 2024 until March 2025. National is a domestic corporation headquartered in Elko, 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 Phone: (702) 320-8400 Fax: (702) 320-8401 Email: info@rodriguezlaw.com - and - Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 352-1100 Fax: (713) 352-3300 Email: rschreiber@mybackwages.com NATIONAL HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Tate Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ CARMEN TATE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00826 (M.D. Tenn., July 22, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Tate was employed by the Defendant as a nursing assistant. National Healthcare Corporation operates long-term health care centers. The Company also operates homecare programs, independent living, and assisted living centers. National Healthcare's other services include managed care specialty medical units, Alzheimer's units, and a rehabilitation. [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 Email: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com jautry@jsyc.com NATIONAL INDEMNITY: Wins Bid to Dismiss Coleman, et al. Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge John Johnston of the United States District Court for the District of Montana granted National Indemnity Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the case captioned as KENNETH COLEMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00039-JTJ (D. Mont.) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). On Feb. 1, 2023, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint against National. Plaintiffs are mine workers and family members who suffered asbestos-related injuries in Libby, Montana. Prior to this lawsuit, Plaintiffs brought negligence claims against the State of Montana (State) for failing to warn them of the dangers associated with asbestos exposure at the W.R. Grace vermiculite mine in Libby, Montana, resulting in bodily injuries. Plaintiffs settled their claims against the State by one of two settlements: "Round 2", approved by Montana's Eighth Judicial District Court (State District Court) on Jan. 18, 2017; and "Round 3", approved by the Asbestos Claims Court of the State of Montana (Asbestos Claims Court) on Jan. 7, 2019. National provided liability insurance to the State from July 1, 1973, through July 1, 1975. Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages from National based upon the following causes of action: (1) alleged violations of Montana's Unfair Trade Practices Act (UTPA); (2) alleged common law bad faith; (3) alleged failure to advance pay medical expenses under Ridley v. Guaranty National Ins. Co.; and (4) and alleged disgorgement of profits. According to Judge Johnston, "During the legal landscape from 2015 when Plaintiffs filed their claims against the State through the time Plaintiffs settled their claims, National was fully complying with its duty to defend the State on Plaintiffs' claims. Accordingly, while the declaratory judgment action was ongoing and National was awaiting a legal determination from the courts regarding its coverage defenses, the law did not require National to attempt to effectuate a settlement of Plaintiffs' claims. Rather, National's coverage defenses provided it with a reasonable basis in law for contesting coverage and, therefore, National cannot be held liable for acting in bad faith for failing to attempt to settle Plaintiffs' claims." Plaintiffs argue, however, that National's affirmative defense of having a reasonable basis in law to contest Plaintiffs' claims is an issue of fact that a jury must decide. The Court determines that even taking Plaintiffs' allegation that the State's liability was reasonably clear as true, National's duty to attempt to effectuate settlement of Plaintiffs' claims did not yet arise during the legal landscape that existed between 2015 and 2019, when National was legitimately pursuing its coverage defenses. Accordingly, based upon National's reasonable basis in law for contesting whether its policy provided coverage to the State for Plaintiffs' claims, Plaintiffs' UTPA and common law bad faith claims set forth in Counts 1, 2 and 3 of their Amended Complaint fail to state claims upon which relief may be granted for this reason as well. Plaintiffs' fourth cause of action alleges that National violated its duties under Ridley v. Guaranty National Ins. Co., 951 P.2d 987, 993 (Mont. 1997), by failing to make advance payments of medical expenses to Plaintiffs when the State's liability was reasonably clear. National argues the only Ridley demands any Plaintiff made to it were made on Feb. 9, 2016, with a denial from National on March 2, 2016. It argues, therefore, that since all the Ridley claims alleged in the Amended Complaint accrued on March 2, 2016, and Plaintiffs filed their initial Complaint on May 30, 2019, Plaintiffs' Ridley claims are barred by the three-year statute of limitations. National rejected Plaintiffs' Ridley demands on March 2, 2016. The Court agrees with National. In addition to Count IV failing because National had a reasonable basis in law or in fact for contesting Plaintiffs' claims, the alleged Ridley violations fail because they are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. These claims were time-barred as of March 2, 2019. In this case, Plaintiffs' Ridley claims being barred by the statute of limitations is apparent on the face of the Amended Complaint. Therefore, Count 4 of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiffs' fifth cause of action asserts a claim for "disgorgement" alleging that National should be required to disgorge to Plaintiffs the profits it made once they asserted clear liability claims to the State. Plaintiffs concede that disgorgement is merely an equitable remedy and not a substantive claim for relief. Because the UTPA provides adequate remedies at law, Plaintiffs' request for equitable relief must be denied, the Court finds. A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SMmqKA from PacerMonitor.com. NEW BRUNSWICK: Supreme Court Won't Stop Moncton Mothers' Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Katelin Belliveau of CBC News reports that Canada's top court will not review a New Brunswick court's decision allowing a class-action lawsuit by mothers who allege a Moncton Hospital nurse gave them a delivery drug without their consent. The Supreme Court of Canada confirmed Thursday, July 24, on its website that it dismissed a request to review a decision made by the New Brunswick Court of Appeal. The case in question is a class action lawsuit against Horizon Health Network, one of the province's two regional health authorities, and Nicole Ruest, who used to work as a nurse at the Moncton Hospital. The lawsuit filed in 2019 alleges that Ruest gave a labour-inducing drug to Jayde Scott, the representative plaintiff, and other expectant mothers, in the hospital's labour and delivery unit although the women did not agree to it. In February, both Horizon and Ruest sought permission from the Supreme Court to appeal a 2024 decision by New Brunswick's top court, which ruled the lawsuit could move forward as a class action. In a class action, one or more people sue on behalf of a larger group alleging common issues. A New Brunswick Court of King's Bench Justice had previously ruled the class action should not be certified. The Supreme Court of Canada takes a limited number of cases across the country that it deems important to the public. Guy Pratte, a lawyer representing Ruest previously told CBC News, the permission to appeal was sought from the Supreme Court "to clarify the circumstances when class actions are appropriate." In an emailed statement, a spokesperson for Horizon said it would be inappropriate to comment on a matter before the court. The CBC also requested comment from lawyers representing Horizon but did not receive a response. Virginia Gillmore, who will represent the plaintiffs, said between 200 and 300 mothers have expressed interest in being involved in the lawsuit. And although the Supreme Court decision not to allow an appeal was the best outcome for the plaintiffs, she said, the case is far from over. "This decision, it settles a kind of preliminary question," she told Radio-Canada in an interview. "We still have several steps to go before we can even approach a place where we might be looking at settlement." John McKiggan, who also represents the plaintiffs, said they are "very pleased" their case can now move forward. "The class members can finally get full disclosure of everything the Hospital knew about this dangerous situation," McKiggan wrote in an email to CBC. "We will also have the opportunity to question the Hospital and nurse Ruest." Gillmore said the decision makes it mandatory for the hospital to disclose any relevant information "they've been sitting on." "This is great news for all the Moms who have been waiting for answers for the last six years." Ruest worked in the Moncton hospital's labour and delivery unit from 2010 to 2019. Scott alleges Ruest gave her oxytocin, which induces contractions, without her consent, and this led to an emergency caesarian section. Horizon carried out an internal investigation, and Ruest was fired. Both Ruest and Horizon filed statements of defence earlier in the case, denying any wrongdoing. [GN] NEW YORK SCHOOL: Patel Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- PRITI PATEL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW YORK SCHOOL OF INTERIOR DESIGN, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05890 (S.D.N.Y., July 17, 2025) arises from the Defendants' failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information about its current and former students and employees. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. The cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendants failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class' PII. In short, Defendant's failures placed the Class' PII in a vulnerable position -- rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the suit. The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim, having been a former student of Defendant. She brings this class action on behalf of herself, and all others harmed by Defendant's alleged misconduct. New York School of Interior Design is a non-profit private school offering degrees and certificates in the field of interior design.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Linda H. Joseph, Esq. SCHRODER, JOSEPH & ASSOCIATES, LLP 394 Franklin Street, Second Floor Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 881-4902 Facsimile: (716) 881-4909 E-mail: ljoseph@sjalegal.com - and - Raina Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com NICE KICKS: C.D. California Dismisses Jackson Suit W/o Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Brittanee Jackson v. Nice Kicks, LLC, Case No. EDCV 25-543-KK-AGR (C.D. Cal.), Judge Kenly Kiya Kato of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismisses the class action without prejudice. The lawsuit is dismissed for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and comply with Court orders. The Court further ordered that the Clerk of Court will close this action. On February 28, 2025, Plaintiff Brittanee Jackson filed a Class Action Complaint against Defendant Nice Kicks, LLC, asserting a claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. On June 17, 2025, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a response to the Order no later than "seven days from the date of the Order" and specifically warned Plaintiff "failure to timely file a response to this Order will result in this action being dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and comply with Court orders." To date, Plaintiff has not filed a Response to the Court's June 17, 2025 OSC. The Court noted that district courts have sua sponte authority to dismiss actions for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). In deciding whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders, a district court must consider five factors: (1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendant; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. The Court found that the first two factors weigh in favor of dismissal. The Court stated that this failure to prosecute and follow court orders hinders the Court's ability to move this case toward disposition and suggests Plaintiff does not intend to litigate this action diligently. The third factor -- prejudice to defendant -- also weighs in favor of dismissal. The Court explained that "a rebuttable presumption of prejudice to the defendant arises when a plaintiff unreasonably delays prosecution of an action" and found "nothing suggests such a presumption is unwarranted in this case. Regarding the fourth factor, the Court acknowledged that public policy in favor of deciding cases on the merits ordinarily weighs against dismissal. However, the Court determined that it is Plaintiff's responsibility to move toward disposition at a reasonable pace and avoid dilatory and evasive tactics and that Plaintiff has not discharged this responsibility despite having been: (1) instructed on Plaintiff's responsibilities; (2) granted sufficient time in which to discharge them; and (3) warned of the consequences of failure to do so. The fifth factor -- availability of less drastic sanctions -- also weighs in favor of dismissal. The Court concluded that it cannot move the case toward disposition without Plaintiff's compliance with court orders or participation in this litigation and that Plaintiff has shown Plaintiff is either unwilling or unable to comply with court orders by failing to file responsive documents or otherwise cooperating in prosecuting this action. The Court noted that while dismissal should not be entered unless Plaintiff has been notified dismissal is imminent, it had explicitly warned Plaintiff about the possibility of dismissal. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=a9G55M PATREON INC: Court Refuses to Reconsider Decision in Stark Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Brayden Stark, et al. v. Patreon, Inc., Case No. 22-cv-03131-JCS (N.D. Cal.), United States Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denies Lexclaim's Motion for Leave to File Motion for Partial Reconsideration or, in the Alternative, for Partial Reconsideration. The Court stated that reconsideration is not to be used to ask the Court to rethink what it has already thought and that the Court considered Lexclaim's argument already and found it unpersuasive. On June 5, 2025, the Court approved the class action settlement in this case and ruled on the validity of opt-out forms submitted by Lexclaim. The Court concluded "Among other things, the Court found that "the 927 opt-out forms from individual class members who purportedly assigned their claims in this action to Lexclaim, as well as the opt-out form that was submitted in Lexclaim's own name, were invalid 'group opt-outs' that are prohibited under the Settlement Agreement." Lexclaim filed this motion asking the Court to amend its June 5 Order to remove the aforementioned conclusion as according to Lexclaim this conclusion is unnecessary to the Court's finding and relief ordered, because the conclusion that the Lexclaim single opt-out form was invalid was fully supported by the Court's conclusion that the claims were not assignable in the first place. Lexclaim further asserted that the conclusion is "unsupported in the Court's opinion and should be removed for clarity and consistency." Lexclaim argued that the Court did not explain its reasoning in finding that the opt-out form submitted in its own name was a group opt-out and reiterated the argument that its opt-out form cannot be a "group" opt-out as it is a single entity. Lexclaim further contended the Court's conclusion that Lexclaim's opt-out form is a "group" opt-out conflicts with its conclusion that the class members' claims were not assignable in the first place. First, the Court rejected Lexclaim's assertion that reconsideration is warranted under Civil Local Rule 7-9(b)(3), which provides for reconsideration where there has been "a manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order. The Court found that assuming Lexclaim is correct that the Court's conclusion is unnecessary to the relief it ordered, that reason does not establish that the standard in Rule 7-9(b)(3) has been met. The Court noted that the purported conflict between its holdings that 1) the underlying assignments of the 927 class members' claims were invalid; and 2) Lexclaim's opt-out form was also a group opt-out and therefore prohibited under the Settlement Agreement were simply alternative holdings and Lexclaim's manufactured conflict carries no weight. Second, the Court found that Lexclaim violated Rule 7-9(c), which provides that no motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration may repeat any oral or written argument made by the applying party in support of or in opposition to the interlocutory order which the party now seeks to have reconsidered. A copy of the Court's order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ltWY8B PENNEY OPCO: Appeals Denied Arbitration Bid to 9th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------- PENNEY OPCO, LLC is taking an appeal from a court order denying its motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings in the lawsuit entitled Jacy Gamble, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Penney OpCo, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 6:24-cv-01414-MTK, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiff Jacy Gamble brings this action alleging that the Defendant violated Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act by conducting a massive false discount advertising scheme across nearly all of its products on both its website and in its retail stores." The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant advertises perpetual or near-perpetual discounts from a false higher reference price in order to trick its customers into believing the advertised sale price represents a special bargain from the Defendant's usual and regular prices. On Jan. 10, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration, which Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai denied on July 1, 2025. The Court concludes that: (1) the Plaintiff did not agree to the website's Terms and Conditions because the relevant links were not reasonably conspicuous and she took no affirmative action indicating agreement; (2) the Court, not an arbitrator, should determine the scope of the Rewards Program arbitration agreement; and (3) the Plaintiff's claims do not fall within the scope of the Rewards Program arbitration agreement. The appellate case is entitled Gamble v. Penney OpCo, LLC, Case No. 25-4343, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 15, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on July 21, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on August 25, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on September 23, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee JACY GAMBLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Che Corrington, Esq. Daniel Hattis, Esq. HATTIS LUKACS & CORRINGTON 11711 SE 8th Street, Suite 120 Bellevue, WA 98005 Defendant-Appellant PENNEY OPCO, LLC is represented by: Mohammad Keshavarzi, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP 350 S. Grand Avenue 48th Fl. Los Angeles, CA 90071 - and - J. Randall Boyer, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP 650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 - and - Benjamin Brooks, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP 501 W. Broadway, 18th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 - and - Stephanie J. Grant, Esq. TONKON TORP, LLP 1300 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 2400 Portland, OR 97201 PENNYMAC MORTGAGE: Appeals Denied Suit Dismissal Bid to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- PENNYMAC MORTGAGE INVESTMENT TRUST, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Roberto Verthelyi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PennyMac Mortgage Investment Trust, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05028-MWF-JC, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of California's Unfair Competition Law and California Business and Professions Code due to unlawful business practices. On Aug. 20, 2024, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss the case, which Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald denied on Feb. 26, 2025. The Court ruled that the Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that the Defendants violated the Adjustable Interest Rate Act when they failed to adopt an appropriate replacement benchmark under the Act. On Mar. 25, 2025, the Defendants moved to certify the Court's Feb. 26, 2025 Order for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) and for a stay of proceedings pending resolution of the appeal, which Judge Fitzgerald granted on May 5, 2025. On July 17, 2025, the Court granted the motion for leave to file a reply in support of the petition. The petition for permission to appeal is granted. The appellate case is captioned Verthelyi v. PennyMac Mortgage Investment Trust, et al., Case No. 25-4458, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 18, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on July 23, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on July 29, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on August 29, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on September 30, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on October 30, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee ROBERTO VERTHELYI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Catherine Pratsinakis, Esq. DILWORTH PAXSON, LLP 1650 Market Street, Suite 1200 Philadelphia, PA 19103 - and - Nicole Lavallee, Esq. Daniel Barenbaum, Esq. BERMAN TABACCO 425 California Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94104 Defendants-Appellants PENNYMAC MORTGAGE INVESTMENT TRUST, et al. are represented by: Matthew Umhofer, Esq. Jonas Palmer Mann, Esq. UMHOFER, MITCHELL & KING, LLP 767 S. Alameda Street, Suite 270 Los Angeles, CA 90021 - and - Steven Farina, Esq. Melissa B. Collins, Esq. WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, LLP 680 Maine Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20024 PLANET HOME: Class Cert Bid Filing in Gleespen Due June 5, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BENJAMIN GLEESPEN, on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated, v. PLANET HOME LENDING, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00751-SVN (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Sarala V. Nagala entered a scheduling order as follows: Any motion by the Plaintiff to amend the complaint or join parties must be filed by Nov. 20, 2025. The Defendant shall be allowed until Dec. 19, 2025, to amend the answer or join parties. Initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1) must be exchanged by Aug. 20, 2025. All discovery will be completed (not propounded) by May 29, 2026. Motion for Class Certification. The deadline for any motion for class certification is June 5, 2026. A joint status report of the parties shall be filed on or before Feb. 27, 2026. Planet is a privately held mortgage-banking firm. A copy of the Court's order dated July 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bpA3xs at no extra charge.[CC] POSTMEDS INC: Court Finalizes Settlement in Data Breach Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as In Re: PostMeds, Inc. Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 4:23-cv-05710-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California entered a stipulated judgment finalizing a class action settlement. The judgment was ordered on the 8th day of July, 2025, concluding the litigation process for this class action settlement that provides compensation to affected customers whose personal and health information was compromised in the 2023 data breach. On June 17, 2025, the Court entered an order granting final approval of the Settlement Agreement reached between the Settlement Class Representatives, on behalf of themselves and the Settlement Class, and Defendant PostMeds, Inc. d/b/a TruePill. The Settlement Agreement was memorialized in Exhibit 1 to Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. Pursuant to the Court's Final Approval Order, granting judgment and final approval of the Settlement Agreement, and in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54(b) and 58, judgment was hereby entered as to the claims and relief outlined in the Final Approval Order. The Court noted that on July 8, 2025, pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1651, the Court shall retain the authority to issue any order necessary to protect its jurisdiction from any action, whether in state or federal court. According to the Court it retains exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action without affecting the finality of this Stipulated Judgment, and the Parties with respect to the interpretation and implementation of the Settlement Agreement for all purposes. This includes enforcement of its terms at the request of any Party, and resolution of any disputes that may arise relating in any way to the implementation of the Settlement Agreement or the implementation of this Final Order and Judgment. A copy of the Stipulated Judgment is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=acDZz0 PROGRESSIVE PALOVERDE: 7th Cir. Reverses Class Action Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------ Matthew Sellers, writing for Insurance Business, reports that the Seventh Circuit on July 24, 2025, reversed a class action ruling over Progressive's method for valuing totaled cars in Indiana. The case involved Progressive Paloverde Insurance Company and Progressive Southeastern Insurance Co. (together, Progressive) and centered on their use of "Projected Sold Adjustments," a pricing feature in a valuation system built by Mitchell International with J.D. Power. These adjustments were used when only list prices of comparable cars were available and were meant to reflect typical negotiation between buyers and sellers. Heather Schroeder and Misty Tanner, two Indiana policyholders, claimed the adjustments lowered payouts on their totaled cars and breached Progressive's auto policy. Progressive's standard-form Indiana auto policy promises to cover "sudden, direct and accidental loss" from collisions, up to the car's "actual cash value . . . at the time of the loss reduced by the applicable deductible." The policy also states that "actual cash value is determined by the market value, age, and condition of the vehicle at the time the loss occurs" and permits Progressive to use estimating or appraisal systems, including third-party software, to assist in determining loss amounts. Schroeder's 2018 Toyota Corolla was deemed a total loss after a February 2019 accident. Progressive's system valued it at $14,576 after adjustments, including a $655 reduction from Projected Sold Adjustments. The company then subtracted the $500 deductible in making its settlement offer, which Schroeder accepted. Tanner's 2013 Chrysler 200 was totaled in July 2020. Progressive initially valued it at $7,062 after adjustments, including a $549 reduction for Projected Sold Adjustments, and subtracted the same $500 deductible. Tanner disputed the valuation. Progressive re-ran the calculation excluding three comparable cars with the lowest adjusted prices, which increased the valuation by $500. Tanner then accepted the revised offer. In May 2022, Schroeder filed suit claiming Progressive's use of Projected Sold Adjustments breached the duty to pay actual cash value. Tanner joined in April 2023. Schroeder sought to represent a class of Indiana policyholders whose total-loss claims were reduced using this method. The Southern District of Indiana certified the class, reasoning that whether Progressive's use of Projected Sold Adjustments violated the policy was a question common to all class members. Progressive appealed. The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that Progressive's policy did not prohibit using Projected Sold Adjustments so long as the final payout reflected actual cash value as defined under Indiana law. The court found that deciding whether Progressive underpaid any given policyholder would require individualized inquiries into each car's value and comparable sales, making class treatment improper. The case now returns to the district court for further proceedings, with only individual claims left in play. [GN] PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: 3rd Cir. Reverses Class Cert. in Drummond ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled LEON DRUMMOND; LEE WILLIAMS, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; YESHONDA DRIGGINS v. PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY INSURANCE CO; PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED INSURANCE CO, Appellants, Case No. 24-1267 (3d Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reverses the order certifying two damages classes. The matter is on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (E.D. Pa., Civil No. 5:21-cv-04479; District Judge: Honorable Mark A. Kearney), and argued on Nov. 8, 2024. Third Circuit Judge Anthony Joseph Scirica wrote the Opinion. Between 2018 and 2021, each named plaintiff in the putative classes filed a claim with Progressive after a car accident. In each instance, Progressive declared the Plaintiff's vehicle a total loss, triggering Progressive's contractual obligation to pay them the "actual cash value" ("ACV") of their totaled vehicle. That obligation derives from Progressive's "Pennsylvania Auto Policy," which states the ACV is determined by the market value, age, and condition of the vehicle at the time the loss occurs. The Plaintiffs represent a class of drivers who, seeking coverage for their totaled vehicles, allege Progressive systematically underestimated the actual cash value of their cars and so breached its insurance agreements with them. The District Court certified two damages classes. The Plaintiffs allege Progressive's method of calculating each insured's ACV systematically underestimated that value. Specifically, the Plaintiffs contend that one component of Progressive's settlement valuation methodology, the "Projected Sold Adjustment" ("PSA") -- which accounts for the fact that used cars often sell for less than dealers' listed prices -- is categorically improper and should be omitted from the ACV calculation. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs, all of whom reside in Pennsylvania, sued on a state-law breach-of-contract theory. The Panel concludes that proving whether Progressive undercompensated each class member is an individual issue incapable of proof on a class-wide basis. And because that individual issue is the dispositive question of Progressive's liability for breach of contract, the Panel holds both classes fail to clear Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3)'s requirement that common issues predominate over individual ones. So, Judge Scirica points out, the District Court abused its discretion in certifying the classes. Judge Scirica opines that the Plaintiffs brought a contract claim, so they must show that proving whether Progressive breached its insurance agreement with each class member does not require a plaintiff-by-plaintiff determination as to underpayment. Because the Plaintiffs cannot make that showing, the Panel reverses the District Court's order certifying the classes and remands for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/48psp7jk from GovInfo.gov. James M. Brigman -- mbrigman@kslaw.com -- Jeffrey S. Cashdan -- jcashdan@kslaw.com -- Allison H. White -- awhite@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding, in Atlanta, GA 30309; Nicole E. Bronnimann -- nbronnimann@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding, in Houston, TX 77002; Paul A. Mezzina -- pmezzina@kslaw.com -- Amy R. Upshaw -- aupshaw@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding, in Washington, DC 20006, Counsel for the Appellants. Adam G. Unikowsky -- aunikowsky@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block, in Washington, DC 20001, Counsel for Amicus Appellants Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and American Property Casualty Insurance Association. Stephanie A. Douglas -- douglas@bsplaw.com -- Nicole Haelterman -- haelterman@bsplaw.com -- Susan M. McKeever -- mckeever@bsplaw.com -- Bush Seyferth PLLC, in Troy, MI 48084, Counsel for Amicus Appellant Lawyers for Civil Justice. Joseph H. Bates, III -- hbates@cbplaw.com -- Edwin L. Lowther, III -- llowther@cbplaw.com -- Carney Bates & Pulliam, in Little Rock, AR 72202; Jacob L. Phillips -- jacob@jacobsonphillips.com -- Jacobson Phillips, in Altamonte Springs, FL 32789, Counsel for the Appellees. REEL HOSPITALITY: Appeals Court Affirms Judgment in Anderson Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Thomas T. Anderson, et al. v. Reel Hospitality, LLC, et al., (AC 47799) (Conn. App.), the Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's judgment granting in part the Defendants' motion for summary judgment on wage regulation violations. The matter is before Judges Seeley, Westbrook and Norcott. The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's decision that violations of recordkeeping requirements in Section 31-62-E3 of the regulations do not give rise to a private right of action. The court held that this court's conclusion in Nettleton v. C & L Diners, LLC that the requirements set forth in Section 31-62-E3 of the regulations are directory and do not give rise to a private cause of action was dispositive of the plaintiffs' appeal. The plaintiffs, Thomas T. Anderson and Rosemarie Taylor, were employed as servers at Dakota's Steakhouse restaurant in Rocky Hill. Taylor worked from October 2015 through approximately early 2018, while Anderson worked from August 2015 through July 2019. The defendants, Reel Hospitality, LLC, Dakota of Rocky Hill, LLC, and David Melincoff, owned and operated the restaurant. The plaintiffs alleged that they and other servers performed significant amounts of nonservice duties without the possibility for earning tips and were not paid the minimum wage rate for this nonservice work. They sought certification as representative parties on behalf of a class of servers similarly situated. In count one of their amended complaint, the plaintiffs alleged the defendants violated Section 31-62-E3(b) and (c) of the regulations by failing to record on a weekly basis the amount claimed as a tip credit for each server as a separate item in the wage record and by failing to obtain signed weekly tip statements from the servers attesting that the server has received in gratuities the amount claimed as credit for part of the minimum fair wage. In count two, the plaintiffs alleged that Dakota of Rocky Hill, LLC violated Section 31-62-E4 of the regulations because it assigned nonservice work to its servers without segregating the time spent on nonservice work from the time spent on service work and failed to pay its servers the full minimum wage for all nonservice hours worked. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment arguing they were entitled to summary judgment as to both counts and asserted that Section 31-62-E3(b) and (c) of the regulations is directory rather than mandatory and does not create a private cause of action. The plaintiffs argued that no courts have adopted the position that Section 31-62-E3 of the regulations does not create a private cause of action. On July 26, 2022, the trial court issued a memorandum of decision granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment in part as to count one and granting in part the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment as to count two. The court conducted a detailed legal analysis to determine whether the requirements in the pertinent regulation are mandatory or directory and concluded that a violation of the requirements in Section 31-62-E3 of the regulations does not give rise to a private cause of action. The plaintiffs' sole claim on appeal was that the trial court improperly concluded that a violation of the requirements in Section 31-62-E3 of the regulations does not give rise to a private cause of action. They asserted that General Statutes Section 31-68(a)(1) and Section 31-62-E3 of the regulations establish a private right of enforcement for violations of the recordkeeping requirements. The Appellate court determined that the court's reasoning and decision in Nettleton v. C & L Diners, LLC was precisely on point and controlled the disposition of this appeal. In Nettleton, this court concluded that the recordkeeping requirements in Section 31-62-E3(b) and (c) of the regulations are directory and therefore the defendant's noncompliance with those requirements does not invalidate the tip credit and does not give rise to a private cause of action. The Appellate court concluded that the court's conclusion that the recordkeeping requirements in Section 31-62-E3(b) and (c) of the regulations are directory was not limited to the facts of that case. The Appellate Court added "The determination was based on a legal analysis of whether the pertinent regulation is directory or mandatory, not on particular factual circumstances." The Appellate court noted that one panel of this court cannot overrule the precedent established by a previous panel's holding without en banc consideration. The plaintiffs did not seek en banc review of their appeal. Therefore, the court concluded that the trial court properly determined that the requirements set forth in Section 31-62-E3 of the regulations are directory and do not give rise to a private cause of action. Accordingly, the Appellate Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment in part as to count one of the amended complaint. The judgment is affirmed. A copy of the Court's Judgment is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nfCUJC REGAL CINEMAS: Cohen Suit Remanded to State Court ------------------------------------------------- Judge Daniel J. Calabretta of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California remands the lawsuit styled JANISE COHEN, Plaintiff v. REGAL CINEMAS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00770-DJC-CKD (E.D. Cal.), to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento. The Plaintiff seeks remand of this case to state court arguing that the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction because the minimum amount in controversy has not been met. The Court agrees, and finds that the Defendant has not sufficiently demonstrated that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Plaintiff Janise Cohen alleges she was employed as a team lead for Defendant Regal Cinemas, Inc., in their movie theaters from approximately November 2023 through August 2024. The Plaintiff filed this action on Jan. 30, 2025, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento on behalf of herself and other aggrieved employees seeking Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") penalties under California Labor Code section 2698, et seq. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant violated the Labor Code, including failing to pay agreed-upon wages, failing to pay overtime wages, providing inaccurate wage statements, failing to timely pay wages owed at termination, and failing to reimburse business expenses. The Plaintiff also seeks attorney's fees and injunctive relief. The Defendant removed this matter to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction on March 7, 2025. The Plaintiff moved to remand on March 14, 2025. The Court held a hearing on May 15, 2025, with Lisa Bradner appearing for the Plaintiff and Spencer Turpen appearing for the Defendant. The Court ordered the Parties to submit supplemental briefing within seven days addressing the calculation of attorney's fees for amount in controversy purposes in PAGA cases, after which the matter was submitted. The Parties do not dispute that they are diverse, as the Plaintiff is a citizen of California while the Defendant is a citizen of Delaware and Tennessee. Rather, the Plaintiff disputes that the Defendant has established an amount in controversy over $75,000. The Plaintiff's Complaint does not specify an amount in controversy. However, the Defendant alleges in the Removal Notice that the amount in controversy is at least $135,680. To reach this total, the Defendant calculates the PAGA penalties as follows: $5,000 for the minimum wage violations, $4,000 for the overtime wage violations, $4,000 for the meal and rest break violations, $5,000 for the wage statement violations, $2,000 for failing to reimburse business expenses, $5,380 for failing to pay wages at termination, and $500 for record-keeping violations, totaling $25,880. The Defendant also calculates attorney's fees at $109,800. The Defendant amends these calculations in their Opposition, calculating $7,000 for the minimum wage violations, $6,000 for the overtime wage violations, $10,000 for the meal break violations, $10,000 for the rest break violations, $9,000 for the wage statement violations, $4,000 for failing to reimburse business expenses, $5,280 for failing to pay wages at termination, and $500 for record-keeping violations, totaling $51,780 in PAGA penalties. The Defendant also calculates an additional $69,552, the yearly cost of one new full-time employee, related to the Plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief, reasoning that they can reasonably include the cost of adding one full time employee to the Plaintiff's former shift to ensure that the alleged understaffing, and resultant purported Labor Code violations, do not continue at the Plaintiff's former location. Finally, the Defendant calculates an additional $15,927 in statutory damages, statutory penalties, and liquidated damages. Adding these calculations to the Defendant's estimated $109,800 in attorney's fees, the Defendant calculates a total amount in controversy of $247,059. The Plaintiff disputes these calculations for two primary reasons. First, the Plaintiff contends that the Court must discount the portion of the PAGA penalties that will be paid to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA") when calculating the amount in controversy. Second, the Plaintiff argues that only her pro rata share of the attorney's fees may be included in the amount in controversy calculation. The Plaintiff argues that, once these adjustments are made, the Defendant's calculations fail to satisfy the amount in controversy, necessitating remand. The Court finds that remand is warranted here. First, the Court agrees with the Plaintiff that it may only consider her pro rata share of her attorney's fees in its calculations and finds that the Defendant has failed to support its assertion that $109,800 represents the Plaintiff's share. Accordingly, the Court will disregard this amount in its amount in controversy calculation. Second, the Court finds that the Defendant's $69,552 valuation of the Plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief is speculative and unsupported by her allegations. As such, that amount will also be discounted from the amount in controversy calculation. Finally, the Defendant's remaining estimates of $51,780 in PAGA penalties and $15,927 in statutory damages, statutory penalties, and liquidated damages, even if correct, are insufficient to meet the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold. Accordingly, the Court will remand this matter to the Sacramento County Superior Court. The Defendant concludes the Plaintiff's counsel will reasonably spend at least 183 hours litigating this case, totaling $109,800 in attorney's fees. The Plaintiff disputes this calculation, arguing that the Defendant fails to properly parse out only her pro rata share of the anticipated attorney's fees. The Court agrees with the Plaintiff. Judge Calabretta opines that it is well established that the amount in controversy requirement in a PAGA action cannot be satisfied by aggregating the PAGA penalties a plaintiff seeks for their individual PAGA claims with the PAGA penalties sought on behalf of nonparty aggrieved employees. Judge Calabretta finds that the Defendant fails to fully account for the impact of the Plaintiff's representative PAGA claim when estimating attorney's fees. The Court is not persuaded that the Defendant's estimate is so narrowly tailored, as the estimate includes legal work that will inevitably involve the Plaintiff's representative claim, including taking the Plaintiff's and witnesses' depositions, litigating pre-trial motions, and preparing for trial. Further, the Defendant has not demonstrated that the estimated attorney's fees account solely for the Plaintiff's pro rata share by, for example, calculating out the entirety of the attorney's fees that could be sought in this representative action and dividing out the Plaintiff's share. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Defendant has not sufficiently established that the Plaintiff's pro rata share of the attorney's fees will amount to $109,800. For this reason, the Court will not credit the Defendants' estimate of attorney's fees in calculating the amount in controversy. In sum, as the Defendant's amount in controversy calculation for the Plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief is overly speculative, the Court will not include the $69,552 valuation in the amount in controversy. Accordingly, Judge Calabretta finds the Defendant has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the $75,000 amount in controversy is satisfied. For these reasons, the Court finds the requirements for diversity jurisdiction have not been met as the amount in controversy is under $75,000. Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. The case is remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc5b7vzt from PacerMonitor.com. REGIONAL HEALTH: Grossman Suit Balks at Merger Deal With SunLink ---------------------------------------------------------------- KENNETH S. GROSSMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. REGIONAL HEALTH PROPERTIES, INC., BRENT S. MORRISON, KENNETH W. TAYLOR, and DAVID A. TENWICK, Case No. 1:25-cv-03880-TRJ (N.D. Ga., July 11, 2025) arises from a proposed transaction first announced on Jan. 6, 2025, pursuant to which Regional Health Properties would enter into an all-stock merger transaction with SunLink. Specifically, on Jan. 6, 2025, Regional's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with SunLink. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, "SunLink will merge with and into Regional in exchange for the issuance of an aggregate of 1,410,000 shares of Regional common stock and 1,410,000 shares of Regional's newly-authorized Series D 8% Cumulative Convertible Redeemable Preferred Stock with a liquidation preference of $10 per share." Regional's stock price the trading day before the announcement was $1.55 per share. Since then, Regional's stock price has consistently traded at or below $2.50 per share. On April 15, 2025, the Company and SunLink jointly announced that they had entered into an amended and restated agreement and plan of merger. Under the terms of the agreement, each five shares of SunLink common stock issued and outstanding immediately prior to the effective time (other than excluded shares) will be converted into the right to receive: (i) 1.1330 validly issued, fully paid and nonassessable shares of Regional common stock in an aggregate amount of 1,595,401 Regional shares and (ii) one validly issued, fully paid and nonassessable share of Regional Series D8% Cumulative Convertible Redeemable Participating Preferred Shares with an initial liquidation preference of $12.50 per share. On June 24 and 25, 2025, the Defendants filed the definitive Registration Statement and Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction, which, among other things, set July 29, 2025, as the date for a Special Meeting of the Company's shareholders, at which, among other things, they will vote for or against the Proposed Transaction. Accordingly, the Proxy Statement omits certain material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders it false and misleading, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants from taking any steps to consummate the Proposed Transaction or, in the event the Proposed Transaction is consummated, to recover damages resulting from the Defendants' wrongdoing. The Plaintiff is, and has been at all times relevant, the owner of Regional common and preferred shares. Regional, headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia and incorporated in Georgia, is a self-managed healthcare real estate investment company that invests primarily in real estate purposed for senior living and long-term care.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David A. Bain, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DAVID A. BAIN, LLC 1230 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 1050 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 724-9990 Facsimile: (404) 724-9986 E-mail: dbain@bain-law.com - and - Kenneth S. Grossman, Esq. Carl L. Stine, Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP 845 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 759-4600 Facsimile: (212) 486-2093 E-mail: cstine@wolfpopper.com REPLIMUNE GROUP: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------- A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Replimune Group, Inc. ("Replimune" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: REPL). The lawsuit alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse information, including allegations that: (1) Defendants recklessly overstated the IGNYTE trial's prospects, given material issues that defendants knew or should have known of, which resulted in the FDA deeming the IGNYTE trial inadequate and not well-controlled; and (2) as a result, defendants' statements about Replimune's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all times. If you purchased shares of Replimune between November 22, 2024 and July 21, 2025, and experienced a significant loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832, or by visiting the firm's website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/replimune-group/ for more information. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is September 22, 2025. Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law firm for 2021, 2022, and 2023, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content. CONTACT: Corey Holzer, Esq. (888) 508-6832 (toll-free) cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN] REVOLUTION TRUCKING: Court Okays Settlement in Loweth FLSA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Bridget Meehan Brennan of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio approved the parties' joint motion for approval of settlement in the case captioned as MORGAN LOWETH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. REVOLUTION TRUCKING, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-02438-BMB (N.D. Ohio). The case is dismissed with prejudice. On Dec. 24, 2023, Morgan Loweth filed a collective action lawsuit against Revolution Trucking, LLC, James Adams, and Brian Watson. Loweth alleges Defendants misclassified him and other cargo van drivers as independent contractors and paid them solely by the mile to transport goods across the country. Loweth contends he and other drivers are non-exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. He seeks collective relief for denied overtime pay for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week. On Aug. 5, 2024, the Court certified this case as a collective action On April 7, 2025, the parties filed the instant motion for approval of the settlement agreement. The total settlement amount is $30,000. From the total amount, $10,000 will be paid to Plaintiffs. The settlement agreement further provides $16,594.08 in attorney's fees, $402.95 in litigation costs, and a $3,000 service award to Loweth. The Court finds the settlement resulted from arm's-length negotiations between the parties and there is no risk of fraud or collusion. The Court finds the settlement to be a positive result, especially given the award compensates each Plaintiff fully for overtime owed. The Court finds the award of attorney's fees to Plaintiffs' counsel is reasonable, considering the time spent on written discovery and negotiations conducted to reach a resolution. Additionally, the Court finds the litigations costs totaling $402.95 reasonable under the circumstances. The Court approves the agreed upon service award to Loweth in recognition of his service in this action. Because the Court finds the settlement is a fair resolution of Plaintiffs' claims under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Secs. 201, et seq., the motion is granted, the settlement is approved, and the case is dismissed with prejudice. A copy of the Court's Opinion and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bmpp4f from PacerMonitor.com. RIVER CITY: Faces Gardner Suit Over Wage-and-Hour Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ BRIAN GARDNER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RIVER CITY MORTGAGE, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00483-JPH (S.D. Ohio, July 11, 2025) challenges the Defendant's wage-and-hour practices by which it willfully violated its employees' rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. The Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant, working as a loan officer at Defendant's place of business located in Cincinnati, Ohio. The Defendant offers home loans, refinance rates, and expert guidance for first-time home buyers & home purchases in Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kathleen R. Harris, Esq. Scott D. Perlmuter, Esq. 4106 Bridge Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Telephone: (216) 308-1522 Facsimile: (888) 604-9299 E-mail: scott@tittlelawfirm.com katie@tittlelawfirm.com ROCKETREACH LLC: Appeals Arbitration Order in Sant Suit to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- ROCKETREACH, LLC is taking an appeal from a court order denying its motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings in the lawsuit entitled Joseph Sant, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. RocketReach, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-01626-RSM, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Washington's Personality Rights Act, the California Right of Publicity Law, the Illinois Right of Publicity Act, and the Ohio Right of Publicity in Individual's Persona Act. On Dec. 27, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, which Judge Ricardo S. Martinez denied on July 7, 2025. The appellate case is entitled Sant, et al. v. RocketReach, LLC, Case No. 25-4475, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 21, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on July 28, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on September 2, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on September 29, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees JOSEPH SANT, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Tyler Somes, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1100 15th Street NW, Suite 4-105K Washington, DC 20009 Defendant-Appellant ROCKETREACH, LLC is represented by: Matthew Nolan Foree, Esq. WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP (GA) 3348 Peachtree Rd. NE, Ste. 1400 Atlanta, GA 30326 SAGORA SENIOR: Seibert Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- JEANETTE SEIBERT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAGORA SENIOR LIVING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-00829 (W.D. Tex., July 16, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant seeking to recover Plaintiff's unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, Plaintiff Seibert was an hourly, non-exempt employee who routinely worked more than 40 hours per week. Every other week, her supervisor required her to work on-call, which required her to answer the designated on-call phone after working hours and on the weekends. In addition to forcing Plaintiff Seibert to work significant amounts of on-call hours off the clock, Sagora Senior has a uniform company-wide policy that systematically reduces the hours of its non-exempt employees, which also results in uncompensated off-the-clock work. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated routinely worked more than 40 hours in a workweek but were not paid for all their off-the-clock work. As a result of Defendant;s willful and illegal pay practices, the Plaintiff and those similarly situated were deprived of overtime compensation for their hours worked in violation of federal law, the suit alleges. Plaintiff Seibert was Licensed Vocational Nurse who worked at Adante Assisted Living as a residential care coordinator. Sagora Senior Living, Inc. operates the Adante Assisted Living facility.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq. WELMAKER LAW, PLLC 505 E. Magrill St. Longview, TX 75601 Telephone: (512) 799-2048 E-mail: doug@welmakerlaw.com SAZERAC COMPANY: Appeals Amended Class Cert. Order to 2nd Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- SAZERAC COMPANY, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiff's motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Wilbert Andrews, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Sazerac Company, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01060, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, in February 2023, Christina Del Rosario sued Sazerac on behalf of a putative class of malt-beverage purchasers. In Feb. 2024, the Court granted leave to amend the complaint to replace Del Rosario as Plaintiff. On Mar. 15, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Arun Subramanian granted on Jan. 2, 2025. On Jan. 17, 2025, the Defendant appealed the Jan. 2 Order. On Jan. 23, 2025, the Court ruled that it intends to issue an amended order regarding class certification. For this reason, the Court withdraws its prior order, and pending issuance of its amended order, stays further proceedings in this case. On July 1, 2025, Judge Arun Subramanian entered an Amended Order. The Court certifies a class of all persons who purchased the Southern Comfort malt products in the State of New York at any time during the period February 8, 2020, to the date of judgment. Steven Khan's lawyers, Charles D. Moore, Neal Jamison Deckant, and Spencer Sheehan, are appointed as class counsel. The appellate case is entitled Sazerac Company, Inc. v. Andrews, Case No. 25-1759, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on July 18, 2025. [BN] Defendant-Petitioner SAZERAC COMPANY, INC. is represented by: Creighton Magid, Esq. DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP 1401 New York Avenue NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005 SENIOR HEALTHCARE: Faces Griffin Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages ----------------------------------------------------------------- DEBRA JOANN COATES GRIFFIN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. SENIOR HEALTHCARE ADVISORS LLC, Case No. 6:25-cv-01220-AA (D. Or., July 11, 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, and has been for many years, the subscriber and customary user of her cellular telephone number—(541) XXX-XXXX. The Defendant is an insurance brokerage company that makes telemarketing calls to generate new customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq. PERRONG LAW LLC 2657 Mount Carmel Avenue Glenside, PA 19038 Telephone: (215) 225-5529 E-mail: a@perronglaw.com SIMPLY DELICIOUS: Faces Class Suit Over Bobo's PB&Js Oat Bars ------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that Bobo's PB&Js soft-baked oat bars are falsely marketed as healthy, given the "huge amounts" of added sugar per serving in the products. According to the 23-page lawsuit, the grape or strawberry-flavored Bobo's PB&Js bars contain between 15 and 16 grams of added sugar per 60-gram serving, comprising about one-third of the FDA's recommended daily value for sugar consumption for adults. Per the case, about a quarter of the total weight of a single PB&Js bar is added sugar, and the recommended level of sugar consumption per day for children eight to 18 years old is 25 grams, the suit notes. The class action lawsuit alleges that Bobo's employs for the PB&Js bars a marketing strategy "designed to give consumers the erroneous impression that they are healthy" or conducive to good health. In particular, the lawsuit claims that Bobo's intentionally implies in its advertising that its oat bars are healthy and wholesome, using phrases such as "wholesome simple ingredients" and "nutrient dense" on product packaging. Products are also labeled as "Non-GMO," "Dairy Free," "Plant Based," and "Vegan," with imagery of fruits on the front label to further imply natural, healthy qualities, the filing relays. Per the complaint, claims of naturalness—which are perceived to include vegan, non-GMO, and plant-based claims—are conflated by consumers with health value even though, scientifically speaking, naturalness does not necessarily directly correlate to health value, according to a variety of studies and surveys. The lawsuit alleges that Bobo's has intentionally made misleading representations of naturalness to profit off increasingly health-conscious consumers while not actually producing a "healthy" product. The Bobo's class action lawsuit seeks to represent anyone in California who purchased the Bobo's PB&Js soft-baked oat bars within the last four years. [GN] SIMULATIONS PLUS: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Simulations Plus, Inc. (NASDAQ: SLP) resulting from allegations that Simulations Plus may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Simulations Plus securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=42476 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On July 15, 2025, during market hours, Benzinga published an article entitled "Simulations Plus Sees Weaker Demand Persist, Outlook Softens." The article stated that Simulations Plus shares had declined "following the release of [Simulations Plus' third-quarter 2025 earnings report." The article stated that Simulations Plus had reported sales of $20.4 million, representing a 10% year-over-year increase, but this fell short of the consensus estimate of $20.9 million." Further, "[t]his miss followed preliminary third-quarter sales figures released in June, which were already lower than expectations at $19 million to $20 million, compared to a consensus of $22.78 million." On this news, the price of Simulations Plus stock fell 25.75% on July 15, 2025. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. At the time Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Monahan Appeals Suit Dismissal to 5th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTINE MONAHAN, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Christine Monahan, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Southwest Airlines Company, Defendant, Case No. 6:21-cv-887, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. First brought forward in August 2021, the proposed lawsuit alleged that Southwest overcharged customers for flights on unsafe Boeing 737 Max 8 jets and didn't fulfill promises regarding safety and proper pilot training. Plaintiffs Christine Monahan, Renee Iannotti and Lillian Taylor alleged safety concerns after a Boeing 737 Max 8 jet was used during a 2018 Lion Air flight that crashed and killed 189 people. On Oct. 27, 2021, the Defendant moved to dismiss the case, which Judge Alan D. Albright granted on June 9, 2025. The case is dismissed without prejudice. Final judgment is entered in favor of the Defendant. The appellate case is entitled Monahan v. Southwest Airlines, Case No. 25-50559, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on July 16, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants CHRISTINE MONAHAN, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: David L. Hecht, Esq. 125 Park Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 851-6821 SPEARMINT RHINO: Plymer Class Suit Seek Unpaid Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- LACOYA PLYMER, on behalf of herself, as an individual, and those Similarly Situated v. THE SPEARMINT RHINO COMPANIES WORLDWIDE, INC., KATHY VERCHER, an individual, Case No. 2:25-cv-01252 (D. Nev., July 11, 2025) alleges that the Defendants violated the minimum wage and record keeping requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act, seeking unpaid wages, including tips, liquidated damages and reasonable attorneys fees and costs. The Plaintiff began working for Defendants in February 2023 and continued working until December 2023. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated Entertainers primarily worked for Defendants over the last several years and were classified as independent contractors rather than employees and not paid the minimum wage or overtime pay. The Defendants employ Entertainers throughout the Club whose primary duties include providing adult entertainment for Defendants' customers featuring female Entertainers. Spearmint Rhino Worldwide, Inc. operates a chain of gentlemen's clubs whose services include food and beverages to star performances.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: F. Travis Buchanan, Esq. F. TRAVIS BUCHANAN, ESQ., & ASSOC., PLLC 701 East Bridger Ave., Suite 540 Las Vegas, NE 89101 Telephone: (702) 331-5478 Facsimile: (702) 629-6919 E-mail: Travis@ftblawlv.com - and - Carlos V. Leach, Esq. Ryan J. Glover, Esq THE LEACH FIRM 1560 N. Orange Ave., Ste. 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 574-2244 Facsimile: (321) 594-7316 E-mail: Cleach@theleachfirm.com Rglover@theleachfirm.com SUPERIOR PRODUCTS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Sriqui Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ BENJAMIN SRIQUI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUPERIOR PRODUCTS USA LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-61472-WPD (S.D. Fla., July 22, 2025) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Superior Products USA LLC is a premier manufacturer of compressed gas fittings for the industrial, medical, and specialty gas industries. [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 St., Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (813) 340-8838 E-mail: faaris@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com SUSQUEHANNA COMMUNITY: M&A Probes Merger With Citizen & Northern ---------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Susquehanna Community Financial, Inc. (OTCMKTS: SQCF) related to its merger with Citizen & Northern Corp. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, each outstanding share of Susquehanna common stock will be converted into the right to receive 0.80 shares of Citizen & Northern common stock. Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/susquehanna-community-financial-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] SWEET OAK: Oh Sues Over Mislabeled Allulose Zero-Calorie Sweetener ------------------------------------------------------------------ SIMON OH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SWEET OAK PARENT LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-06553 (C.D. Cal., July 17, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for alleged violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the Unfair Competition Law, and the False Advertising Law. According to the complaint, to increase profits at the expense of consumers and fair competition, the Defendant deceptively sells its products in oversized packaging that does not reasonably inform consumers that they are over half empty. Defendant's slack-fill scam extends to its 12-ounce "Allulose Zero-Calorie Sweetener" product sold in opaque containers. The Defendant dupes unsuspecting consumers across America to pay premium prices for empty space, says the suit. The complaint further notes that the Defendant markets the Product in a systematically misleading manner by representing it as adequately filled when, in fact, it contains an unlawful amount of empty space or "slack-fill." The Defendant underfills the Product for no lawful reason. The front of the Product's packaging does not include any information that would reasonably apprise Plaintiff of the quantity of product relative to the size of the container, such as a fill line, the suit alleges. Sweet Oak Parent LLC, a Florida company doing business as Wholesome, manufactures and sells a line of sugar substitutes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY: Becerra-Paez Appeals Dropped Case to 2nd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ DIEGO BECERRA-PAEZ is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled Diego Becerra-Paez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Syracuse University, Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-698, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiff Diego Becerra-Paez brought this putative class action on behalf of all similarly situated Syracuse University students for breach of contract and unjust enrichment stemming from Syracuse University's transition to remote online instruction during the COVID-19 pandemic. On Sept. 13, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which David N. Hurd granted on July 2, 2025. The Court found that the Plaintiff described a student fee that supports, in part, such programs and services as recreational and outdoor education but does not allege that this fee was assessed purely for outdoor programs or purely on-campus, in-person recreation. The Court concluded that the Plaintiff has not identified a sufficiently specific promise by Syracuse University and therefore has not stated a plausible claim for relief. The appellate case is entitled Becerra-Paez v. Syracuse University, Case No. 25-1747, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on July 17, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant DIEGO BECERRA-PAEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, PC One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Defendant-Appellee SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY is represented by: David W. DeBruin, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 1099 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20001 TAMIAMI CENTRAL: Property Inaccessible to Disabled, Pardo Says -------------------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TAMIAMI CENTRAL PLAZA LLC; TOP RESTAURANT MIAMI, LLC; MSRS ASSOCIATES LLC; and RINCONCITO LATINO 8TH STREET INC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-23283 (S.D. Fla., July 22, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants' commercial property at 8500 SW 8th St., Miami, FL 33144, is not accessible to mobility-impaired individuals in violation of ADA. Tamiami Central Plaza LLC is a commercial complex situated in the heart of Miami, Florida. It offers a variety of retail and dining options for visitors and locals alike. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Telephone: (305) 350-3103 E-mail: rdiego@lawgmp.com TC BANCSHARES: M&A Investigates Merger With Colony Bankcorp ----------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating TC Bancshares, Inc. (OTCMKTS: TCBC) related to its merger with Colony Bankcorp, Inc. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, each outstanding share of TCBC common stock issued will be converted, at the election of each TCBC shareholder, either (i) $21.25 in cash, or (ii) 1.25 shares of Colony common stock. Is it a fair deal? Click here for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/tc-bancshares-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.F NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] TCGPLAYER INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hampton Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- PHYLLIS HAMPTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Tcgplayer, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-07874 (N.D. Ill., July 11, 2025) alleges that the Cedarville failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, Tcgplayer.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, prohibiting discrimination against the blind. Because of the Defendant's denial of full and equal access to, and enjoyment of, the goods, benefits and services of the website, Plaintiff and the class have suffered an injury-in-fact which is concrete and particularized and actual and is a direct result of Defendant's conduct. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, the Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services -- all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals -- thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the suit. Tcgplayer.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Tcgplayer. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Reyes, Esq. Equal Access Law Group PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law TEACHERS INSURANCE: Carfora Seeks to Compel Production of Docs -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action styled as Carfora, et al. v. Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America, et al., No. 1:21-cv-08384 (S.D.N.Y.) dated February 10, 2025, Plaintiffs JOHN CARFORA, SANDRA PUTNAM, and JUAN GONZALES (aka Gonzalez) on July 17, 2025, moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(2)(B)(i) and the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire Local Rule 37.1 for an order to compel nonparty Trustees of Dartmouth College to comply with Plaintiffs' Subpoena to produce documents, information, or objects or to permit inspection of premises in connection with its action. Dartmouth College is a private Ivy League research university in Hanover, New Hampshire.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nichlas G. Kline, Esq. SHAHEEN & GORDON P.A. 353 Central Avenue, 2nd Floor Dover, NH 03820 Telephone: (207) 650-9096 E-mail: nkline@shaheengordon.com - and - Joel D. Rohlf, Esq. Patrick R. Kutz, Esq. SCHLICHTER BOGARD LLC 100 South Fourth Street, Ste. 1200 Saint Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 621-6115 Facsimile: (314) 621-5934 E-mail: jrohlf@uselaws.com pkutz@uselaws.com TESTMAX INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hilbert Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- LAUREL HILBERT, v. TESTMAX, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-05969 (S.D.N.Y., July 21, 2025) contends that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, update and operate its website and/or mobile application platforms to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. The lawsuit says that Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Website and therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. While residing in the District of Columbia in February 2025, Plaintiff visited and attempted to access Defendant's Website using screen-reading software in order to take and complete an online course through its Website. Regrettably, he was unable to do so due to inaccessibility issues. Despite his efforts, the Plaintiff was denied a user experience similar to that of a sighted individual due to the Website’s lack of a variety of features and accommodations, which effectively barred Plaintiff from being able to enjoy the privileges and benefits of Defendant's goods and services. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction, actual and liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs 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. Mr. Hilbert resides in Washington, D.C. but routinely visits his parents in New York City, including the relevant time period. In each location, he attempted to access Defendant's Website to complete transactions. Regrettably, he was unsuccessful in completing the transaction due to the inaccessibility of the Website. The Defendant owns and administers the Website https://testmaxprep.com/lsat/login and its goods and services online and has offered them to the general public through its Website, which is a public accommodation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric L. Siegel, Esq. ERIC SIEGEL LAW, PLLC 888 17th Street, N.W., Suite 1200 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (771) 220-6116 Facsimile: (202) 223-6625 E-mail: esiegel@ericsiegellaw.com TEXAS: Appeals Writ of Habeas Corpus & Injunction Order to 5th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- ANGEL GARITE, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled M.A.P.S., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Angel Garite, Assistant El Paso Field Office Director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Warden of El Paso Processing Center, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-CV-171, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. This case arises out of the President's unprecedented peacetime invocation of a wartime law known as the Alien Enemies Act. On May 10, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a class petition for writ of habeas corpus and a motion to certify class. On May 21, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction. On May 22, 2025, Judge David Briones granted the Plaintiff's motion to certify class. The Court certified a class of all noncitizens in custody in the Western District of Texas who were, are, or will be subject to the March 2025 Presidential Proclamation entitled 'Invocation of the Aliens Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren Aragua' and/or its implementation. It is further ordered Petitioner M.A.P.S is appointed class representative of the certified class. It is finally ordered Lee Gelent of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation is appointed lead counsel for the certified class, and all attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas who have appeared in this matter as counsel of record for Petitioner M.A.P.S. are appointed as co-counsel for the certified class. On June 9, 2025, Judge Briones entered an Order granting the Plaintiff's class petition for writ of habeas corpus and motion for preliminary injunction. After due consideration of all the relevant pleadings, the Court finds the following: (1) the Court has jurisdiction over the instant matter; (2) as ordered by this Court on May 22, 2025, class certification is appropriate, Petitioner is appointed as class representative, and undersigned counsel from the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas are appointed as class counsel; (3) Respondents are enjoined from transferring Petitioner and the class from the Western District of Texas pursuant to Proclamation 10903 without advance notice to counsel; (4) Proclamation 10903 is unlawful; (5) a writ of habeas corpus is hereby granted to Petitioner and the class that enjoins Respondents removing them from the United States pursuant to Proclamation 10903; (6) even if Proclamation 10903 were lawful, Respondents must still provide Petitioner and members of the class at least a 30-day notice of their Tren de Aragua (TdA) designation, and an opportunity to respond to any designation prior to a removal date; and (7) nothing in the Court's order shall prohibit the Executive Branch from carrying out detention and removal pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) or any other statutory basis. The appellate case is captioned M.A.P.S. v. Garite, Case No. 25-50580, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on July 22, 2025. [BN] Petitioner-Appellee M.A.P.S., on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, is represented by: Jennifer Babaie, Esq. LAS AMERICAS IMMIGRANT ADVOCACY CENTER 1500 E. Yandell Drive El Paso, TX 79902 - and - Lee P. Gelernt, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 - and - My Khanh Ngo, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 425 California Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (718) 483-5885 - and - Adriana Cecilia Pinon, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF TEXAS P.O. Box 8306 Houston, TX 77288 Telephone: (713) 942-8146 - and - Sirine Shebaya, Esq. NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT 1763 Columbia Road, N.W. Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 656-4788 Respondents-Appellants ANGEL GARITE, Assistant El Paso Field Office Director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Warden of El Paso Processing Center, et al. are represented by: Daniel Cappelletti, Esq. Mary De Anda-Ybarra, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE P.O. Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Telephone: (202) 320-4676 THEUBEAUTY.COM LLC: Ortiz Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOSEPH ORTIZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THEUBEAUTY.COM, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00638 (W.D.N.Y., July 16, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.ubeauty.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, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on July 11, 2025, in an attempt to purchase an OOO Set Vol. II skincare set from Defendant and to view the information on the website, he encountered multiple access barriers that denied him 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. He 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. 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. THEUBEAUTY.COM, LLC operates the website that offers skincare products.[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 THINKING LSAT: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hilbert Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- LAUREL HILBERT, v. THINKING LSAT, LLC, Case No. 1:25-CV-05970 (S.D.N.Y., July 21, 2025) contends that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, update and operate its website and/or mobile application platforms to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. While residing in the District of Columbia in February 2025, the Plaintiff visited and attempted to access Defendant's Website using screen-reading software in order to take and complete an online course through its Website. Regrettably, he was unable to do so due to inaccessibility issues. Despite his efforts, the Plaintiff was denied a user experience similar to that of a sighted individual due to the Website’s lack of a variety of features and accommodations, which effectively barred Plaintiff from being able to enjoy the privileges and benefits of Defendant's goods and services. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction, actual and liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs 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. Mr. Hilbert resides in Washington, D.C. but routinely visits his parents in New York City, including the relevant time period. In each location, he attempted to access Defendant's Website to complete transactions. Regrettably, he was unsuccessful in completing the transaction due to the inaccessibility of the Website. The Defendant owns and administers the Website https://lsatdemon.com/dashboard and its goods and services online and has offered them to the general public through its Website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric L. Siegel, Esq. ERIC SIEGEL LAW, PLLC 888 17th Street, N.W., Suite 1200 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (771) 220-6116 Facsimile: (202) 223-6625 E-mail: esiegel@ericsiegellaw.com TIMBERLINE PARTNERS: Fails to Timely Pay OT Wages, Lopez Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Antonio Lopez Individually and on Behalf of Others similarly situated v. Timberline Partners, Inc., Raymond Leung, and Mihir Shah, Case No. 2573CV00530 (Mass Super., Bristol Cty., July 11, 2025) alleges that the Defendants failed to timely pay and completely pay overtime wages under the Massachusetts Wage Act and Massachusetts Overtime Law. The Plaintiff and putative class members are former and current employees of the Defendants engaged in the sale retail products. Timberline sells mobile device and related products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raven Moeslinger, Esq. Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq. ORTIZ & MOESLINGER, PC One Boston Place, Suite 2600 Telephone: (617) 338 9400 TOMPKINS FOOD: Faces Rosendo Suit Over Wage & Hour Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- GERARDO REYES ROSENDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TOMPKINS FOOD CORP. d/b/a MARKET FRESH SUPERMARKET, KENNY OTHMAN, and MAHDI MOUSA, as individuals, Case No. 1:25-cv-03875 (E.D.N.Y., July 11, 2025) seeks to recover damages for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law arising out of the Plaintiff's employment at Market Fresh Supermarket. As a result of the violations of Federal and New York State labor laws, the Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and liquidated damages. The Plaintiff also seeks interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other legal and equitable remedies this Court deems appropriate. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a stocker and product packager while performing related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants, from May 2018 until April 2025. Tompkin Food Corp. is a food company based in Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 TORMENTER FISHING: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Martinez Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDITH ADELA FERNANDEZ MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TORMENTER FISHING PRODUCTS INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06030 (S.D.N.Y., July 22, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.tormenterocean.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. Tormenter Fishing Products Inc. operates as an online retailer store offering swimwear, and fishing 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 TRANSPERFECT TRANSLATIONS: Must Defend Against Metcalf-Lawson Case ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Michele Metcalf and Hannah Lawson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TransPerfect Translations International, Inc., Defendant, Civil Action No. 19 Civ. 10104 (ER) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Edgardo Ramos of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation regarding the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs Michele Metcalf and Hannah Lawson brought this action alleging that TransPerfect Translations International, Inc., violated various provisions of the New York Labor Law. The claims concern overtime pay that TransPerfect allegedly failed to pay Plaintiffs. Metcalf is a citizen of California who worked for TransPerfect from approximately November 2015 to September 2019. In January 2018, Metcalf transferred to TransPerfect's New York office where she earned an annual salary of $51,000, which amounted to approximately $980 per week. In November 2018, she was promoted to Senior Client Services Executive with an annual salary of $56,000, which was approximately $1,077 per week. During her time working in TransPerfect's New York office, she generally worked over 50 to 55 hours per week. Lawson is a resident of Brooklyn, New York. Lawson worked in TransPerfect's New York office from approximately June 18, 2018, to October 9, 2019. While she initially started as a Project Coordinator earning $43,000 per year, she was promoted in December 2018, at which point she began earning $980 per week. During this time period, she worked an average of 45 hours weekly. On August 18, 2019, Metcalf initiated this action by filing a complaint in the District Court for the Central District of California. She asserted diversity, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a), as the basis for subject matter jurisdiction. On October 23, 2019, the parties submitted a joint stipulation to transfer the case to the Southern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). The federal court in California granted that and the case was transferred to this District. On November 15, 2019, TransPerfect filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint on the grounds that there was no subject matter jurisdiction because Metcalf had not sufficiently alleged the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. The First Amended Complaint added Lawson as a named plaintiff and additional TransPerfect entities as defendants. On December 10, 2019, TransPerfect filed a letter with the Court arguing that the addition of Lawson to Metcalf's First Amended Complaint divested the Court of diversity jurisdiction because both Lawson and TransPerfect are New York citizens. Plaintiffs then filed the Second Amended Complaint on January 13, 2020, asserting jurisdiction based on the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. The Second Amended Complaint alleges that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, including the individual claims of a proposed class of more than 100 individuals. On January 27, 2020, TransPerfect moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. In that motion, TransPerfect did not contest that the amount in controversy threshold for Class Action Fairness Act jurisdiction was met. Rather, TransPerfect argued that exceptions to the exercise of Class Action Fairness Act jurisdiction applied to the case. Following a period of discovery and settlement discussions, TransPerfect subsequently filed the instant motion to dismiss on February 25, 2022, this time alleging that there is no factual basis to support the contention that the amount in controversy exceeds the $5 million threshold required by Class Action Fairness Act. On July 11, 2022, Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker issued the Report and Recommendation. It recommended that TransPerfect's motion to dismiss be denied, and that Plaintiffs' New York Labor Law Section 195(3) wage statement claims be dismissed without prejudice due to Plaintiffs' failure to adequately plead standing to bring those claims. New York Labor Law Section 195(3) provides that employers must furnish their employees with wage statements. Plaintiffs alleged that TransPerfect failed to provide putative class members with wage statements that listed the overtime rate of pay following a change to the New York Labor Law's threshold for earning such pay in New York City. Thereafter on July 25, 2022, TransPerfect filed its objection to the Report and Recommendation's recommendation that TransPerfect's motion to dismiss be denied. It did not object to the recommendation regarding Plaintiffs' New York Labor Law Section 195(3) wage statement claims. Plaintiffs responded on August 8, 2022. They did not object to either recommendation. The Court adopted Judge Parker's Report and Recommendation. Therefore, the Court denied TransPerfect's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed Plaintiffs' New York Labor Law Section 195(3) claims without prejudice for failure to adequately plead standing to bring such claims. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OpbbxW TYSON FOODS: Seventh Circuit Upholds Reduced Attorney Fee Award --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as End User Consumer Plaintiff Class v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-2387 (7th Cir.), Circuit Judge Brennan of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's attorney fee award as modified. The lower court reduced the fee from 30% to 26.6% of the net common fund in the successive appeal regarding attorney fee calculations in the broiler chicken antitrust litigation. The lawsuit is a certified class action lawsuit filed as In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:16-cv-08637, in the Northern District of Illinois. The class action involves consumers who purchased chicken products from major suppliers between 2009-2020, with settlements totaling over $203 million. The case represents end-user consumers who alleged price-fixing by major broiler chicken suppliers. District Judge Thomas M. Durkin presided over the original proceedings. The Court of Appeals previously held in Broiler I that when reconstructing the ex ante market for attorney's fees, the district court erred in two ways. First, the court improperly discounted auction bids made by class counsel in other litigation because the bids incorporated a declining fee scale format. Second, the district court abused its discretion in excluding fee awards from the Ninth Circuit because class counsel, as rational actors, assess the risk of being awarded fees below the market rate of their legal services when they seek to represent plaintiffs in the Ninth Circuit. On remand, the district court awarded a new fee after thoroughly analyzing the parties' arguments. The court first disregarded three bids class counsel had made to represent plaintiffs in different antitrust suits in the six years before filing the suit." These bids "entitled class counsel to between 13.5% and 20% of the recovery amount." However, According to the Court these three bids were poor indicators of the ex ante market, as each case was preceded by a government antitrust investigation. The district court found that class counsel's agreement in In re Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litigation (IRS) case and the current case were good comparators. Under the IRS agreement, class counsel would be entitled to a $47.2 million award, representing 26.6% of the net common fund." However, the court did not award 26.6% here due to a material difference" because the defendants in IRS were large financial institutions with significant assets. The district court created a detailed spreadsheet, compiling data from three sources." The first source included all court-awarded fees to counsel in cases without an ex ante agreement. The second consisted of awards listed in one of class counsels' expert declarations filed by Professor Robert Klonoff with examples of antitrust cases with fee percentages of 33 percent or greater. The third was the 26.6% award from the IRS case which the court found to be a good comparator and counted the award 10 times in its spreadsheet, thereby giving it an outsized weight. The district court narrowed the cases it considered to only those with recovery amounts of $100 million to $1 billion" and excluded three Ninth Circuit outliers of 9% and 11%." The "remaining 49 awards yielded a median of 31% and mean of 29%." The court awarded "30% of the net common fund" resulting "in a fee of $51.66 million, a decrease of $5.74 million from the initial 33.3% award." John Andren challenged the district court's fee award in four ways: First, he argued the court erred in relying on any ex post awards to reconstruct the ex ante market. Second, Andren contended the court erroneously relied on the cases in Klonoff's declaration, which listed only fee awards of 33% and above. Third, he argued that the court should not have excluded the Ninth Circuit outliers from its calculation. Fourth, he argued the court was required to consider the stage at which this case settled and reduce the fee accordingly. The Court of Appeals held that district court did not categorically give little weight to class counsels' bids and negotiated fee structures. The court found that district court soundly exercised its discretion in determining whether those cases served as good indicators of what bargain would have been struck ex ante." However, the Court of Appeals agreed that district court relied on a skewed sample of ex post awards. The court stated that "district courts should consider all evidence bearing on an ex ante award" and noted that when awarding fees, district courts need data rather than cherry-picked examples. According to the Court of Appeals it is difficult to see how the cases in Klonoff's declaration provide a representative sample from which to derive an average award. The Court of Appeals determined that the sole adjustment it makes is to remove the fee awards listed only in Klonoff's skewed declaration. The court explained that it does not change either the spreadsheet's inclusion of awards from class counsels' other cases, or the district court's decision to weight the IRS fee agreement ten times. After making this adjustment, the court calculated the average award is 27.1%, with a median of 26.6%. The Court of Appeals concluded by complimenting the district court for creating a detailed fee calculation, spreadsheet and all. A copy of the Court of Appeal's Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HpVFpM UDER HEALTH: Yost Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER YOST, individually and for others similarly situated v. UDER HEALTH MANAGEMENT LLC d/b/a MIDWOOD AMBULANCE, Case No. 1:25-cv-04016-OEM-CLP (E.D.N.Y., July 21, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid wages and other damages owed by Uder Health under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Yost worked for Uder as an emergency medical technician. Yost regularly worked 10 hours a day, 5 days a week. But Uder did not pay Yost at least one and a half times his regular rates of pay -- based on all remuneration -- for all hours worked after 40 in week. Instead, Uder paid Yost non-discretionary bonuses (e.g., per call bonuses and shift incentives) that it excluded from the "regular rate" for overtime purposes. Uder touts itself as "a trailblazing ambulance transport company serving the tri-state region and beyond" with "an experienced team of seasoned Certified Paramedics and EMTS, a fleet of state-of-the-art ambulances, and a passion for providing the highest levels of medical care."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, Texas 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com UNION PACIFIC: Waldschmidt Must File Reply Brief by August 11 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Waldschmidt v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., Case No. 1:20-cv-03808 (D. Neb., Filed June 23, 2021), the Hon. Judge Joseph F Bataillon entered an order granting the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Extend Time to File Reply Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. -- The Plaintiffs' reply brief is now due on or before Aug. 11, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the America with Disabilities Act (ADA). Union is a Class I freight-hauling railroad. [CC] UNITED STATES: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Thakur Suit to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Neeta Thakur, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-04737-RFL, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Plaintiffs seek this relief on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of similarly situated University of California researchers who likewise had their grants terminated via form letters without a reasoned explanation and for researching forbidden topics. Upon taking office in January 2025, President Trump issued a series of executive orders blacklisting research on "diversity," "equity," "inclusion," and other forbidden topics, and directed the termination of previously issued research grants in those areas. The executive orders also more broadly directed agencies to engage in a widescale termination of previously issued grants. On June 5, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for temporary restraining order and order to show cause and a motion to certify class, which Judge Rita F. Lin granted on June 23, 2025. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs met the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2). Therefore, the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is granted as modified, and two classes are provisionally certified. The appellate case is entitled Thakur, et al. v. Trump, et al., Case No. 25-4249, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 10, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees NEETA THAKUR, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Annie Michael Mahan Wanless, Esq. Kevin R. Budner, Esq. Nabila Abdallah, Esq. Richard M. Heimann, Esq. Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 - and - Anthony P. Schoenberg, Esq. Katherine Balkoski, Esq. Kyle Andrew McLorg, Esq. FARELLA BRAUN & MARTEL, LLP 1 Bush Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94104 - and - Erwin Chemerinsky, Esq. UC BERKELEY SCHOOL OF LAW 215 Boalt Hall Berkeley, CA 94720 Defendants-Appellants DONALD TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al. are represented by: Derek Weiss, Esq. Daniel Tenny, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Appellate Staff 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Room 7325 Washington, DC 20530 - and - Kathryn Barragan, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 1100 L. Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 UNITED STATES: Appeals Preliminary Injunction Order in A.S.R. Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ PRESIDENT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction in the lawsuit entitled A.S.R., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Petitioner v. President United States of America, et al., Respondents, Case No. 3:25-cv-00113, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Petitioner A.S.R. brings this lawsuit under U.S.C. Sec. 2241, challenging the Respondents' attempt to remove him from the United States pursuant to the Alien Enemies Act, 50 U.S.C. Sec. 21, and the Proclamation issued by President Donald J. Trump on March 14, 2025, entitled "Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren De Aragua." On Apr. 29, 2025, the Petitioner filed a motion for preliminary injunction, which Judge Stephanie L. Haines granted on May 13, 2025. The Court ordered that the motion is granted insofar as the Court will require the Respondents to provide the notice below before removing A.S.R. pursuant to the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 (the "AEA"), 50 U.S.C. Sec. 21, and President Donald J. Trump's Proclamation entitled "Invocation of the [AEA] Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren De Aragua," (the "Proclamation"), 90 Fed. Reg. 13034, invoking the AEA. It is further ordered that the Respondents, their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and any persons who are in active concert or participation with them, are hereby: enjoined, pending further order of this court, from removing A.S.R. pursuant to the AEA and the Proclamation, unless Respondents first provide: (1) twenty-one (21) days' notice and an "opportunity to be heard" to A.S.R., (2) notice to A.S.R. that clearly articulates the fact that he is subject to removal under the Proclamation and the AEA, (3) notice to A.S.R. in English and Spanish, the language of the one sought to be expelled, and if needed, Spanish-to-English interpreters shall be provided for any necessary hearings, and (4) notice to A.S.R.'s counsel of all of the foregoing. It is further ordered that nothing in this Order shall be construed to bar the removal, or release from immigration detention, of A.S.R. pursuant to proceedings held under the Immigration and Nationality Act (the "INA"). It is further ordered that A.S.R. shall post nominal security of $1.00 in this matter. It is further ordered that A.S.R.'s motion is denied in all other respects. The appellate case is entitled A.S.R. v. President United States of America, et al., Case No. 25-2311, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on July 11, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee A.S.R., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Lee P. Gelernt, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 549-2616 Defendants-Appellants PRESIDENT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al. are represented by: Laura S. Irwin, Esq. OFFICE OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 700 Grant Street, Suite 4000 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 894-7374 UNITED STATES: Court Stays Fogg Suit Pending Settlement Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as MATTHEW FOGG, Plaintiff v. PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General, Defendant, Case No. 24-cv-0792 (D.D.C.), Judge Christopher R. Cooper of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia grants the government's motion for a stay pending final approval of an administrative class settlement. The Court denied Fogg's motion for a preliminary injunction, and denied the motion of Clarence Brown, another certified class member to intervene under Rule 24(b)(1)(B), finding that Brown's and Fogg's claims do not sufficiently share common questions of law or fact in common with each other or the main action that these claims could be efficiently considered together. Former Deputy United States Marshal Matthew Fogg has spent decades litigating against the U.S. Marshals Service over alleged discrimination. In 1978, Fogg became a Deputy U.S. Marshal in Washington, D.C. In 1985, he filed an administrative complaint with the Marshals Service alleging racial discrimination because he had received a harsh reprimand and was transferred ostensibly as punishment for having misused a government car. From 1989 to 1992, while Fogg was assigned to a task force that tracked fugitives, he claimed to have faced discriminatory actions including not receiving an expected promotion to the GS-13 level. Experiencing severe psychological stress as a result, Fogg stopped working in March 1993. After the Marshals Service dismissed him for insubordination, Fogg brought a civil lawsuit. A jury found that the Service had violated Title VII by subjecting Fogg to a racially hostile work environment from 1985 until his dismissal in 1995 and by discriminating against him on account of his race. Fogg ultimately obtained a judgment against the Marshals Service, including $300,000 in damages. In July 1994, Fogg filed an administrative class complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging that the Marshals Service discriminated against him and other African American Deputy U.S. Marshals based on their race. After multiple appeals and remands spanning nearly three decades, in September 2023, Administrative Judge Sharon Debbage Alexander granted the class's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a proposed class settlement agreement. The agreement provides $15 million in monetary relief for the class, as well as non-monetary programmatic relief. The deadline to object to the Settlement Agreement was January 11, 2024, and to request payment from the settlement, class participants were required to submit a claim form by January 26, 2024. By submitting the claim form, a claimant also expressly released any and all claims against the Marshals Service. Fogg executed a claim form and release on January 25. The day before a scheduled fairness hearing on March 20, 2024, Fogg filed the complaint in this case, alleging that he was dissatisfied with the underlying administrative proceeding and the class's legal representation. The complaint brings putative class claims of race discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, and harassment on behalf of a putative class, as well as an individual claim of retaliatory harassment. Administrative Judge Alexander canceled the fairness hearing and ordered briefing from both parties on the impact of Fogg's federal-court filing. In May 2024, Judge Alexander issued an order retaining jurisdiction over the class complaint and granting the other class agents' motion to remove Fogg. Judge Alexander explained that it is clear from the record that Matthew Fogg did not have the authority or permission of the other Class Agents to move the class complaint to federal court. The Court denied Fogg's motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin all further action in the case before the EEOC. According to the Court, Fogg cannot demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of his argument that the filing of this suit divested the EEOC of jurisdiction. The Court noted that Fogg seeks injunctive relief against the EEOC, but the agency is not a party to this action. This Court is "powerless to issue an injunction against non-parties." Additionally, the Court found that Fogg's assertion that the agency lost jurisdiction over the administrative class complaint when he filed this action appears incorrect. The Court explained that the regulations indicate that following a party's request for a hearing, an administrative judge has the discretion to dismiss a complaint that forms the basis of a pending district court action. Judge Alexander exercised her discretion to retain jurisdiction over the complaint with good reason, including that Fogg did not have the authority or permission of the other Class Agents to move the class complaint to federal court. The Court granted the government's motion to stay these proceedings pending final approval of the administrative class settlement. The government sought a stay because once the Office of Federal Operations rules on the Administrative Judge's approval of the Settlement Agreement, most, if not all, of Plaintiff's claims in this case will be barred by res judicata or related doctrines. The Court agreed that any claims resolved by the class settlement will be barred by res judicata. The Court noted that in January 2024, Fogg executed a claim form seeking payment from the settlement and releasing all claims against the Marshals Service. The Court concluded that "interests in judicial economy" favor a stay because it would be inefficient to proceed with litigation only for the issue of Fogg's waiver to become ripe once the Office of Federal Operations approves the settlement agreement. The Court denied Clarence Brown's motion to intervene in the litigation. Brown "is a retired African American Deputy United States Marshal with decades of dedicated federal service and a member of the certified class in the administrative class action. The Court found that Brown does not qualify for intervention as of right because the disposition of this action will not "impair or impede" a legally protectable interest. The Court explained that Fogg filed suit against the wishes of the rest of the class he purports to represent, so there is unlikely to be a class of which Brown can be a part. UNITED STATES: Immigration Detention Injunction vs. N.S. Vacated ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as N.S., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellee v. Robert A. Dixon, United States Marshal, District of Columbia (Superior Court), in his official capacity, Appellant, Case No. 21-5275, Senior Circuit Judge Douglas Howard Ginsburg of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the district court's permanent injunction and remanded the case for reconsideration of appropriate remedy. The case arose when N.S. was arrested for robbery and destruction of property, and arraigned before a Magistrate Judge the following day. The judge ordered him released on his own recognisance. However, before N.S. could leave the courthouse, the Marshals detained him on the basis, they said, of an 'ICE hold,' referring to a detainer issued by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE). N.S. immediately filed a class complaint alleging that, by making a civil immigration arrest, the Marshals had acted 'in excess of their statutory authority' and therefore violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The district court certified the proposed class and granted N.S.'s request for an injunction permanently prohibiting Marshal Dixon and his agents 'from arresting and detaining criminal defendants in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia for suspected civil immigration violations. The class was defined as "All indigent criminal defendants in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia: (1) who were, are, or will be detained by officers of the United States Marshals Service for suspected civil immigration violations, and (2) as to whom Immigration and Customs Enforcement has not effectuated a warrant of removal/deportation and/or has not obtained an order of deportation or removal." The Court of Appeals addressed whether the U.S. Marshals had proper authority to make civil immigration arrests. The court examined various delegation orders, including a 1996 order that delegated to the Marshals the authority to perform and exercise the powers and duties of Immigration Officers for the purpose of maintaining custody of aliens in the custody of the Attorney General." A 2002 order authorized the Marshals "to exercise the functions of immigration officers for the purpose of apprehending any alien who violates immigration laws. During the proceedings, On January 22, 2025, the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security issued a new order relating to the authority of the Marshals to make civil immigration arrests (the 2025 order). This order purported to authorize the Marshals to "perform the following functions of an immigration officer granted to the [DHS] by [the INA] and confer upon them the authority to do the same: apprehending, any alien who is in the United States in violation of [the INA] or regulations issued thereunder." The Court of Appeals held that "the U.S. Marshals were not authorized to make civil immigration arrests because they had not undergone the training required by regulations governing civil immigration arrests." The court explained that under INA regulations "an I-200 form 'may be served only by those immigration officers listed in Section 287.5(e)(3)'" and "that listed officers must have completed the required training before serving an I-200 form." Judge Ginsberg determined that the 2025 Order b effects a valid delegation of authority for arrests that are made on or after January 22, 2025 but does not relieve the Marshals of the requirement to undergo training prior to making a civil immigration arrest." The court reasoned that the order "simply authorizes the Marshals to 'perform the functions of an immigration officer.'" However, arresting aliens is not a function of an immigration officer who has not received the relevant training." Marshal Dixon argued for the first time on appeal that U.S.C. Section 1252(f)(1) barred the district court from issuing a class-wide injunction. Section 1252(f)(1) provides that no court (other than the Supreme Court) shall have jurisdiction or authority to enjoin or restrain the operation of [Sections 1221-1232] other than with respect to the application of such provisions to an individual alien against whom proceedings under such part have been initiated. The Court of Appeals noted that during the district court proceedings in 2020 and 2021, circuit law seemed to foreclose the argument that Section 1252(f)(1) bars the district court's injunction." However, only after the proceedings in the district court did the Supreme Court hold Section 1252(f)(1) 'generally prohibits lower courts from entering injunctions that order federal officials to take or to refrain from taking actions to enforce, implement, or otherwise carry out the specified statutory provisions. The court concluded that the injunction in this case implicates provisions to which Section 1252(f)(1) applies: It prevents the Marshals from arresting and detaining any criminal defendant in the D.C. Superior Court for a suspected civil immigration violation, including arrests made pursuant either to an ICE detainer and I-200 form or pursuant to an ICE detainer alone. The Court of Appeals vacated the district court's order enjoining Marshal Dixon and his agents, subordinates, and employees from arresting and detaining criminal defendants in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia for suspected civil immigration violations.'" The court remanded "this case to the district court to reconsider the appropriate remedy." The court explained that "notwithstanding the court's conclusion in Part II.A that the Marshals were not lawfully able to execute a civil immigration arrest for want of the requisite training, the district court was barred by Section 1252(f)(1) from entering a class-wide injunction preventing such arrests and detention." Circuit Judge Walker filed a concurring opinion, agreeing with the vacation of the injunction but suggesting a broader remand that would allow the Government to appeal both merits and remedy decisions if new remedies are granted. Elissa P. Fudim, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the briefs were Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, William C. Peachey, Director, and Erez Reuveni, Assistant Director. Lauren C. Bingham, Senior Litigation Counsel, entered an appearance. John Miano, Christopher J. Hajec, and Gina M. D'Andrea were on the brief for amicus curiae Immigration Reform Law Institute in support of the Appellant. A copy of the Court of Appeal's opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iIydJt UNITED STATES: Vera Appeals Suit Dismissal to D.D.C. ---------------------------------------------------- VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Vera Institute of Justice, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Department of Justice, et al., Defendants, Case No. 25-cv-1643, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The Plaintiffs brought this suit against the Defendants for alleged unlawful terminations of 376 multi-year grant and cooperative agreements, which affected the Plaintiffs and vulnerable populations that rely on their services. On May 21, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class. On May 22, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction. On June 9, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On July 7, 2025, Judge Amit P. Mehta entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss and denying the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction. The Plaintiffs' motion to certify class is denied as moot. There is no doubt in the Court's mind that the Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs' award terminations were unfair and indiscriminate. When a government agency, especially the Department of Justice, agrees to fund private organizations to carry out a public purpose, such organizations expect regularity and respectful treatment. That is not what occurred here. The Court laments that the limits of its own power prevent it from helping the Plaintiffs and similarly situated grantees. But the Court cannot cure an injustice by exceeding its own authority. The appellate case is entitled Vera Institute of Justice, et al. v. Department of Justice, et al., Case No. 25-5248, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, filed on July 10, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Lisa Newman, Esq. Jennifer Fountain Connolly, Esq. Cortney Robinson, Esq. Somil Trivedi, Esq. Brian Netter, Esq. DEMOCRACY FORWARD FOUNDATION P.O. Box 34553 Washington, DC 20043 Telephone: (202) 448-9090 Email: lnewman@democracyforward.org - and - Joshua Perry, Esq. Joshua Stanton, Esq. E. Danya Perry, Esq. PERRY LAW 445 Park Avenue, 7th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 251-2619 Email: jperry@danyaperrylaw.com Defendants-Appellees DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al. are represented by: John Bailey, Esq. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE-CIV 950 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Ste. 3618 Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 514-6993 Email: john.bailey@usdoj.gov VIRGINIA EAGLE: Court Refuses to Allow John Doe to Use Pseudonym ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as John Doe, Plaintiff v. Virginia Eagle Distributing Company, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:24CV912 (RCY) (E.D. Va.), Judge Roderick C. Young of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denies the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed under Pseudonym or, in the Alternative, for a Protective Order. Plaintiff brought this putative class action suit against Virginia Eagle Distributing Company, LLC pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), alleging that Defendant improperly withdrew Plaintiff's offer of employment after receiving inaccurate information in a consumer report." Specifically, "Defendant rescinded its offer based on reports that Plaintiff had previously been convicted of felonies for possession of marijuana, distribution, and failure to appear." Plaintiff purports to have never been convicted of a felony; however, Plaintiff does have misdemeanor convictions for possession and failure to appear, and mentions an expungement in his Motion. The Plaintiff seeks an order protecting his privacy to avoid making his expunged record public. Generally, a complaint must name all parties to the suit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a). The court noted that there is a presumption that parties must sue and be sued in their own names," and "few cases warrant anonymity." The Fourth Circuit has instructed district courts to conduct a fact-specific inquiry using the James factors to reconcile "the party's stated interest in anonymity against the public's interest in openness and any prejudice that anonymity would pose to the opposing party." The court found that Plaintiff's argument for proceeding under a pseudonym is necessary to prevent future economic and reputational harm based on false information." However, the court determined attributing out-of-circuit courts and district courts that "such naked speculation of future harm does not justify pseudonymous litigation." The court noted that "courts have explicitly rejected plaintiffs' requests to proceed under pseudonym based on criminal history, erroneous criminal history, or expunged criminal history." The court rejected Plaintiff's argument that "failing to grant his Motion would have a chilling effect on any consumer's ability to vindicate his rights," noting that "the FCRA contains no provision offering claimants the option to proceed pseudonymously. Therefore, "the first factor weighs against permitting Plaintiff to proceed pseudonymous Regarding the second James factor, which contemplates whether proceeding without a pseudonym would risk retaliatory physical or mental harm, the court found that "Plaintiff only alleges potential economic or reputational harm, which courts have previously found to be insufficient." The court noted that "economic harm must be extraordinary to merit anonymity. For the third factor concerning whether the action is against a governmental or private party, the court found that suing only a private individual weighs against anonymity. Since this case is against a private party, not a government entity, this factor weighed against the Plaintiff. The court found that this factor arguably supports permitting Plaintiff to proceed under the desired pseudonym. The court noted that "Plaintiff's Motion is unopposed, suggesting Defendant concedes the issue, and it appears that Plaintiff's use of pseudonym would not prejudice Defendant, since Defendant is already aware of Plaintiff's identity. Despite the final factor supporting the Plaintiff, the court concluded that the weight of the factors does not support permitting Plaintiff to proceed under pseudonym." The court emphasized that it has an independent obligation to ensure that extraordinary circumstances support such a request and found that such extraordinary circumstances are not present here." Plaintiff sought "in the alternative, a protective order that would proactively require any filing that references Plaintiff's true identity to be placed under seal." The court noted that "Plaintiff fails to discuss why alternatives, such as redacting documents, are an inadequate remedy in this case." Therefore, "to the extent Plaintiff seeks to have any reference to his true identity filed under seal, the Court declines to do so." A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DL2lSR WALGREEN CO: Settlement in Naro Suit Has Preliminary Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Serena Naro, et al., Plaintiffs v. Walgreen Co, et al., Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-03170-JST, (N.D. Cal.) Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action and PAGA representative action settlement. The Court further ordered that, pending further order of this Court, all proceedings in this Action, except those contemplated herein and in the Settlement, are stayed, and all deadlines are vacated. Plaintiffs Serena Naro and Trish Gonzales, representatives of the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency, brought suit against Defendants Walgreens Co., Walgreen Pharmacy Services Midwest, LCC, and Does 1-15. The Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants failed to "reimburse for necessary business expenses, namely expenses incurred in purchasing replacement uniforms which Defendants required Plaintiffs to wear each shift. The Plaintiffs alleged violations of the California Labor Code, including for failure to reimburse for business expenses under California Labor Code Section 2802, the Private Attorneys General Act under California Labor Code Section 2698 et seq., IWC Wage Order No. 7 under California Code of Regulations title 8, Section 11070, and the Unfair Competition Law under California Business & Professions Code Section 17200, et seq. Plaintiffs filed this action on May 31, 2022. After briefing, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice. Plaintiffs amended their complaint, and Defendants answered. The parties also undertook initial discovery and ADR. On June 6, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of class action and PAGA representation action settlement, which the Court denied without prejudice. Plaintiffs filed their second unopposed motion for preliminary settlement approval on February 13, 2025. The Ninth Circuit maintains a "strong judicial policy" that favors the settlement of class actions. The Court's task at the preliminary approval stage is to determine whether the settlement falls "within the range of possible approval." Preliminary approval is appropriate if "the proposed settlement appears to be the product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations, has no obvious deficiencies, does not improperly grant preferential treatment to class representatives or segments of the class, and falls within the range of possible approval. The Court previously denied the parties' first proposed settlement agreement based on deficiencies in the key terms of the settlement. Judge Tigar addressed each deficiency to determine whether the issues had been resolved. The Court first took issue with the Named Plaintiffs' release provision because it placed the Named Plaintiffs in conflict with the settlement class. The Court was specifically concerned about the incentive payments awarded in exchange for general releases, because they appear to be completely divorced from any benefit or service to the class. In their renewed motion, the parties retained the general release language but replaced the clause "in consideration for the service payments being paid to Plaintiffs" with "in exchange for the consideration provided by Defendant. According to the Court Plaintiffs' revision resolved the potential conflict of interest and that the Named Plaintiffs' execution of a broader release was within the range of possible approval for this stage. Judge Tigar noted that the parties' proposed notice of settlement must contain a response period of at least 60 days for class members to opt out or file objections after notice is mailed to the class. The new agreement provided class members a response period of 60 days. This resolved the prior deficiency. The Court held that the parties did not provide an opportunity for class members to object to Plaintiffs' anticipation motion for attorney's fees with the final approval papers. In response, the parties added language providing such an opportunity: Any Settlement Class Member who intends to object to Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs must: (1) file a written objection with the Court no later than 14 calendar days prior to the Final Hearing; and (2) mail or personally deliver a copy of the written objection to Class Counsel and Defendants' Counsel on the same day as the objection is sent to the Court. The Court found that the parties' added language resolved the deficiency. The Court approved the proposed Notice of Settlement and the proposed notice process, and adopted specific dates and deadlines including a Final Approval Hearing scheduled for January 8, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. via Zoom webinar. A copy of the Court settlement is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YhmPHE WALMART INC: 7th Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Honey Labeling Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as John Wertymer, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Walmart, Inc., Defendant-Appellee, No. 24-2001 (7th Cir.), Judge Ilana Diamond Rovner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirms the district court's dismissal of a proposed nationwide class action complaint alleging fraudulent misrepresentation regarding raw honey labelling. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's grant of Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint. The Court found that "the complaint failed to support any of its claims of fraud, misrepresentation, or deceptive practices." Wertymer alleged that he bought two bottles of Walmart's Great Value brand honey in June 2022 -- one labeled "Raw Honey" and one labeled "Organic Raw Honey." About ten months after this purchase, in April 2023, Wertymer's counsel sent the honey to be tested at a laboratory called "True Honey Buzz, A Division of Authentic Food Solution Limited. He asserted that Walmart's "Raw Honey" was not raw as it has been heated, and that the "Organic Raw Honey" was not raw because it had been subjected to industrial processing." Through this diversity suit, Wertymer sought to represent a nationwide class of people and entities who purchased Walmart's raw honey, or, alternatively, an Illinois class of purchasers. Wertymer's complaint brought causes of action under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act and for common law fraudulent representation. The Consumer Fraud Act requires that a plaintiff plead and prove that: (1) the defendant committed a deceptive or unfair act; (2) with the intent that others rely on the deception; (3) that the act occurred in the course of trade or commerce; and (4) it caused actual damages. Similarly, under Illinois common law, a fraudulent misrepresentation claim requires: "(1) a false statement of material fact, (2) knowledge or belief of the falsity by the party making it, (3) intention to induce the other party to act, (4) action by the other party in reliance on the truth of the statements, and (5) damage to the other party resulting from such reliance." Wertymer's primary argument centered on levels of 5-hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) in the tested honey. He claimed that real raw honey typically comes out of the beehive with an absence of any HMF, or with an HMF value less than 10 mg/kg." The laboratory determined that the honey Walmart labeled as "raw honey" had an HMF level of 22 mg/kg. According to the Court Wertymer uses HMF as a proxy for heating, and heating as a proxy for 'not raw honey,' which he alleges lacks the attributes consumers desire." However, the Court found this reasoning fatally flawed because Wertymer's own allegations recognized that HMF is a proxy not merely for heating, but also for "myriad other factors, most notably, length and conditions of storage." The Court of Appeals determined that Wertymer's claim failed from the start because his own complaint acknowledged that HMF occurs not only from heating but also from storage conditions. As the complaint stated: "Although HMF occurs at very low concentrations and can even be absent in both fresh honey and food products, heat treatment and/or prolonged storage conditions can enhance further HMF production. The Court of Appeals emphasized that there is an obvious alternative explanation for the high HMF levels given that the tested honey was not freshly extracted from the hive but rather had been stored for at least ten months before testing. The Court of Appeals analogized: "Imagine a complaint for a car accident in which the plaintiff claims that either the local milk delivery truck cut her off, causing her to swerve into a tree, or she fell asleep at the wheel. No reasonable judge would allow this plaintiff to subject the milk delivery truck driver to trial for negligence when the complaint itself supplies an alternative explanation for the crash that exculpates the defendant. According to the Court of Appeals "Wertymer's complaint relied on questionable sources for establishing the 10 mg/kg HMF limit. His primary source was "the commercial website of a raw honey seller in New Zealand, Airborne Honey Limited." The Court noted that "neither the complaint nor the website offers any source - scientific or otherwise - for the 10mg/kg limit" and that the statement appeared to be "a marketing tool for sales of its own honey." Even were we to accept, for purposes of this motion to dismiss, what appears to be a marketing statement as scientific fact, the statement -- not universally true -- for levels in fresh honey to be below 10 mg/kg. Most importantly, the statement indicated that the 10 mg/kg number applied only to "freshly extracted" honey, which Wertymer's honey was not. The Court also examined other sources cited by Wertymer, including the Codex Alimentarius, which sets a maximum HMF level for all honey -- raw or not -- of 40 mg/kg for some honey, and 80 mg/kg for honey from tropical areas." Since Walmart's honey fell "safely within both parameters" and came from Brazil, "a predominantly tropical country," the Codex actually supported Defendant's position. Regarding the "Organic Raw Honey," Wertymer claimed it was processed based on the presence of 0.06g/100g of mannose, a type of sugar. The Court found this claim even more speculative because the testing report stated that mannose levels above 0.02g/100g "could indicate the presence of foreign sugars or industrial processing practices" but noted that an "expert interpretation is suggested in such cases. The Court emphasized that a complaint that honey 'could' contain a sugar indicative of industrial processing is not the same as alleging that it does." Additionally, the report explained that "mannose can be naturally present based on botanical or geographical origin," providing another alternative explanation that defeated Wertymer's claims. The Court applied the Twombly and Iqbal standards, noting that a complaint must raise a right to relief above the speculative level and that it is "too speculative where there is an obvious alternative explanation for the complaint's factual allegations." The Court found that Wertymer had provided nothing more than the most speculative guess that the higher HMF values came from heating, and that Walmart engaged in a deceptive act. The Court concluded that "based on the sources cited in Wertymer's complaint, it is as likely as not, and perhaps more so, that Wertymer received exactly what he paid for - raw honey." Because Wertymer failed to state a plausible claim that Walmart mislabeled its raw honey, "his claim for unfair practices under the Consumer Fraud Act also fails, as does his claim for common law fraudulent misrepresentation." Therefore, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision dismissing the complaint. The Court noted that "Wertymer's complaint alleges that it is possible that Walmart sold honey labeled as 'raw' that was not, in fact, raw. But the complaint also readily supports a conclusion that Walmart's honey was indeed raw and that he received exactly what he paid for. Any claim that Walmart violated the law or that Wertymer was damaged is mere conjecture and speculation." A copy the Court of Appeal's order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=K5tsQX WALMART INC: Castillo Preservative Labeling Case Allowed to Proceed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Rebeca Castillo, Plaintiff v. Walmart, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-06757-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss and grants the Defendant's motion to strike in this putative class action concerning allegedly deceptive "No Preservatives" labeling on yogurt products. Plaintiff Rebeca Castillo, a resident of San Jose, California, regularly purchased Walmart's Parent's Choice Yogurt Bites Freeze-Dried & Yogurt Fruit Snacks over the past two years. She "paid a premium for the products in reliance on the 'clean label' claim that the Yogurt Bites contained 'No Preservatives.'" However, the ingredient label reveals that the snacks contain "ascorbic acid," which Plaintiff alleges is a "chemical preservative". Plaintiff alleges that "the Food and Drug Administration identifies ascorbic acid as a 'preservative,' which is defined under federal regulations as a 'chemical that, when added to food, tends to prevent or retard deterioration thereof.'" Based on "an independent chemical analysis of Walmart's Product," the Yogurt Bites have "an ascorbic acid content of 0.163%," which is twice the level suggested for use to preserve color and freshness. Plaintiff filed seven causes of action: (1) breach of express warranty based on violations of California Commercial Code Section 2313; (2) unlawful business practices under California's Unfair Competition Law; (3) unfair business practices under the UCL; (4) fraudulent business practices under the UCL; (5) false advertising under California Business and Professions Code Section 17500 et seq.; (6) violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act; and (7) restitution based on quasi-contract/unjust enrichment. The Court rejected "Walmart's argument that Plaintiff has not suffered an injury-in-fact because the ascorbic acid in the Yogurt Bites is actually functioning as a vitamin rather than a preservative. This is a factual dispute going to the heart of Plaintiff's claims, the resolution of which will presumably require expert testimony." Plaintiff's Complaint "quite clearly alleges that the ascorbic acid is functioning as a preservative in the Yogurt Bites." However, the Court found deficiencies in Plaintiff's pleading. First, Defendant is correct that Plaintiff has not put forth facts supporting her conclusory allegation that she paid a price premium for the Yogurt Bites. Second, "Defendant is also correct that Plaintiff has failed to adequately allege 'substantial similarity' between the product that she purchased--the Banana Yogurt Bites--and other products advertised and sold by Defendant." The Court determined that Plaintiff is correct that she has met the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) as to her allegations of a misrepresentation by Defendant regarding the ascorbic acid in the Yogurt Bites." Plaintiff identified "the who, what, when, where, and how of the misconduct charged" by identifying the allegedly misleading advertising statement. However, regarding dl-alpha tocopheryl acetate, "Plaintiff fails to include detailed allegations regarding the concentration at which dl-alpha tocopheryl acetate functions as a preservative, nor does she allege whether such a concentration is present in Defendant's Yogurt Bites products." Therefore, "the Court concludes that Plaintiff has not adequately pled claims of misrepresentation related to dl-alpha tocopheryl acetate. The Court found that "the bolded statement 'No Preservatives' on Defendant's packaging of the Yogurt Bites is unambiguous. A reasonable consumer would not be expected to review the ingredient list to confirm whether the ingredients inside the product contradict that plain statement." The Court noted that "even if they were expected to do so, the Court does not think a reasonable consumer would be expected to know that ascorbic acid is a preservative—particularly when that name is accompanied by a parenthetical suggesting that the ingredient is a vitamin. Court Addresses Walmart's Claim-Specific Challenges Breach of Express Warranty: The Court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss, finding that "Plaintiff has adequately pled her claim of Breach of Express Warranty. Defendant's argument that Plaintiff has failed to allege that Defendant's "No Preservatives" claim is a misrepresentation assumes Defendant's desired conclusion to this litigation: that the ascorbic acid in the Yogurt Bites functions only as a vitamin. In fact, Plaintiff included specific allegations that ascorbic acid functions as a preservative in Defendant's Yogurt Bites products including, as one key example, that Plaintiff "conducted an independent chemical analysis of Walmart's product to determine the amount of ascorbic acid" that resulted in a finding of a 0.163% ascorbic acid content Unjust Enrichment: Judge Freeman declined to dismiss this claim, noting that "the Ninth Circuit has expressed its belief that a cause of action for unjust enrichment 'states a claim for relief as an independent cause of action or as a quasi-contract claim for restitution.'" UCL and FAL Claims: The Court granted the motion in part, dismissing "Plaintiff's claims for equitable relief in the form of restitution or disgorgement but allowing the claims to proceed seeking injunctive relief. Consumers Legal Remedies Act: The Court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss after "Defendant's counsel represented at the hearing on this motion that Plaintiff had already cured the deficient CLRA notice." The Court granted "Defendant's motion to strike Plaintiff's allegations related to a purported nationwide class because Plaintiff expressly defines the class as 'All persons in California who purchased the Class Products in California during the Class Period.'" The Court found that "Plaintiff's stray mention of a nationwide class in the first paragraph of the Complaint is immaterial." The Court ordered that Defendant Walmart, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike is granted in part and denied in part with leave to amend. Specifically, the Plaintiff's allegation related to a nationwide class is stricken. The Defendant's Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss is granted with leave to amend as to Plaintiff's standing to sue for price premium damages and her standing to sue over unpurchased products, as well as her claims related to dl-alpha tocopheryl acetate. The Defendant's 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is denied as to Plaintiff's Breach of Express Warranty, Unjust Enrichment, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act claims. The Plaintiff's claims for equitable relief in the form of restitution or disgorgement are dismissed, but Plaintiff may proceed on the claims for injunctive relief. A copy of the Court's order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=47pX2Q WELLNESS PHARMA: Ghabour Seeks OT, Minimum Wages Under FLSA, NYLL ----------------------------------------------------------------- KEROLOS GHABOUR, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated V. WELLNESS PHARMACY INC., JOSEPH PHARMACY INC., ESSAM A BEKHIT, and JOHN DOE DEFENDANT NO. 1, Case No. e 1:25-cv-05717 (S.D.N.Y., July 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The claims include failure to pay minimum wage; Failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide spread-of-hours pay; failure to turn over gratuities paid by credit card; failure to provide wage notices and statements; failure to reimburse job-related expenses; and retaliatory conduct, says the suit. Plaintiff Ghabour is an adult individual residing in Jersey City, New Jersey. He was employed by Defendants in New York City from Sept. 24, 2024, to May 16, 2025. The Defendants operate pharmacies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed Gangat, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT 675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810 New York, New York Telephone: (718) 669-0714 E-mail: mgangat@gangatllc.com WELLS FARGO: Sued Over Allegedly Inadequate Compensation Efforts ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that Wells Fargo faces a proposed class action lawsuit over its allegedly meager attempts to compensate mortgage applicants who were notified that the bank had wrongly assessed certain fees during the loan origination process. The 17-page lawsuit alleges that Wells Fargo incorrectly charged borrowers "return to float" fees, which the bank imposes upon mortgage applicants who wish to unlock their loan's interest rate during processing. According to the suit, the bank alerted consumers to the float-fee errors in "vague" letters issued around December 2022 that included a cashier's check as supposed reimbursement for the improper charges, interest on the fees, related costs and an "amount for the time these funds were unavailable." The case claims that the letters sent to borrowers failed to provide any explanation as to how, why or when the errors occurred and did not offer sufficient accounting or itemization to show the extent of the float-fee problems. "It is therefore impossible for borrowers to determine the amount of their actual damages, including their out-of-pocket harm," the complaint asserts, characterizing Wells Fargo's "cryptic" letters as a "throw away effort" solely to protect itself from liability for "yet another illegal business practice." The filing alleges that the enclosed checks were "wholly inadequate" and argues that Wells Fargo has failed to reimburse customers for the massive profits it reaped as a result of withholding the erroneously charged fees "for over a decade." The Wells Fargo lawsuit contends that the bank knowingly concealed the errors for years and issued the letters to consumers in an attempt to discourage them from investigating the matter further and pursuing recompense. The case charges that the checks are no more than a "flippant" attempt by Wells Fargo to "buy off" customers and mitigate the bank's liability at borrowers' expense. The class action lawsuit looks to represent all individuals in California who received a letter from Wells Fargo alerting them that one or more return to float fees may have been incorrectly assessed during the loan origination process, with a check enclosed to purportedly compensate for the error. [GN] WEST COAST WOUND: Sued Over Fraudulent Medicare Billing Scheme -------------------------------------------------------------- THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex. rel. ALEX FOXMAN, M.D., THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and ALEX FOXMAN, MD, Plaintiff v. WEST COAST WOUND AND SKIN CARE, a California Corporation; MILLICENT ROVELO, M.D., an individual; BRIAN PFEIFFER, an individual; PROVIDENCE TRINITYCARE HOSPICE, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation; CITY OF ANGELS HOME HEALTH, INC., a California Corporation; MEIKO MAYUZUMI KURIYA, an individual; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-06547 (C.D. Cal., July 17, 2025) is a class action brought by Plaintiff Foxman, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated providers, due to a fraudulent Medicare billing scheme orchestrated by West Coast Wound and Skin Care, through its agents and affiliated providers, including Millicent Rovelo, N.P. and Brian Pfeiffer, PA-C. Dr. Alex Foxman (hereafter "Plaintiff"), a Board Certified physician and participating provider, was contractually responsible for ensuring cost-effective care to his attributed Medicare patients. In this case specifically, the Plaintiff was in charge of the health and wellness of Patient John Doe since 2021 -- seeing him every two to four weeks. Patient was an 87 year old male, with advanced Parkinsons diease, who was confined to his bed without the ability to speak. Without Plaintiff's or Patient's wife's knowledge or authorization, the Defendants submitted a series of Medicare claims for wound care services allegedly provided to Plaintiff's patient John Doe. These services were either never ordered, medically necessary, or reflected in the patient's plan of care. As a result, the Plaintiff incurred direct financial penalties under the REACH ACO shared-risk agreement due to inflated per-patient costs caused by unauthorized and fraudulent billing by Defendants, directly reducing his eligible shared savings and resulting in significant economic loss. This action seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants' fraudulent conduct, which unjustly enriched them at the expense of Plaintiff and undermined the integrity of Medicare's value-based care framework. The Plaintiff intends to bring this as a class action as other doctors who utilize the Accountable Care Organization model have also been negatively impacted by Defendant's fraudulent billing practices. West Coast Wound and Skin Care provides wound care services to Medicare beneficiaries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Della Shaker, Esq. WEST HOLLYWOOD LAW GROUP A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 9454 Wilshire Blvd. 6th Floor Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 734-7816 Facsimile: (310) 734-7916 WOOPLA INC: Removes Bishop Suit to N.D. Alabama ----------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of DAVID J. BISHOP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WOOPLA, INC., Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Circuit Court of the State of Alabama, County of Franklin (Case No. 33-CV-2025-900093) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on July 28, 2025. The clerk of court for the Northern District of Alabama assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01216-HNJ. The case is assigned to Herman N Johnson, Jr. Woopla, Inc. is a social gaming development studio specializing in game design, game licensing, and developing intellectual property. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Neiman, Jr., Esq. William B. Grimes, Esq. MAYNARD NEXSEN PC 1901 Sixth Avenue N., Suite 1700 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 254-1000 Email: jneiman@maynardnexsen.com bgrimes@maynardnexsen.com - and - Walter A. Saurack, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 22 Vanderbilt 335 Madison Ave. 23rd Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 404-9200 Email: wasaurack@duanemorris.com - and - William M. Gantz, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 100 High Street, Suite 2400 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (857) 488-4234 Email: bgantz@duanemorris.com YONKERS, NY: Taylor Sues Over Impounded Vehicle Disposal Policy --------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW TAYLOR and REY MORELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE CITY OF YONKERS, TRANSIT AUTO TOWING INC., MICHAEL SPANO individually, ANTHONY LANDI individually, STEVEN LEVY individually, CHRISTOPHER SAPIENZA individually, AND JOHN DOES 1-5, Defendants, Case No. 7:25-cv-05861 (S.D.N.Y., July 17, 2025) is a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 and Sec. 1988 for deprivation of Plaintiffs' rights secured by the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Plaintiffs challenge Yonkers' impounded vehicle disposal policy because it does not afford affected persons the opportunity to participate in Yonkers' decision-making. When Yonkers impounds a vehicle incident to arrest, it turns over the vehicle to one of the towing companies that Yonkers has on standby pursuant to a prearranged contract. To retrieve an impounded Vehicle, a vehicle owner must do exactly as Yonkers demands. The towing company supports Yonkers by refusing to release a vehicle unless Yonkers has authorized release. Yonkers seized a 2020 BMW bearing VIN 3MW5R7J01L8B13515 (the "Vehicle") owned by Plaintiffs. The seizure was performed incident to the arrest of Rey Morell for a traffic violation, which was ultimately dismissed. Yonkers seized the Vehicle by directing Transit to tow and detain the vehicle until Yonkers gave Transit further instructions. The Plaintiffs tried to recover the vehicle by going to both the Yonkers police precinct and Transit, but they were rebuffed. No opportunity for a hearing was afforded to Plaintiffs -- with adequate notice of that hearing -- where Plaintiffs could have their request for release of their vehicle reviewed by a neutral decisionmaker, asserts the suit. Yonkers is a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nicholas A. Duston, Esq. NORRIS, McLAUGHLIN, PA 7 Times Square, 21st Fl. New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (908)-722-0700 E-mail: naduston@norris-law.com ZIP CO US: Withrow Consumer Class Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled MEGAN WITHROW, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZIP CO US, INC., Defendant, Case No. 25-2-17469-7 SEA, was removed from the Washington Superior Court for King County to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on July 16, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01333 to the proceeding. This putative class action seeks damages for the Defendant's commercial electronic text messages sent to the Plaintiff in violation of the Washington Consumer Electronic Mail Act and the Washington Consumer Protection Act. Zip Co US, Inc. designs and develops application software.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Austin Rainwater, Esq. Nathan Paine, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4700 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 505-4000 Facsimile: (206) 505-4099 E-mail: Austin.Rainwater@hklaw.com Nathan.Paine@hklaw.com - and - Elin Park, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2700 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 715-5730 Facsimile: (312) 578-6666 E-mail: Elin.Park@hklaw.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 ***