250805.mbx

250805.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, August 5, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 155 Headlines 2SGR VENTURES: Stewart Suit Removed to D. Oregon 3M COMPANY: Draw Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Duke Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Evans Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Houser Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Huff Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Irwin Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Jefferson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Taylor Sues Over Contaminated Protective Clothing ACCU REFERENCE MEDICAL: Lips Files Suit in D. New Jersey ACT + ACRE INC: Olson Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York ADON FARMS: Cuevas Sues Over Unpaid Wages ALTO NEUROSCIENCE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Set Sept. 19 ALTRIA GROUP: Seeks to Modify Class Cert Bid Sealing Procedures AMAZON.COM INC: Martinho Class Cert Hearings Continued to Sept. 16 AMERICAN CRUISE: Kirk Bid for Class Certification Tossed AMERICAN ECONOMY: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ANNE ARUNDEL: Beville Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI ANNE ARUNDEL: Smith Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info APPLE INC: Albertto Suit Removed to C.D. California APPRISS RETAIL: Austin Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ARB GAMING LLC: Jackson Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama ARGENT TRUST: Lloyd Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action ATLANTA DASH: Yarbrough Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages BACKSTAGE ATLANTA: Acolatse Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages BARNARD CONSTRUCTION: Seeks to Strike Class Allegations in McCoy BAYER AMERICAN: Settles Securities Class Action Suit for $38MM BCI ACRYLIC: Stark Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois BESTWAY INC: Armstrong Must File Supplemental Briefing Docs BETTERHELP INC: Court Modifies Briefing Schedule BLUEGRASS HOSPITALITY: Court Certifies Rule 23 Classes BOB EVANS: Court Approves Parties' Mediation Plan BOEING COMPANY: Subpoena Motion Transferred to Illinois Court BRAMAN PALM BEACH: Murphy Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida CALIMIRA LLC: Ciani Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages COLONIAL PENN: Cole Seeks Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement COOPERSURGICAL INC: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Oct. 5, 2026 DATAVANT INC: Parties Seek to Stay Class Certification Briefing DELTA STAR: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by August 22 DIDI GLOBAL: Bid to Seal to Exhibits in Securities Suit OK'd DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Hopkins Loses Bid to Intervene DOCGO INC: Naclerio Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action DOCUSIGN INC: Securities Suit Stayed Pending Bid to Dismiss DOMINO'S PIZZA: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Carmona Due August 25 DOTHAN SECURITY: Gordon Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. DOTHOUSE HEALTH: Durmus Files Suit in D. Massachusetts DOTHOUSE HEALTH: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Thompson Says DOTHOUSE HEALTH: Holman Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII DRT LLC: Faces Watts Suit Over Failure to Protect Personal Info ENHANCE HEALTH: Bussey Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia ERSGA: Pavliscsak Files Suit in Ga. Super. Ct. EVERGY INC: Doll Suit Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid EXTENDED STAY: Soboleski Balks at Unsolicited Text Messages FEDERAL EXPRESS: Yamamoto Suit Removed to C.D. California FINNLEYS GOOD: Pittman Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website FIRSTENERGY CORP: Brunson Files Suit in N.D. Ohio FISERV INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Set September 22 FLYWIRE CORP: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Ang Sues Over Breached Fiduciary Duties GEICO: Revised Scheduling Order Sought GEICO: Seek Bid for Leave to File SAC OK'd GENEDX HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Investigate Potential Securities Claims GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Powertrain's Problems GENESCO INC: Edwards Suit Transferred to N.D. Florida GEO GROUP: Bid to Certify Class Stricken GNL ENTERPRISES: Swift Sues Over Sexual Harassment, Retaliation GOOGLE INC: Plaintiffs' Class Cert Reply Provisionally Sealed GREENSKY INC: Wins Second Amended Bid to Seal Exhibits HEALTH FIRST: Seeks Leave to File Opposition Under Seal HECLA GREENS CREEK: Ashenfelter Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages HYATT CORP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Jimenez Due Jan. 16, 2026 INSURANCE4TRUCKERS: Pimentel Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida INTEGRATED ONCOLOGY: Carmona Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI INTEGRATED SPECIALTY: Jarvis Files Suit in S.D. California J. HILL: Quintero Second Amended Complaint Dismissed JET LIMOUSINES: McGhee Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Bid JINNY BEAUTY OF LOS ANGELES: Domingo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. KPC PROMISE: Filing for Class Cert Bid Amended to Jan. 7, 2026 KUEHNE + NAGEL: Garcia Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania LEADER FREIGHT SYSTEMS: James Sues Over Unpaid Wages LIGHTING TECHNOLOGIES: Delgadillo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. LKS ASSOCIATES: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property LUMINAR TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Suit Over Securities Fraud LUSSO STONE: Sanchez Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Breach of Contract MASSACHUSETTS: Class Cert Expert Discovery Due Sept. 10 MERCURY FINANCIAL: Court Defers Prelim OK of Settlement MERCURY SYSTEMS: North Collier Suit Seeks to Rule 23 Class Action MILWAUKEE ENTERTAINMENT: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due June 15, 2026 MRO CORPORATION: Court Rules Fee Invalid for Failed Record Search NATIONAL GENERAL: Bid for Class Cert Order Reconsideration Tossed NATIONAL GRID: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims NEW YORK, NY: Fact Discovery Completion Extended to Sept. 15 NEW YORK: Court Reverses Ruling on Housing Assistance Laws NIP & TUCK: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid NOKIA OF AMERICA: Mismanages Employee Retirement Plan, Sims Says NORTHWELL HEALTH: Blake Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties OCUCO INC: Devinna Sues Over Failure to Secure Private Information OCUCO INC: Owings Files Suit in M.D. Florida OLD DOMINION FREIGHT: Leger Suit Removed to C.D. California OLD DOMINION: Sealy Seeks Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement OLYMPIC MAINTENANCE: Camacho Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation OXY USA: Court Cancels Status Conference in Cherry Class Suit PACIFIC GAS: Moon Suit Transferred to C.D. California PELLE JEREMY: Dutto Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PENNEY OPCO: Must File Class Cert Reply by August 29 PHARMACARE US: Corbett Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 9th Cir. PHOENIX FOOTWEAR: Randolph Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website POLYLOOM CORPORATION: Moreno Suit Removed to C.D. California PREMIER INFUSION: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PROGRESS RESIDENTIAL: Harris Suit Seeks Class Certification QUAKER WINDOW: Kauluwehi Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri REAL HEALTH: Wilson Suit Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid REPLIMUNE GROUP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Set Sep 22 RETINA GROUP: Class Settlement Gets Final Approval ROCKETREACH LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Sant Due Jan. 9, 2026 RXO INC: Collects Website Users' Data Without Concent, Orr Says SHADE STORE: Bid to Seal Class Cert Opposition Partly OK'd SIEMENS ENERGY: Babinski Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties SONY INTERACTIVE: Class Cert Bid Terminated as Moot SOUTHWOOD FINANCIAL: Murray Files Suit in E.D. Virginia SP MANAGEMENT: Williams Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages SPECIALIZED PROTECTIVE: Guzman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY: Chism Suit Removed to N.D. California STELLANT SYSTEMS: Griffin Suit Removed to C.D. California SYMMETRY FINANCIAL: Class Certification Bid in Bennett Due Nov. 3 TASKRABBIT INC: Cross Suit Removed to N.D. California TD AMERITRADE: Jacobs Suit Transferred to C.D. California TD BANK: Bid for More Time to Oppose Class Cert Sought TD BANK: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid in Dou Suit by August 19 TOPEKA, KS: Moore Wins Class Certification Bid UNION PACIFIC: Grigg Must File Reply Brief by August 11 UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE: Suszka Seeks COVID-19 Tuition Fee Refunds VOLUNTEER BEHAVIORAL: Mitchell Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime WALMART INC: Court Dismisses Appeal for Lack of Final Judgment WELLS FARGO: Class Cert Filing in Cash Sweep Suit Due Nov. 20 WELLS FARGO: More Time for Class Cert Response Sought WEXFORD HEALTH: Spurlock Wins Bid for Class Certification WK KELLOGG: Faces Class Action Suit Over Froot Loops Serving Size ZANDER GROUP: Court Cancels Trial & Pretrial Conference in Jones ZANDER GROUP: Court Upholds Subpoena Quashing Order ********* 2SGR VENTURES: Stewart Suit Removed to D. Oregon ------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Schearon Stewart, John Franz, and Roger Sullivan, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons v. 2SGR VENTURES, LLC, et al., Case No. 25CV33779 was removed from the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Multnomah, to the United States District Court for District of Oregon on July 24, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01310-AR. The Complaint, styled as a class action, purports to bring claims for violations of Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act ("UTPA"). The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants "systematically advertised grocery items with inflated or fabricated reference prices—purportedly representing competitor pricing--without identifying the source of those comparisons." The Plaintiffs claim that Defendants' pricing practices "created the illusion of significant savings, when in fact, consumers often paid the same or more than they would have at other local retailers." The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, restitution, and attorney fees.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Nika Aldrich, Esq. SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C. 1420 5th Avenue, Suite 3400 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-622-1711 Facsimile: 206-292-0460 Email: naldrich@schwabe.com - and - Jessie Zerpoli, Esq. SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C. 1211 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1900 Portland, OR 97204 Phone: 503-222-9981 Facsimile: 503-796-2900 Email: jzerpoli@schwabe.com 3M COMPANY: Draw Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams --------------------------------------------------------------- Stephanie Draw, 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-06220-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 breast 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: Duke Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams -------------------------------------------------------------- Ronnie Duke, 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-06277-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: Evans Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- James M. Evans, 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-06228-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 testicular 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: Houser Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals -------------------------------------------------------- James C. Houser, 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-06240-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 prostate and pancreatic 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: Huff Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams --------------------------------------------------------------- Melvin G. Huff, 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-06279-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 prostate 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: Irwin Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Earl Irwin, 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-06247-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: Jefferson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams --------------------------------------------------------------- Clyde Jefferson, 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-06280-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: Taylor Sues Over Contaminated Protective Clothing ------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Taylor, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY; E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & CO. a/k/a EIDP, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY L.L.C.; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCE COMPANY LLC; MSA SAFETY SALES, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; LION GROUP, INC.; W. L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC.; TEN CATE PROTECTIVE FABRICS USA D/B/A SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES INC.; BRADSDEN SOLUTIONS, INC.; FIRE-DEX, INC.; MSA SAFETY INCORPORATED; GLOBE HOLDING COMPANY, LLC; PGI, INC.; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LLC; INNOTEX CORP.; AND JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS, 1-50, Case No. 250702706 (Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas, Philadelphia Cty., July 24, 2025), is brought for personal injuries resulting from his exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS") that were manufactured, designed, sold, supplied, distributed and/or contained in protective clothing and/or gear specifically designed for firefighters ("turnouts") manufactured, designed, sold supplied and/or distributed by each of the Defendants, individually or through their predecessors or subsidiaries. PFAS are human-made chemicals consisting of a chain of carbon and fluorine atoms used in manufactured products to, inter alia, resist and repel oil, stains, heat and water. PFAs include "long-chain" PFAS made up of seven or more carbon atoms ("long-chain PFAS") as well as "short-chain" PFAS made up of six or fewer carbon atoms ("short-chain PFAS"). Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, Defendants manufactured, marketed, distributed, sold, or used dangerous PFAS and PFAS-containing materials in protective turnouts designed for firefighters, which he wore, and caused him to be exposed to PFAS on a frequent and regular basis. For decades, Defendants were aware of the toxic nature of PFAS and the harmful impact these substances have on human health. Yet, Defendants manufactured, designed, marketed, sold, supplied, or distributed PFAS-containing turnouts to firefighting training facilities and fire departments nationally, including in Pennsylvania. Defendants did so, moreover, without ever informing firefighters or the public that turnouts contained PFAS, and without warning firefighters or the public of the substantial and serious health injuries that can result from exposure to PFAS or PFAS-containing materials. The Plaintiff used the turnouts as they were intended and in a foreseeable manner which exposed him to PFAS in the course of his firefighting activities. This repeated and extensive exposure to PFAS resulted in Plaintiff developing kidney cancer. The Defendants knowingly and willfully manufactured, designed, marketed, sold, and distributed chemicals and/or products containing PFAS for use within the State of Pennsylvania when they knew or reasonably should have known that Plaintiff would repeatedly inhale, ingest, and/or have dermal contact with these harmful compounds during the ordinary course of his profession, during firefighting training exercises and in firefighting emergencies, and that such exposure would threaten the health and welfare of firefighters exposed to these dangerous and hazardous chemicals, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has served as a firefighter at the Fort Indiantown Gap Fire Department from approximately 2004 to the present. 3M developed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, released, sold and/or used PFAS, PFAS materials, and products containing PFAS in turnouts, including in Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph J. Mandia, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C. A New York Professional Corporation 220 Lake Drive East, Suite 210 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Phone: (856) 755-1115 ACCU REFERENCE MEDICAL: Lips Files Suit in D. New Jersey -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Accu Reference Medical Lab, LLC. The case is styled as Danielle Lips, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Accu Reference Medical Lab, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-13642-SDW-CLW (D.N.J., July 22, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Breach of Warranty. Accu Reference Medical Lab -- https://accureference.com/ -- is a state-of-the-art medical testing laboratory service that provides a complete range of tests for diagnosis, screening or evaluation of diseases and health conditions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James C. Shah, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (610) 891-9880 Fax: (866) 300-7367 Email: jcshah@millershah.com ACT + ACRE INC: Olson Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Act + Acre, Inc. The case is styled as Tabitha Olson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Act + Acre, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-05940 (S.D.N.Y., July 20, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Act+Acre -- https://actandacre.com/ -- is a modern hair wellness brand that will make you think differently about the health and care of your hair.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zane Charles Hedaya, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: zane@jibraellaw.com ADON FARMS: Cuevas Sues Over Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------- Jose Reyes Cuevas and Juan Jose Flores, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals v. Adon Farms Operations, LLC and Anthony Gilbert, Case No. 8:25-cv-00981-MAD-PJE (N.D.N.Y., July 24, 2025), is brought under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act ("TVPRA"), 18 U.S.C. Section 1581 et seq., the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), ("Section 1981"), and the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), seeking, inter alia, their unpaid wages, reimbursement for unlawful deductions, liquidated damages, compensatory damages including damages for mental anguish and emotional distress, punitive damages, statutory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiffs and other Hispanic employees typically worked at least twelve hours per day, six days per week, totaling approximately 72 hours per week. Sometimes Defendants demanded Plaintiffs work additional shifts, on their scheduled day of rest or immediately following a 12-hour workday. Defendants denied Plaintiffs and other Hispanic employees meal breaks and sick time, even when seriously ill or injured. The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and other Hispanic workers for all the hours they worked, made unlawful deductions from their pay, prohibited them from leaving the farm without permission, and issued threats intended to coerce their continued labor, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked at Adon Farms, primarily milking and caring for the cows. Adon Farms is a large-scale business operation in Potsdam, New York consisting of approximately 1,400 milking cows, 1,400 heifers and calves, and 4,000 acres of crop land.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maureen Hussain, Esq. Olivia Post Rich, Esq. Alana Roth, Esq. WORKER JUSTICE CENTER OF NEW YORK 9 Main Street Kingston, NY 12401 Phone: (845) 331-6615 Email: mhussain@wjcny.org opostrich@wjcny.org aroth@wjcny.org ALTO NEUROSCIENCE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Set Sept. 19 ------------------------------------------------------------------- If you suffered a loss on your Alto Neuroscience, Inc. (NYSE:ANRO) investment and want to learn about a potential recovery under the federal securities laws, follow the link below for more information: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/alto-neuroscience-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=158251&wire=1&utm_campaign=1 or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or call (212) 363-7500 to speak to our team of experienced shareholder advocates. THE LAWSUIT: This lawsuit is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired: (a) Alto common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering conducted on or about February 2, 2024; and/or (b) Alto securities between February 2, 2024 and October 22, 2024, both dates inclusive. CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made false statements and/or concealed that: (i) The Company's product pipeline, ALTO-100, was less effective in treating major depressive disorder than defendants had led investors to believe; (ii) accordingly, ALTO-100's clinical, regulatory, and commercial prospects were overstated; (iii) as a result, Alto's business and/or financial prospects were overstated; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Alto Neuroscience, Inc. stock during the relevant time frame - even if you still hold your shares - go to https://zlk.com/pslra-1/alto-neuroscience-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=158251&wire=1&utm_campaign=1 to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or obligation to participate. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN] ALTRIA GROUP: Seeks to Modify Class Cert Bid Sealing Procedures --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Reece v. Altria Group, Inc. et al. (IN RE JUUL LABS, INC. ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No. 3:20-cv-02345-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order requiring the parties to submit "a consolidated chart identifying what information should remain under seal for the Court's Consideration" from the Plaintiffs' Motions for Class Certification and supporting materials. The Defendants seek to maintain under seal a limited subset of material from the Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motions and supporting materials. For convenience of the Court and the parties, Defendants attach as exhibits redacted versions of those documents for which they request the Court keep only portions under seal. Unredacted versions of the exhibits below were submitted with Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification The Defendants append the Declarations of Nowell D. Bamberger, Jeremy Barber, Michael J. Guzman, and A. Keith Ross, respectively, in support of their requests to keep the information described in the chart under seal. The Defendants do not object to requests of third-parties for the materials identified above to remain under seal. Plaintiffs are in the process of reviewing Defendants’ materials in support of the requests for the materials listed above to remain under seal and take no position at this time on these requests. Altria manufactures and sells smokeable and oral tobacco products in the United States. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TtiDuu at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: David I. Gelfand, Esq. Jeremy J. Calsyn, Esq. Nowell D. Bamberger, Esq. Caleb J. Robertson, Esq. CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP 2112 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (202)974-1500 Facsimile: (202)974-1999 E-mail: dgelfand@cgsh.com jcalsyn@cgsh.com nbamberger@cgsh.com cjrobertson@cgsh.com - and - Beth A. Wilkinson, Esq. James M. Rosenthal, Esq. Matthew Skanchy, Esq. Alysha Bohanon, Esq. Jenna Pavelec, Esq. Moira K. Penza, Esq. Jeremy Barber, Esq. WILKINSON STEKLOFF LLP 2001 M Street NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 847-4000 Facsimile: (202) 847-4005 E-mail: bwilkinson@wilkinsonstekloff.com jrosenthal@wilkinsonstekloff.com mskanchy@wilkinsonstekloff.com abohanon@wilkinsonstekloff.com jpavelec@wilkinsonstekloff.com mpenza@wilkinsonstekloff.com jbarber@wilkinsonstekloff.com - and - Lauren Sachi Wulfe, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLC 777 S. Figueroa Street, 44th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 243-4211 Facsimile: (213) 243-4199 E-mail: lauren.wulfe@arnoldporter.com - and - Mark C. Hansen, Esq. Michael J. Guzman, Esq. David L. Schwarz, Esq. KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD, FIGEL & FREDERICK, P.L.L.C. 1615 M Street, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 326-7900 E-mail: mhansen@kellogghansen.com mguzman@kellogghansen.com dschwarz@kellogghansen.com AMAZON.COM INC: Martinho Class Cert Hearings Continued to Sept. 16 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE MARTINHO, as an individual and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM INC., et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-06849-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order as follows: 1. The Court continues the hearings on motion for class certification and motion for summary judgment from July 29, 2025 to Sept. 16, 2025 at 2:00 p.m. Amazon.com is an online retailer that offers a wide range of products. A copy of the Court's order dated July 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3RgRfx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. Kristen M. Agnew, Esq. Max W. Gavron, Esq. Kwanporn "Mai" Tulyathan, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com kagnew@diversitylaw.com mgavron@diversitylaw.com ktulyathan@diversitylaw.com AMERICAN CRUISE: Kirk Bid for Class Certification Tossed -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARIU KIRK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN CRUISE LINES, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-01057-VAB (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Victor A. Bolden entered an order denying the motion for class certification. To the extent Mr. Kirk can cure the deficiencies identified in this Ruling and Order, or wishes to move for certification with a modified class definition, he may file a renewed motion for class certification by Aug. 1, 2025. Accordingly, the Court will not certify a class that includes members who did not dispute the accuracy of their background check reports, as the allegations do not support a finding that those members have suffered a concrete injury, and they therefore lack standing. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, has filed a class action Complaint alleging that the Defendant violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), by failing to provide written notice of job applicants' rights under the FCRA and failing to provide a copy of the background check report before making an adverse decision. Mr. Kirk seeks to define the class as: "All natural persons residing within the United States and its Territories about whom, (i) beginning five (5) years prior to the filing of this Complaint and continuing through the conclusion of this action, (ii) were the subject of a consumer report used by Defendant for employment purposes, (iii) were the subject of an adverse employment action by the Defendant, and (iv) were not provided with a copy of the report and/or a written summary of their rights under the FCRA at least five (5) business days prior to the adverse action." On Dec. 13, 2024, Mr. Kirk filed a motion to certify class and an accompanying memorandum in support. American owns and operates cruise ships throughout North America. A copy of the Court's order dated July 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=y0OhMM at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICAN ECONOMY: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY GLASNER, DWIGHT SEELEY, PAMELA SEELEY, ARIJ ALI, MALINA ALI, and THOMAS LARSEN, as trustee of THE LARSEN FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN ECONOMY INSURANCE COMPANY, LIBERTY MUTUAL PERSONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, and SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF INDIANA, Case No. 1:21-cv-11047-DJC (D. Mass.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting motion extending the deadline to respond to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification until Tuesday, August 5, 2025, and for Plaintiffs' deadline to file their reply brief to be extended until September 5, 2025. The Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on May 30, 2025. American offers auto, home, renters, condo, boat, car, motorcycle, recreational vehicle, and landlord protection insurance services. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xUu6Nu at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Daniel P. Tighe, Esq. Nicholas J. Ramacher, Esq. DONNELLY, CONROY, & GELHAAR, LLP 260 Franklin Street, Suite 1600 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 720-2880 E-mail: dpt@dcglaw.com njr@dcglaw.com - and - David T. Moran, Esq. Christopher A. Thompson, Esq. Michael J. Murtha, Esq. Marilyn Brown, Esq. JACKSON WALKER L.L.P. 2323 Ross Avenue, Suite 600 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 953-6000 Facsimile: (214) 953-5822 E-mail: dmoran@jw.com cthompson@jw.com mmurtha@jw.com mbrown@jw.com ANNE ARUNDEL: Beville Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI ----------------------------------------------------------- Earl Beville, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ANNE ARUNDEL DERMATOLOGY, P.A., Case No. 1:25-cv-02384-GLR (N.D. Md., July 22, 2025), is brought against AAD for its failure to secure and safeguard approximately 1,905,000 individuals’, including Plaintiff’s, personally identifying information (“PII”) and personal health information (“PHI”), including names, addresses, dates of birth, medical information, and health insurance information. Between approximately February 14, 2025, and May 13, 2025, an unauthorized third party gained access to AAD’s network systems and accessed and acquired files containing the PII/PHI of AAD’s patients, including Plaintiff and Class members (the “Data Breach”). AAD owed a duty to Plaintiff and Class members to implement and maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to secure, protect, and safeguard their PII/PHI against unauthorized access and disclosure. AAD breached that duty by, among other things, failing to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect its patients’ PII/PHI from unauthorized access and disclosure. As a result of AAD’s inadequate security and breach of its duties and obligations, the Data Breach occurred, and Plaintiff’s and Class members’ PII/PHI was accessed and disclosed. This action seeks to remedy these failings and their consequences. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all persons whose PII/PHI was exposed as a result of the Data Breach, which occurred between approximately February 14, 2025, and May 13, 2025, says the complaint. The Plaintiff obtained healthcare services from AAD. AAD is a dermatology healthcare provider with locations in states across the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary E. Howerton, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 223 Duke of Gloucester Street Annapolis, MD 21401 Phone: (410) 269-6620 Facsimile: (410) 269-1235 Email: zhowerton@milberg.com - and - Ben Barnow, Esq. Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq. BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. 205 West Randolph Street, Suite 1630 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312.621.2000 Fax: 312.641.5504 Email: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com aparkhill@barnowlaw.com ANNE ARUNDEL: Smith Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------- JACQUELINE SMITH, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ANNE ARUNDEL DERMATOLOGY, P.A., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02341-GLR (D. Md., July 18, 2025) seeks relief for the consequences of Defendant's failure to reasonably safeguard Plaintiff's and Class members' private information; its failure to reasonably provide timely notification to Plaintiff and Class members that their private information had been compromised; and for Defendant's failure to inform Plaintiff and Class members concerning the status, safety, location, access, and protection of their private information. As part of its operations, AAD collects, maintains, and stores highly sensitive personally identifying information, private health information, and financial account information from its patients, including Plaintiff. On February 14, 2025, cybercriminals breached AAD's security systems and accessed files containing patients' sensitive and confidential PII and PHI. The Data Breach occurred because AAD failed to implement reasonable security protections to safeguard its information systems and databases. Moreover, before the Data Breach occurred, AAD failed to inform the public that its data security practices were deficient and inadequate. Had Plaintiff and Class members been made aware of this fact, they would have never provided such information to AAD, says the suit. Anne Arundel Dermatology provides dermatology services in Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James P. Ulwick, Esq. KRAMON & GRAHAM, P.A. 750 East Pratt Street, Suite 1100 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 752-6030 E-mail: julwick@kg-law.com - and - Daniel O. Herrera, Esq. Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq. Alex Lee, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 135 S. LaSalle, Suite 3210 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 782-4880 Facsimile: (312) 782-4485 E-mail: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com nhagman@caffertyclobes.com alee@cafftertyclobes.com APPLE INC: Albertto Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Isamar Albertto, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. APPLE INC., Case No. 25STCV20217 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on July 22, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-06701. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of “tens of thousands of iPhone purchasers,” and asserts claims under the California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal, Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200, et seq., the California False Advertising Law (“FAL”), Cal, Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17500, et seq., the California Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), Cal, Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 1750, et seq., and the common law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Emily Johnson Henn, Esq. Kathryn E. Cahoy, Esq. Megan L. Rodgers, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 3000 El Camino Real 5 Palo Alto Square, 10th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112 Phone: (650) 632-4700 Facsimile: (650) 632-4800 Email: ehenn@cov.com kcahoy@cov.com mrodgers@cov.com APPRISS RETAIL: Austin Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Julian Austin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. APPRISS RETAIL HOLDINGS, INC., f/k/a TRE HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 2025-CH-06654 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, to the United States District Court for Northern District of Illinois on July 24, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-08601. The Complaint contains a single cause of action based on Plaintiff's allegations that Appriss violated the Illinois Driver's License Act ("IDLA"), by using her driver's license information and the information of other individuals without permission to do so. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges Appriss is a software-as-a-service (also known as a "Saas") provider that licenses software to retailers to help protect transactions against fraud and abuse.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, Floor 32 New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 836-7150 Email: pfraietta@burson.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael J. McMorrow, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE LLP 111 South Wacker Drive, Suite 4100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 443-0246 Email: michael.mcmorrow@troutman.com ARB GAMING LLC: Jackson Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Hunter Blake Jackson, and others similarly situated v. ARB GAMING, LLC and ARB INTERACTIVE, INC., Case No. 33-CV-2025-900087.00 was removed from the Circuit Court of Franklin County, Alabama, to the United States District Court for Northern District of Alabama on July 24, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01199-LCB. The Plaintiff's allegations against ARB in this case arise from ARB's alleged publication of online games, namely casino-themed social games, which Plaintiff claims are unlawful contests of chance under Alabama law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: John C. Neiman, Jr., Esq. William B. Grimes (1696-T98H) MAYNARD NEXSEN PC 1901 Sixth Avenue N., Suite 1700 Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: (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 Phone: 212-404-9200 Email: wasaurack@duanemorris.com - and - William M. Gantz, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 100 High Street, Suite 2400 Boston, MA 02110 Phone: 857-488-4234 Email: bgantz@duanemorris.com ARGENT TRUST: Lloyd Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jamaal Lloyd and Anastasia Jenkins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the W BBQ Holdings, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, v. Argent Trust Company, Herbert Wetanson, Gregor Wetanson, Stuart Wetanson, BBQ Trust and its trustees and beneficiaries, Gregor Wetanson 2015 Gift Trust and its trustees and beneficiaries, Case No. 1:22-cv-04129-DLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs shall move this Court for an Order: (i) certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1), or alternatively 23(b)(2); (ii) appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and (iii) appointing Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). The proposed Class is defined as follows: "All participants in the W BBQ Holdings, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan on or after July 29, 2016 who vested in whole or in part under the terms of the ESOP, and those participants' beneficiaries, excluding the Defendants and their immediate family members; any fiduciary of the ESOP; and any current or former officers or directors of W BBQ." Argent operates as an investment management firm. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EcpIdq at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michelle C. Yau, Esq. Daniel R. Sutter, Esq. Ryan A. Wheeler, Esq. Caroline E. Bressman, Esq. Michael Eisenkraft, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: myau@cohenmilstein.com dsutter@cohenmilstein.com rwheeler@cohenmilstein.com cbressman@cohenmilstein.com meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com ATLANTA DASH: Yarbrough Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Tiebreanna Yarbrough, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons v. ATLANTA DASH, INC. and KRISTIE RENDER, Case No. 1:25-cv-04068-SCJ (N.D. Ga., July 22, 2025), is brought alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“FLSA”) as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages. The Plaintiff alleges that, as a regular and routine practice, Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated persons one-and-one-half their regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, instead paying them a set hourly rate for all time worked regardless of the number of hours they worked per workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a Dispatcher from September 19, 2022 until April 3, 2025. Atlanta Dash advertises itself as a transportation company “offering a variety of transportation solutions."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin M. Scott, Esq. Tierra M. Monteiro, Esq. RADFORD SCOTT LLP 125 Clairemont Avenue, Suite 380 Decatur, GA 30030 Phone: 404.400.3600 Facsimile: 478.575.2590 Email: jscott@radfordscott.com tmonteiro@radfordscott.com BACKSTAGE ATLANTA: Acolatse Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Musuanni Acolatse, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. BACKSTAGE ATLANTA, INC. and SONJA Y. DOUGLAS, Case No. 1:25-cv-04064-TRJ (N.D. Ga., July 22, 2025), is brought alleging systemic violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“FLSA”) for unlawfully withheld tips, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. The Defendants, as a regular and routine practice, required Plaintiff and those similarly situated to attend off-the-clock training shifts, failing to pay them minimum wage for all time worked, in violation of the FLSA. The Defendants, as a regular and routine practice, failed to properly compensate Plaintiff and those similarly situated by failing to pay them any base wages at all, on some occasions, including whenever they earned tips from customers in excess of the amount Defendants were required to pay them per hour during the shift, in violation of the FLSA. The Defendants, as a regular and routine practice, required Plaintiff and those similarly situated to “tip out” a percentage of their tips. On information and belief, a substantial percentage of Plaintiff’s tips were retained by Defendants and/or converted to management and/or employees who did not customarily and regularly receive tips, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked as a non-exempt employee in the position of Server. Backstage Atlanta is advertised as a restaurant and bar that serves food and alcohol to patrons.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin M. Scott, Esq. Tierra M. Monteiro, Esq. RADFORD SCOTT LLP 125 Clairemont Avenue, Suite 380 Decatur, Georgia 30030 Phone: 404.400.3600 Facsimile: 478.575.2590 Email: jscott@radfordscott.com tmonteiro@radfordscott.com BARNARD CONSTRUCTION: Seeks to Strike Class Allegations in McCoy ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACOB MCCOY, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v. BARNARD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-02575-DDD-TPO (D. Colo.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order denying class certification and/or striking the class allegations from the Plaintiff's original class action complaint & jury demand. The Plaintiff filed this purported class action lawsuit based on the conclusory and erroneous allegations that Defendant required a class of employees to work "off the clock," and failed to authorize and permit them to take meal and rest breaks in compliance with Colorado law. However, the Plaintiff cannot meet his burden to establish the class certification requirements under the rigorous standard of proof required by Rule 23 because the facts contradict his class allegations. Rather, the declarations of eleven of the 25 putative class members conclusively show that the Plaintiff cannot establish the requirements of Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) because the class is not numerous, the Defendant has no unlawful policies or practices that satisfy the commonality or predominance requirements, the Plaintiff is not typical of the class, and a class action is not a superior way for litigation to proceed in this action. Because the evidence clearly shows the putative class cannot be certified and discovery would not change that, this Court should deny certification of the Plaintiff's putative class and/or strike the class allegations from his Complaint. The Plaintiff alleges Defendant maintained unlawful policies and practices with respect to the Miners that violated the Colorado Wage Claim Act ("CWCA"), Colorado Minimum Wage Act ("CMWA"), and their implementing regulations, Colorado Overtime & Minimum Pay Standards Order ("COMPS Order") that resulted in the Defendant allegedly failing to pay minimum and overtime wages. The Plaintiff was employed as an hourly, nonexempt miner from Dec. 5, 2022, to Sept. 27, 2023, at the Chimney Hollow Reservoir project located in Larimer County, Colorado. Barnard is a large heavy-civil construction company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4orwNi at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Jeffrey H. McClelland, Esq. Katherine M. Svinarich, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 3500 Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 861-7760 E-mail: Jeffrey.McClelland@lewisbrisbois.com Kate.Svinarich@lewisbrisbois.com BAYER AMERICAN: Settles Securities Class Action Suit for $38MM -------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Aljets of ClaimDepot reports that consumers who purchased or otherwise acquired Bayer American Depositary Receipts between May 23, 2016, and July 6, 2020, may be eligible to submit a claim for a cash payment from a class action settlement. Bayer Aktiengesellschaft agreed to pay $38,000,000 to settle a class action lawsuit. The class action claimed Bayer and certain executives violated federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements about the company's due diligence in connection with its acquisition of Monsanto and regarding the risks of litigation related to the company's Roundup products. Who is eligible for a Bayer settlement payout? -- The class includes all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Bayer's publicly traded American Depositary Receipts between May 23, 2016, and July 6, 2020. -- The class covers both individuals and entities, including those who acquired ADRs through direct purchase, custodial accounts or by depositing or redeeming Bayer ordinary shares via The Bank of New York Mellon. -- Class members who previously requested exclusion from the class and now wish to participate must submit a written request to opt back in to the settlement administrator by Oct. 9, 2025. How much is the class action settlement payment? The settlement uses a plan of allocation to determine each claimant's recognized loss, which is based on: -- When the American Depositary Receipts were purchased and sold -- The amount of artificial inflation in the share price at the time of purchase and sale, detailed in Table A of the settlement notice How much is the class action settlement payment? The settlement uses a plan of allocation to determine each claimant's recognized loss, which is based on: How much is the class action settlement payment? The settlement uses a plan of allocation to determine each claimant's recognized loss, which is based on: -- When the American Depositary Receipts were purchased and sold -- The amount of artificial inflation in the share price at the time of purchase and sale, detailed in Table A of the settlement notice The estimated average recovery is approximately $0.15 per share after deducting attorneys' fees and expenses. Final payment amount will be determined each class member's specific transactions and the total number of valid claims. How to claim a class action rebate To claim a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid claim form by Oct. 16, 2025. There are two ways to file: -- Class members or qualifying entities can file a claim online -- Or download, print, complete and mail the PDF claim form to the settlement administrator Settlement administrator's mailing address: Bayer ADR Securities Litigation c/o A.B. Data Ltd., P.O. Box 173084 Milwaukee, WI 53217 Is proof required to submit a claim? Yes, claimants must provide supporting documentation verifying their Bayer American Depositary Receipts transactions. Acceptable documentation includes: -- Copies of broker confirmation slips -- Monthly brokerage account statements -- An authorized broker statement containing the relevant transactional and holding information Payout options Approved claimants will receive a paper check mailed to the address provided. $38 Million Bayer class action settlement fund The $38,000,000 settlement fund will include: -- Notice and administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $10,260,000 -- Attorneys' expenses: Up to $3,550,000 -- Payments to valid claimants: Remaining settlement funds Important dates -- Deadline to file a claim: Oct. 16, 2025 -- Deadline to opt back into the class if previously excluded: Oct. 9, 2025 -- Fairness hearing: Oct. 30, 2025 When is the Bayer ADR securities settlement payout date? Payments to eligible claimants will be issued after the court grants final approval of the settlement, any appeals are resolved and all claims are processed. Why did this class action lawsuit and settlement happen? The class action lawsuit alleged Bayer and certain executives violated federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements about the company's due diligence in acquiring Monsanto, particularly regarding the risks of litigation related to Monsanto's Roundup products. Plaintiffs claimed these statements artificially inflated the price of Bayer American Depositary Receipts and that the truth was revealed through a series of legal and financial events, causing the share price to drop and resulting in losses for investors. Bayer denies these allegations but agreed to settle to avoid the risk and expense of continuing litigation. [GN] BCI ACRYLIC: Stark Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against BCI Acrylic, LLC. The case is styled as Michael Stark, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BCI Acrylic, LLC d/b/a Bath Planet, Case No. 1:25-cv-08428 (N.D. Ill., July 23, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. BCI Acrylic -- https://www.bciacrylic.com/ -- offers a full line of superior quality acrylic bath systems and acrylic shower systems at affordable prices.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com BESTWAY INC: Armstrong Must File Supplemental Briefing Docs ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Franca Armstrong, et al., v. Bestway (USA) Incorporated, Case No. 2:24-cv-02812-SHD (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Sharad Desai entered an order that the Plaintiffs shall file supplemental briefing and supporting documentation on whether preliminary class certification is appropriate. Specifically, the Plaintiffs shall provide: 1. Information regarding the nine pump models at issue, including (1) the total number of each allegedly defective model sold, and (2) the price range of each model; 2. Information regarding which class representatives participated in the recall, including whether they chose the replacement spa pump option or the gift card/credit option; 3. Briefing on whether, although the class representatives all purchased the same model (P05332), they satisfy Rule 23's requirements, together with citations to relevant Ninth Circuit precedent; The Plaintiffs shall file their brief by no later than Friday, Aug. 15, 2025. Bestway is engaged in the wholesale distribution of games, toys, hobby goods, and supplies. A copy of the Court's order dated July 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iHLb1e at no extra charge.[CC] BETTERHELP INC: Court Modifies Briefing Schedule ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as C.M., on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. BETTERHELP, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-01033-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order granting joint stipulation to modify briefing schedule, hearing date on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification: The Parties stipulate pursuant to Local Rule 6-2 to the Court entering an order modifying the time for briefing and argument on the Motion as follows, subject to the approval of the Court: -- Staying briefing on the pending Motion (ECF No. 170); and -- Requiring submission to the Court, no later than Aug. 7, 2025, either (i) a stipulation and proposed order regarding future briefing and hearing schedules, or in the unanticipated event the parties are unable to reach an agreement, (ii) an administrative motion addressing a modified briefing and hearing schedule. BetterHelp is a mental health platform that provides direct online counseling and therapy services via web or phone text communication. A copy of the Court's order dated July 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QkyrqM at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary. M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com gabramson@milberg.com ahoneycutt@milberg.com rnelson@milberg.com - and - Christina Tusan, Esq. HAMMONDLAW, P.C. 1201 Pacific Ave, Suite 600 Tacoma, WA 98402 Telephone: (310) 601-6766 Facsimile: (310) 295-2385 E-mail: ctusan@hammondlawpc.com - and - Maureen M. Brady, Esq. MCSHANE & BRADY 4006 Central Street Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 888-8010 E-mail: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com - and - Alan M. Mansfield, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS LLP 1 Sansome Street, 35th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (619) 308-5034 Facsimile: (888) 341-5048 E-mail: amansfield@whatleykallas.com The Defendant is represented by: Livia M. Kiser, Esq. Jeffrey Hammer, Esq. Craig H. Bessenger, Esq. James A. Unger, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-4355 Facsimile: (213) 443-4310 E-mail: lkiser@kslaw.com jhammer@kslaw.com cbessenger@kslaw.com junger@kslaw.com BLUEGRASS HOSPITALITY: Court Certifies Rule 23 Classes ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ABBEY PEACH, LAUREN BOYER, SABINA ANDERSON, PAUL PRESTARRI, COLE HOWARD, GAUBRIELLE BROWN, ISAAC HOPKINS, ASHLEY LUTZ, SHARNESE WILLIS, BETHANY BAUMANN, and HALEY DEAN, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, v. BLUEGRASS HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC and BLUEGRASS HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00792 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Aleta Trauger entered an order as follows: 1. The Court finally certifies the following Rule 23 Classes consisting of: "All current and former workers in tip credit eligible positions employed by the Defendants at their Kentucky restaurants at any time from April 22, 2019 to Nov. 7, 2024 (the "Rule 23 Kentucky Class")"; "All current and former workers in tip credit eligible positions employed by the Defendants at their Missouri restaurants at any time from April 29, 2021 to Nov. 7, 2024 (the "Rule 23 Missouri Class")"; "All current and former workers in tip credit eligible positions employed by the Defendants at their Illinois restaurant at any time from May 2, 2021 to Nov. 7, 2024 (the "Rule 23 Illinois Class")"; and "All current and former workers in tip credit eligible positions employed by the Defendants at their Indiana restaurants at any time from May 10, 2022 to Nov. 7, 2024 (the "Rule 23 Indiana Class"); (collectively the "Rule 23 Classes")." 2. The Court finally appoints (a) Named Plaintiffs Sabina Anderson, Paul Prestarri, Cole Howard, and Lauren Boyer as a Class Representatives of the Rule 23 Kentucky Class; (b) Named Plaintiffs Gaubrielle Brown, Isaac Hopkins, and Ashley Lutz as Class Representatives of the Rule 23 Missouri Class; (c) Named Plaintiff Sharnese Willis as Class Representative of the Rule 23 Illinois Class; and (d) Named Plaintiff Bethany Baumann as Class Representative of the Rule 23 Indiana Class. 3. The Court finally appoints David W. Garrison and Joshua A. Frank of Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, PLLC; C. Ryan Morgan of Morgan & Morgan, P.A.; and Jordan Richards of USA Employment Lawyers – Jordan Richards PLLC as Class Counsel for the Rule 23 Classes. 4. The Court grants the Plaintiffs' request and approves payment of $3,000,000 for attorneys' fees. The Court grants the Plaintiffs' request and approves payment of $$43,998.44 from the common settlement fund to Class Counsel for their out-of- pocket costs and expenses. The Court grants the Plaintiffs' request for payment of the costs of the settlement administration from the common settlement fund in the amount of $47,851.50 and approves such payment. Bluegrass operates restaurants such as Malone's prime events & receptions, Harry's, Drake's, Aqua sushi, and OBC Kitchen. A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=veldWQ at no extra charge.[CC] BOB EVANS: Court Approves Parties' Mediation Plan ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rodney Mitchell, et al., V. Bob Evans Restaurants, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-02123-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Michael Watson entered an order approving the Parties' mediation plan. The parties are ordered to submit a joint revised proposed notice complying with the Court's July 1, 2025, Opinion and Order on or before Oct. 23, 2025. To the extent the parties advance differing positions on an issue, they should so indicate using track changes or comments in the joint proposed notice. The Court grants the parties' request and stays its decision on Plaintiffs' class certification motion until after mediation. The parties are ordered to file a joint status report within seven days of mediation updating the Court on the mediation's outcome. In that status report, if the case does not settle, the parties must also propose next steps. IT IS SO ORDERED. Bob is a chain of family style restaurants. A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GJc9eB at no extra charge.[CC] BOEING COMPANY: Subpoena Motion Transferred to Illinois Court ------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. District Judge Lauren King of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted an unopposed motion by Darren Jens, a retired Boeing engineer, to transfer his motion to quash a non-party subpoena to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in the case captioned In Re the Boeing Company Aircraft Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:19-cv-02394 (N.D. Ill.). Mr. Jens had been served a subpoena by the Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi in connection with the Boeing securities class action litigation (Case No. 1:19-cv-02394) pending in the Northern District of Illinois. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(f), the Washington court approved the transfer since Mr. Jens consented and the circumstances warranted avoiding fragmented litigation across multiple courts. The court directed the clerk to transfer the matter to the Northern District of Illinois and consolidate it with the main Boeing securities case, then close the Washington proceeding. In Re The Boeing Company Aircraft Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:19-cv-02394 (N.D. Ill.) is a class action lawsuit filed against The Boeing Company concerning alleged misrepresentations about the safety of its 737 MAX aircraft. The lawsuit claims that Boeing prioritized profits over safety, leading to flawed aircraft design and inadequate safety procedures. The case is specifically related to the crashes of Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, both involving the 737 MAX. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=W8Ojwq BRAMAN PALM BEACH: Murphy Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Braman Palm Beach, Inc. The case is styled as Heather Burkett Murphy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Braman Palm Beach, Inc. doing business as: Braman Honda of Palm Beach, Case No. 1:25-cv-23313-XXXX (S.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. Braman Palm Beach, Inc. -- https://www.bramanhondapb.com/ -- offers a wide range of Acura models of new and pre-owned cars.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Christopher Eric Berman, Esq. 1650 SE 17th Street Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Phone: (865) 603-7365 Email: cberman@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 20900 NE 30th, Ave 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com CALIMIRA LLC: Ciani Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Christina Ciani, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CALIMIRA, LLC d/b/a RUSTY BUCKET RESTAURANT & TAVERN, Case No. 2:25-cv-00814-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio, July 23, 2025), is brought for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act's ("FLSA") tip credit and subsequent failure to pay its employees at the federally mandated minimum wage rate for all hours worked, Defendant's violations of the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("OMFWSA"), Ohio Revised Code ("R.C.") for Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and all similarly situated workers their earned minimum wages, and Defendant's violations of Article II § 34a of the Ohio Constitution. The Defendant pays its tipped employees, including servers and bartenders, below the minimum wage rate by taking advantage of the tip-credit provision of the FLSA and, in Ohio, the OMFWSA. Under the tip-credit provisions, an employer of tipped employees may, under certain circumstances, pay those employees less than the minimum wage rate by taking a credit against the employer's minimum wage obligations from the tips received from customers. As a result of these violations, Defendant has lost the ability to use the tip credit and therefore must compensate Plaintiff and all similarly situated workers at the full minimum wage rate, unencumbered by the tip credit, and for all hours worked. In other words, Defendant must account for the difference between the wages paid to Plaintiff and all similarly situated workers and the minimum wage rate. Additionally, Defendant must pay Plaintiff and all similarly situated workers for all hours of work, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked at the Rusty Bucket in Columbus, Ohio as a server. The Defendant operates a chain of restaurants under the trade name Rusty Bucket Restaurant & Tavern throughout the United States, including Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7034 Braucher Street, N.W., Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Phone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 1360 E. 9th St, Suite 808 Cleveland, OH 44114 Phone: (216) 230-2955 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Don J. Foty, Esq. FOTY LAW GROUP 2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 250 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 523-0001 Email: dfoty@fotylawgroup.com COLONIAL PENN: Cole Seeks Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK COLE, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated and aggrieved, v. COLONIAL PENN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-02993-DC-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Sept. 19, 2025 at 1:30 p.m., will move the Court for an order granting preliminary approval of the class action settlement and certification of the settlement class. The Settlement Class consists of: "All individuals who called any of the Affected Colonial Penn Telephone Numbers from a California area code between Nov. 22, 2022 and Jan. 13, 2024 (the "Class Period")." The Settlement Class comprises 47,503 individuals. The compromise Settlement, reached with the guidance of Judge Andersen, will create a non-reversionary Settlement Fund to be established by Defendant in the amount of $3,725,000. The Plaintiff's operative Complaint alleges that Colonial Penn violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Penal Code section 630 et seq. ("CIPA") by recording consumers' telephone conversations without the knowledge or consent of all parties to the telephone communication. Colonial is a life insurance company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ODPpM2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21031 Ventura Blvd. Suite 340 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Telephone: (877) 619-8966 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com - and - Zev B. Zysman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ZEV B. ZYSMAN, APC 15760 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 700 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 783-8836 E-mail: zev@zysmanlawca.com COOPERSURGICAL INC: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Oct. 5, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.G, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. COOPERSURGICAL, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00172-SVN (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Sarala V. Nagala entered a scheduling order as follows: Initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1) must be exchanged by Aug. 29, 2025. The parties will substantially complete fact discovery by April 14, 2026. Fact discovery ends May 14, 2026. Any motion for class certification is due Oct. 5, 2026. Opposition to class certification is due Dec. 7, 2026. Reply brief in support of class certification is due Jan. 5, 2027. A joint status report of the parties shall be filed on or before April 14, 2026. CooperSurgical offers women health care medical instruments, devices and disposables. A copy of the Court's order dated July 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=97EGDG at no extra charge.[CC] DATAVANT INC: Parties Seek to Stay Class Certification Briefing --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STACEY GARBOWIT and ALLEY MCINNIS, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. DATAVANT, INC., as successor by merger to Ciox Health, LLC d/b/a Ciox Health, WEST BOCA MEDICAL CENTER, INC., a Florida corporation, and DELRAY MEDICAL CENTER, INC., a Florida corporation, Case No. 9:25-cv-80345-DMM (S.D. Fla.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint motion to stay briefing on class certification pending resolution of the issues raised in the Court's order denying without prejudice motion to compel arbitration and order to show cause. Accordingly, the Court has issued a show cause order to Plaintiffs, requiring that Plaintiffs address, in writing, three questions for the Court on or by July 28, 2025, so that the Court can determine how the case will proceed. The Defendants then must submit a responsive filing, if any, on or by August 4, 2025. On Feb. 6, 2025, the Plaintiffs initiated this case by filing their Complaint in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, Case No. 2025CA001085, which the Defendants removed to this Court on March 13, 2025. On June 26, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification. Datavant operates as a software development company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=imQW6J at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William J. Cornwell, Esq. David K. Friedman, Esq. Miranda N. Springfield, Esq. WEISS, HANDLER & CORNWELL, PA One Boca Place, Suite 205E 2255 Glades Road Boca Raton, FL 33431 E-mail: wjc@whcfla.com filings@whcfla.com nw@whcfla.com dkf@whcfla.com gg@whcfla.com mns@whcfla.com jn@whcfla.com -and- - and - Bruce F. Silver, Esq. SILVER & SILVER, PA 6100 Glades Road, Suite 201 Boca Raton, FL 33434 E-mail: bruce@silverinjurylaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Tala Amirfazli, Esq. Andrew T. Sarangoulis, Esq. BURR & FORMAN LLP 1075 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 3000 Atlanta, GA, 30309 Telephone: (404) 815-3000 Facsimile: (404) 817-3244 E-mail: tamirfazli@burr.com asarangoulis@burr.com rzamora@burr.com DELTA STAR: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by August 22 --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAX WILSON, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated; v. DELTA STAR, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive; Case No. 3:21-cv-07326-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order to continue hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Deadline for the Defendant to file Opposition Aug. 22, 2025 to Motion for Class Certification: Deadline for the Plaintiff to file Reply in Sept. 22, 2025 support of Motion for Class Certification: Hearing on the Plaintiff's Motion for Oct. 23, 2025 Class Certification: On June 2, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, including 5 declarations of putative class members. Delta manufactures medium-power transformers, mobile transformers, and mobile substations. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4zVRTp at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq. Talia Lux, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101 Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: (818) 230-7502 Facsimile: (818) 230-7259 E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com statavos@justicelawcorp.com tlux@justicelawcorp.com The Defendants are represented by: Tyler M. Paetkau, Esq. Kathy Huynh, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 1999 Harrison St., Suite 13000 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 768-0650 Facsimile: (510) 768-0651 E-mail: tyler.paetkau@huschblackwell.com kathy.huynh@huschblackwell.com DIDI GLOBAL: Bid to Seal to Exhibits in Securities Suit OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit RE DIDI GLOBAL INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:21-cv-05807-LAK-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Valerie Figueredo entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to seal as to Exhibits D and E and permanently seal them. DiDi is a mobile transportation platform offering a full range of app-based services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8NzEuN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan Rosenberg, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 1700 New York, NY 10019-6022 Telephone: (212) 326-2000 Facsimile: (212) 326-2061 E-mail: jrosenberg@omm.com DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Hopkins Loses Bid to Intervene ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE PAPPAS, et al., v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02800-RC (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Rudolph Contreras entered a memorandum Denying Vincent Hopkins's Motion To Intervene. The Court will grant Hopkins leave to file an amended motion on or before Aug. 18, 2025, that cures the deficiencies identified by the Court in this Memorandum Opinion. An order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is separately and contemporaneously issued. In the current motion, however, Hopkins's position is not so apparent, even when considering all of Hopkins's filings together. By not stating his grounds for intervention and accompanying his motion with a pleading, Hopkins failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 24(c). Additionally, Hopkins's motion fails to provide sufficient information for the Court to determine if intervention is appropriate. Finally, Hopkins's motion fails to provide sufficient information to allow the Court to determine whether Hopkins’s claims were exhausted. The Plaintiffs, a certified class of current and former D.C. Metropolitan Police Department officers, bring this action against Defendants, alleging that the Defendants violated the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Court certified the following class: "All current and former employees of the Defendants who were employed as MPD sworn law enforcement officers at any time between Dec. 9, 2014, and the date that class certification is granted who developed a physical or mental disability and were referred to the Police and Firefighters Retirement Relief Board ("Retirement Board") for disability retirement even though the Defendants never determined their suitability for extended leave, job restructuring, and reassignment and who were disability retired or whose Retirement Board decision remains pending." On Oct. 28, 2024, the Court entered a minute order directing that motions to intervene in this matter should be filed by Jan. 23, 2025. District of Columbia is a compact city on the Potomac River, bordering the states of Maryland and Virginia. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated July 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2pgHAU at no extra charge.[CC] DOCGO INC: Naclerio Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Naclerio v. DocGo Inc. et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-09476-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff will move the Court for an order: (i) certifying this matter as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23; (ii) appointing Lead Plaintiff as Class Representative; and (iii) appointing Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Class Counsel. DocGo provides mobile health and medical transportation services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oC9WZv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric I. Niehaus, Esq. Joseph J. Tull, Esq. Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. Christopher M. Wood, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: ericn@rgrdlaw.com jtull@rgrdlaw.com srudman@rgrdlaw.com drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com cwood@rgrdlaw.com - and - Thomas C. Michaud, Esq. VANOVERBEKE, MICHAUD & TIMMONY, P.C. 79 Alfred Street Detroit, MI 48201 Telephone: (313) 578-1200 Facsimile: (313) 578-1201 E-mail: tmichaud@vmtlaw.com DOCUSIGN INC: Securities Suit Stayed Pending Bid to Dismiss ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADVANCED SERIES TRUST, PRUDENTIAL INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS 3, PRUDENTIAL INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS 5, PRUDENTIAL INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS 12, PRUDENTIAL INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS 18, PRUDENTIAL WORLD FUND, INC., PRUDENTIAL INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS, INC., and THE PRUDENTIAL SERIES FUND, v. DOCUSIGN, INC., DANIEL D. SPRINGER, MICHAEL J. SHERIDAN, CYNTHIA GAYLOR, and LOREN ALHADEFF, Case No. 3:25-cv-04683-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order re: stipulation to stay action pending related securities class action motion to dismiss, as follows: 1. Undersigned counsel for the Defendants are authorized to accept, and do accept, service of the Summons and Complaint in this matter on behalf of the Defendants, without prejudice and without waiver of any of the Defendants' defenses, objections, or arguments, except as to the sufficiency of process. 2. The Opt-Out Action, including all deadlines, hearings, and conferences is stayed until the motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint in the Securities Class Action is resolved. 3. The Opt-Out Action is stayed without waiver of any claims, defenses or objections. 4. Upon the resolution of the motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint in the Securities Class Action, the Parties shall meet and confer regarding appropriate next steps to be taken in this action and notify the Court accordingly within 14 days. DocuSign offers a cloud-based digital transaction administration platform and e-Signature solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated July 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ej4dmJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adrian Sawyer, Esq. SAWYER & LABAR LLP 1700 Montgomery Street, Suite 108 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 262-3820 E-mail: sawyer@sawyerlabar.com - and - Lawrence M. Rolnick, Esq. Michael J. Hampson, Esq. Richard A. Bodnar, Esq. ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP PENN 1, Suite 3401 One Pennsylvania Plaza New York, NY 10119 Telephone: (212) 597-2800 E-mail: lrolnick@rksllp.com mhampson@rksllp.com rbodnar@rksllp.com The Defendants are represented by: Michele D. Johnson, Esq. Melanie M. Blunschi, Esq. Whitney B. Weber, Esq. Andrew B. Clubok, Esq. Susan E. Engel, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 650 Town Center Drive, 20th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 540-1235 E-mail: michele.johnson@lw.com melanie.blunschi@lw.com whitney.weber@lw.com andrew.clubok@lw.com susan.engel@lw.com DOMINO'S PIZZA: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Carmona Due August 25 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDMOND CARMONA, ABRAHAM MENDOZA, ROGER NOGUEIRA, THOMAS ARRIOLA, BURNETT BRULEE, GYGORY DIAZ, DANIEL ETCHEPARE, RAUL QUIROZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and all other aggrieved employees, v. DOMINO'S PIZZA, LLC, a Michigan Corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 8:20-cv-01905-JVS-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge James Selna entered an order granting the Parties' joint stipulation regarding the proposed class certification briefing schedule as follows: Event Date The Plaintiffs to file motion for class Aug. 25, 2025 Certification: Domino's to file opposition to motion Sept. 22, 2025 for class certification: The Plaintiffs' reply to motion for class Oct. 6, 2025 Certification Hearing: Oct. 20, 2025 Domino's is an American multinational pizza restaurant chain. A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VmVFBu at no extra charge.[CC] DOTHAN SECURITY: Gordon Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dothan Security, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Ontaria Gordon, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Dothan Security, Inc., DSI Security Services, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0010033 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., July 24, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Dothan Security, Inc. -- https://dsisecurity.com/ -- provides security services. The Company offers guard, burglar and fire alarm systems, closed circuit television, access control, entry gates, cabling, consulting, and site security assessments services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: vgranberry@lelawfirm.com DOTHOUSE HEALTH: Durmus Files Suit in D. Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against DotHouse Health, Inc. The case is styled as Knayya Durmus, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DotHouse Health, Inc.., Case No. 1:25-cv-12072 (D. Mass., July 23, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. DotHouse Health -- https://www.dorchesterhouse.org/ -- is an organization that offers a full range of health care and community services for consumers and staffs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John P. Kristensen, Esq. KRISTENSEN LAW GROUP 120 Santa Barbara Street Suite C9 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Phone: (805) 837-2000 Email: john@kristensen.law DOTHOUSE HEALTH: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Thompson Says -------------------------------------------------------------- TIARA THOMPSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DOTHOUSE HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-12035 (D. Mass., July 18, 2025) is a class action arising from Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data of 185,795 individuals residing in Massachusetts alone. According to the complaint, although DotHouse became aware of the Data Breach on November 28, 2022, it waited until July 14, 2025 -- 958 days -- until it notified the Massachusetts Attorney General. Despite collecting and storing the highly sensitive private identifying information and health information of hundreds of thousands of current and former patients, DotHouse's cybersecurity measures were so inadequate that it took DotHouse 27 days to even realize its computer systems had been breached. The Plaintiff and the Class are victims of Defendant's negligence and inadequate cyber security measures. Specifically, the Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class trusted Defendant with their PII/PHI. But Defendant betrayed that trust when Defendant failed to properly use up-to date security practices to prevent the Data Breach. The Plaintiff seeks on behalf of herself and the putative class monetary damages and injunctive relief including lifetime credit monitoring and ID theft monitoring. DotHouse Health, Inc. is a healthcare organization based in Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI, PLLC 980 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com DOTHOUSE HEALTH: Holman Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII ---------------------------------------------------------- Derek Holman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DOTHOUSE HEALTH, INC., Case No. 2584CV02019 (Mass. Super. Ct., Suffolk Cty., July 22, 2025), is brought Plaintiffs claims arising from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information, on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") ("Private Information") that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed on July 14, 2025 (thc "Data Breach" or the "Breach"). On November 28, 2022, Defendant learned certain systems within its IT Network environment were affected by a data security incident. 2 Upon learning of the issue, Defendant commenced an immediate and thorough investigation. As part of the investigation, Defendant engaged leading third-party cybersecurity professionals experienced in handling these incidents. On July 14, 2025, Defendant issued a notice ofpublic disclosure and started sending out notice letters to affected individuals. The Defendant failed to take precautions designed to keep individuals' Private Information secure. The Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information collected safe and secure from unauthorized 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. As a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiffs and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals. Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries including: financial losses caused by misuse of their Private Information; the loss or diminished value of their Private Information as a result Of the Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff provided their Private Information to the Defendant. The Defendant is a healthcare organization that offers an array of services to children, adults, and families, including primary, dental, eye, behavioral health, nutrition, cardiology, and acupuncture.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randi Kassan, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 741-5600 Email: rkassan@milberg.com - and - David K. Lietz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 5335 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 440 Washington, DC 20015 Phone: 866.252.0878 Email: dlietz@milberg.com - and - Leanna Loginov. Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com lloginov@shamisgentile.com DRT LLC: Faces Watts Suit Over Failure to Protect Personal Info --------------------------------------------------------------- TYLER WATTS, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. DRT LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00013-RGE-HCA (S.D. Iowa, July 18, 2025) is a class action lawsuit against DRT for its failure to protect and safeguard Plaintiff's and the Class' highly sensitive personally identifiable information. On May 29, 2025, DRT identified unauthorized remote access to several DRT owned email accounts. After discovering the Data Breach, DRT discovered emails containing PII may have been accessed or acquired on June 11, 2025. Despite discovering the Breach in February 2025, Defendant delayed alerting victims of the Data Breach until on or around May 15, 2025, when it began sending out notice of data breach letters to victims of the Data Breach. As a result of DRT's negligence and insufficient data security, cybercriminals easily infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected email accounts on or around May 29, 2025 and accessed the PII of Plaintiff and the Class -- approximately 14,470 individuals. Now, Plaintiff's and the Class' PII is in the hands of cybercriminals who will undoubtedly use their PII for nefarious purposes for the rest of their lives, says the suit. The Plaintiff and the Class are current and former customers and employees of entities that utilized DRT's services. DRT LLC is a shared services organization that contracts with entities to provide support services in areas including Real Estate, Risk Management, Legal, Information Technology, Contracting, Human Resources and Finance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Barton Goplerud, Esq. Brian O. Marty, Esq. SHINDLER ANDERSON GOPLERUD & WEESE P.C. 5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100 West Des Moines, IA 50265-5749 Telephone: (515) 223-4567 Facsimile: (515) 223-8887 E-mail: goplerud@sagwlaw.com marty@sagwlaw.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. Kennedy M. Brian, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 Facsimile: (405) 239-2112 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com kpb@federmanlaw.com ENHANCE HEALTH: Bussey Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enhance Health LLC. The case is styled as James Bussey, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Enhance Health LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-04078-MLB (N.D. Ga., July 23, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Enhanced Health -- https://enhancehealth.com/ -- is a licensed health insurance agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (508) 221-1510 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Valerie Lorraine Chinn, Esq. CHINN LAW FIRM, LLC 245 N. Highland Ave., Suite 230 #7 Atlanta, GA 30307 Phone: (404) 955-7732 Email: vchinn@chinnlawfirm.co ERSGA: Pavliscsak Files Suit in Ga. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Employees' Retirement System of Georgia (ERSGA). The case is styled as Andrew J. Pavliscsak, William J. Grant, Brian Allen Cody, individually and on behalf of a class of all similarly-situated individuals v. Employees' Retirement System of Georgia, James Potvin in his official capacity as the Executive Director of the Employees Retirement System of Georgia, Case No. 25CV010024 (Ga. Super. Ct., Fulton Cty., July 23, 2025). The case type is stated as "Contract/Account." The Employees' Retirement System of Georgia (ERSGA) -- https://www.ers.ga.gov/ -- administers separate and distinct cost-sharing, multiple employer defined benefit pension plans for various employer agencies of the State of Georgia, as well as defined contribution plans, and a life insurance plan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maguire, J. Matthew, Jr., Esq. PARKS, CHESIN & WALBERT PC EVERGY INC: Doll Suit Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DERICK L. DOLL and CATHERINE M. FLUEGEL, individually and as representatives of a Class of Participants and Beneficiaries on behalf of the Evergy, Inc. 401(k) Savings Plan, v. EVERGY, INC., DAVID A. CAMPBELL, TERRY BASSHAM, and THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE EVERGY, INC. 401(k) SAVINGS PLAN, Case No. 4:25-cv-00043-SRB (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline for the Plaintiffs to file its motion for class certification from Aug. 3, 2025, until thirty days after the Court decides the motions to dismiss to be filed by the Defendant Evergy and the affiliated Defendants and Defendant SageView. The Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on April 21, 2025, and Evergy Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on May 12, 2025. On May 20, 2025, Plaintiffs moved the Court to extend the opposition response date for Plaintiffs to respond to the motion to dismiss and the Court granted the motion the next day and set the opposition response date for June 16, 2025. The Plaintiffs then filed an unopposed motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, which the Court granted on June 24, 2025, and the Second Amended Consolidated Complaint was filed on the same day. Thereafter, Plaintiffs entered into a briefing schedule with the Evergy Defendants to file their motion to dismiss on July 22, 2025. The briefing of that motion is due to be completed on September 9, 2025. In the meantime, new Defendant SageView waived service of process on June 27, 2025, and their motion to dismiss is due on August 26, 2025. Under the previous scheduling order, Plaintiffs motion for class certification is due on August 3, 2025. The Plaintiffs believe it would be premature to file a class certification motion until Plaintiffs have additional discovery to determine issues of typicality and commonality among the class members, and it is also more efficient from a cost and resources perspective to have the Court decide the motions to dismiss first. The Plaintiffs therefore now request that the previous deadline to file their class certification motion by August 3, 2025, be vacated, and Plaintiffs be permitted to file their motion for class certification 30 days after the Court decides the last motion to dismiss. Evergy is engaged in the generation, transmission, distribution, and sale of electricity in the United States. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iVPQAL at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul M. Secunda, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (414) 828-2372 E-mail: psecunda@walcheskeluzi.com - and - James A. Bloom, Esq. Todd M. Schneider, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 E-mail: jbloom@schneiderwallace.com - and - Michael F. Brady, Esq. BRADY & ASSOCIATES 2118 W 120th St Leawood, KS 66209 Telephone: (913) 696-0925 E-mail: brady@mbradylaw.com - and - Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. James A. Maro, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com jamesm@capozziadler.com EXTENDED STAY: Soboleski Balks at Unsolicited Text Messages ----------------------------------------------------------- VICTORIA ANN SOBOLESKI, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EXTENDED STAY AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-526 (W.D.N.C., July 18, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant routinely violates the law by delivering, or causing to be delivered, more than one advertisement or marketing text message to residential or cellular telephone numbers registered with the National Do-Not-Call Registry without prior express invitation or permission required by the TCPA. Extended Stay America, Inc. owns and operates hotels and motels. The Company offers guest rooms, dining services, on-site laundry, local phone calls, personalized voice mail, pools, fitness centers, and pet accommodations. Extended Stay America serves customers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Duffy, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RYAN P. DUFFY, PLLC 1213 W. Morehead Street Suite 500, Unit #450 Charlotte, NC 28208 Telephone: (704) 741-9399 E-mail: ryan@ryanpduffy.com - and - Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com FEDERAL EXPRESS: Yamamoto Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Michael Yamamoto, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION; a Delaware Stock Corporation; FEDEX CORPORATION a Delaware Corporation and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV15960 was removed from the Superior Court in the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on July 24, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-06796. On June 30, 2025, FedEx was served with an amended complaint ("FAC"). The Complaint and FAC assert the following causes of action: failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay all wages due upon termination; wage statement violations; failure to timely page wages; violation of Labor Code 227.3; breach of contract; and unfair competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: David S. Wilson, Esq. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION 2601 Main Street, Suite 1 100 Irvine, CA 92614 Phone: 949.862.4656 Facsimile: 901.492.5641 Email: dswilson@fedex.com FINNLEYS GOOD: Pittman Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Debbie Pittman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Finnleys Good Findings, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-08292 (N.D. Ill., July 21, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Finnleys Good Findings provides to their non-disabled customers through https://finnleysonline.com (hereinafter "Finnleysonline.com" or "the website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because the Defendant's website, Finnleysonline.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Finnleys Good Findings' policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Finnleys Good Findings provides to the public a website known as Finnleysonline.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view trendy fashion pieces and accessories, including jackets, sweaters, blouses, T shirts, dresses, shorts, skirts, hats, bags, and earrings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (630)-478-0856 Email: achan@ealg.law FIRSTENERGY CORP: Brunson Files Suit in N.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against FirstEnergy Corp. The case is styled as Christina Brunson, Lucas Shallenbarger, Richard Koch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FirstEnergy Corp., Case No. 5:25-cv-01525-JRA (N.D. Ohio, July 22, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as E.R.I.S.A. Labor for Employee Benefits. FirstEnergy Corp. -- https://www.firstenergycorp.com/fehome.html -- is an electric utility headquartered in Akron, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Maro, Jr., Esq. Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. Michael J. Connick, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER - MERION STATION 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Phone: (610) 890-0200 Email: jamesm@capozziadler.com markg@capozziadler.com mconnick@MJConnick.com FISERV INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Set September 22 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers or acquirers of Fiserv, Inc. (NYSE: FI) common stock between July 24, 2024 and July 22, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), have until September 22, 2025 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the Fiserv class action lawsuit. Captioned City of Hollywood Police Officers' Retirement System v. Fiserv, Inc., No. 25-cv-06094 (S.D.N.Y.), the Fiserv class action lawsuit charges Fiserv and certain of Fiserv's top current and former executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Fiserv class action lawsuit, please provide your information here: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-fiserv-inc-class-action-lawsuit-fi.html You can also contact attorneys J.C. Sanchez or Jennifer N. Caringal of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at info@rgrdlaw.com. CASE ALLEGATIONS : Fiserv provides payments and financial services technology solutions. The Fiserv class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) due to cost issues and other problems with its Payeezy platform, Fiserv forced Payeezy merchants to migrate to its Clover platform; (ii) Clover's revenue growth and gross payment volume ("GPV") growth were temporarily and unsustainably boosted by these forced conversions, which concealed a slowdown in new merchant business; (iii) shortly after these conversions, a significant portion of former Payeezy merchants switched to competing solutions due to Clover's high pricing, inadequate customer service, and other issues; and (iv) as a result of these merchant losses, Clover's GPV growth was significantly slowing, and its revenue growth was unsustainable. The Fiserv class action lawsuit further alleges that on April 24, 2025, Fiserv reported Clover GPV growth of only 8% for the first quarter of 2025, a material stepdown from 2024 GPV rates of between 14% and 17%. Fiserv attributed this slowing growth to lower 2025 transaction volume from Payeezy merchants who had converted to Clover, according to the complaint. The Fiserv class action lawsuit alleges that on this news, the price of Fiserv common stock fell more than 18%. Then, on May 15, 2025, the Fiserv class action lawsuit further alleges that Fiserv disclosed that GPV growth deceleration would continue through 2025. On this news, the price of Fiserv common stock fell a further 16%, according to the complaint. 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% year-over-year from 11% in the previous quarter, the complaint alleges. On this news, the price of Fiserv common stock fell nearly 14%, according to the Fiserv class action lawsuit. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS : The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired Fiserv common stock during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Fiserv class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Fiserv class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Fiserv class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the Fiserv class action lawsuit. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER : Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities fraud and shareholder litigation. Our Firm has been ranked #1 in the ISS Securities Class Action Services rankings for four out of the last five years for securing the most monetary relief for investors. In 2024, we recovered over $2.5 billion for investors in securities-related class action cases -- more than the next five law firms combined, according to ISS. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world, and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest ever -- $7.2 billion -- in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for more information: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html [GN] FLYWIRE CORP: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Flywire Corporation ("Flywire" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:FLYW) and certain officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and docketed under 25-cv-04110, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Flywire securities between February 28, 2024 and February 25, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are an investor who purchased or otherwise acquired Flywire securities during the Class Period, you have until September 23, 2025 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Flywire, together with its subsidiaries, operates as a payments-enablement and software company in the United States ("U.S.") and internationally. The Company's payment platform and network, as well as its vertical-specific software, purportedly facilitate payments between clients and customers in a variety of industries. Although Flywire has a wide range of clients across various verticals-i.e., markets encompassing a group of companies and customers that are all interconnected around a specific niche-its largest vertical is education, the volumes and revenue from which rely on international enrollments and student school preferences. Accordingly, Flywire's business in the education industry is of particular importance to investors and analysts, especially the Company's Americas market, consisting of the U.S. and Canada, as well as its Asia and Pacific region market, including Australia. To assess its financial performance in these markets, Flywire utilizes a number of non-GAAP financial measures important to investors, including, inter alia, revenue less ancillary services ("RLAS") and foreign exchange ("FX") neutral RLAS. In January 2024, the Canadian government began announcing intake caps on international student permit applications, thereby reportedly reducing the number of international students coming to Canada. This, in turn, resulted in a corresponding reduction in payment flows and an adverse effect on Flywire's business. Likewise, since late 2023, the Australian government has tightened international student visa rules through various measures, which have likewise had an adverse impact on the Company's business. Notwithstanding the foregoing permit- and visa-related headwinds, at all relevant times, Defendants consistently touted the sustainability of Flywire's revenue growth and financial condition, while downplaying the anticipated negative impacts of permit- and visa-related headwinds on the Company's business. For example, as late as November 2024, Defendants represented, among other things, that Flywire was and would remain a purported "Rule of 40" company with strong revenue growth, while indicating that, for full year ("FY") 2025, FX neutral RLAS growth year-over-year ("Y/Y") was expected to be in the low 20% range, that revenue growth in Canada would be relatively flat compared to 2024, and that Defendants observed merely an early moderation in the revenue growth rate in Australia. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the strength and sustainability of Flywire's revenue growth was overstated; (ii) the negative impact that permit- and visa-related restrictions were having and were likely to have on Flywire's business was understated; and (iii) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On February 25, 2025, Flywire issued a press release announcing its fourth quarter ("Q4") and FY 2024 financial results. Therein, for Q4 2024, the Company reported a loss per share of $0.12, missing consensus estimates by $0.12, and revenue of $117.6 million, missing consensus estimates by $1.25 million. In discussing these results, Flywire's Chief Executive Officer Defendant Michael Massaro ("Massaro") blamed "a complex macro environment with significant headwinds[.]" Defendant Massaro also announced that the Company would "undertake an operational and business portfolio review" and certain "efficiency measures" including "a restructuring, which impacts approximately 10% of our workforce." Flywire's Chief Financial Officer Defendant Cosmin Pitigoi ("Pitigoi") also advised that "[f]or our 2025 financial outlook, we project [RLAS] growth of 10-14% on an FX-neutral (constant currency) basis"-significantly less than low 20% range previously provided to investors. The same day, Flywire held a conference call with investors and analysts to discuss its Q4 and FY 2024 results. During the call, Defendants revealed that the Company's business in the education sector had significantly deteriorated due to worsening permit- and visa-related headwinds, including "double digit declines in student visa issuance in our big four geographic markets," with "continued visa policy restrictions" anticipated in 2025. Significantly, Defendant Pitigoi disclosed that Defendants "expect revenue in both [Canadian and Australian] markets to be down over 30% [Y/Y]" because of "recent policy changes" and "new visa rules [that] are starting to affect demand[,]" while also citing headwinds in the Company's U.S. market on similarly shifting visa trends. The same and the following day, multiple analysts downgraded their recommendation on Flywire and/or cut their price target ("PT") on the Company's stock, citing its poor Q4 and FY 2024 results. Multiple analysts also noted that Flywire's forecasted FY 2025 revenue growth, particularly with respect to U.S., Canadian, and Australian markets, was unexpected and/or stood in sharp contrast to Defendants' prior representations. Following the foregoing disclosures and analyst downgrades and PT cuts, Flywire's voting common stock price fell $6.59 per share, or 37.36%, to close at $11.05 per share on February 26, 2025. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. [GN] FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Ang Sues Over Breached Fiduciary Duties ----------------------------------------------------------- Edmund Ang, Shayna DeMedici, and Carlyn Gaver, individually and as a representative of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the Franklin Templeton 401(k) Retirement Plan v. Franklin Resources, Inc., the Franklin Templeton 401(k) Retirement Plan Committee, John and Jane Does 1-30, Case No. 3:25-cv-06130 (N.D. Cal., July 22, 2025), is brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), against Defendants' breached their fiduciary duties with respect to the Plan in violation of ERISA. Defendants applied a disloyal and imprudent preference for Franklin’s proprietary funds within the Plan, despite those funds’ poor performance, poor ratings, and unpopularity in the retirement-plan marketplace. To safeguard the retirement savings of American workers, ERISA imposes strict fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence upon plan sponsors and other plan fiduciaries. Contrary to these fiduciary duties, Defendants fail to administer the Plan in the sole interest of participants and fail to employ a prudent process for managing the Plan’s investments. Rather, Defendants have managed the Plan in a manner that benefits Franklin at the participants’ expense. Specifically, Defendants have loaded the Plan’s investment menu with Franklin’s poorly rated, poor performing, unpopular proprietary funds. The inappropriate favoritism Franklin shows for its proprietary investments is evident when compared to other similarly sized retirement plans. Of the 32 proprietary Franklin funds used in the Plan during the Class Period (“Franklin Funds”), 14 funds (44%) are not used by any other defined contribution plan with at least $500 million in assets. And the average usage rate for all the Franklin Funds is miniscule, at 0.4% of such plans. While this disloyal and imprudent conduct helped promote Defendants’ business and generated revenue of over $33 million for Franklin since 2019, it has cost participants millions of dollars in excessive fees and lost investment returns since the start of the Class Period. Based on Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs assert claims against Defendants for breach of the fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence (Count One), and against Franklin for failing to monitor the fiduciaries it appointed to manage the Plan (Count Two). In connection with these claims, Plaintiffs seek to recover all losses to the Plan resulting from Defendants’ fiduciary breaches, all profits earned by Defendants in connection with Defendants’ breaches or the Plan’s assets, and other appropriate relief, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs participated in the Plan. Franklin is the plan sponsor of the Plan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew C. Helland, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, LLP 235 Montgomery Street, Ste. 810 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 277-7235 Facsimile: (415) 277-7238 Email: helland@nka.com - and - Paul J. Lukas, Esq. Brock J. Specht, Esq. Daniel P. Suitor, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4700 IDS Center 80 S. 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 Email: lukas@nka.com bspecht@nka.com dsuitor@nka.com - and - Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. Catherine Mitchell Duffy, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLC 222 W. Adams Street, Ste. 2020 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 233-1550 Facsimile: (312) 233-1560 Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com cmitchell@stephanzouras.com - and - Don Bivens, Esq. DON BIVENS, PLLP 15169 N. Scottsdale Road 205 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Phone: 602-708-1450 Email: don@donbivens.com GEICO: Revised Scheduling Order Sought -------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE CHING INSURANCE, INC., et al., v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 8:23-cv-03033-PX (D. Md.), the Plaintiffs and the Defendants ask the Court to enter a revised scheduling order: Requirement Proposed Dates The Plaintiffs' 26(a)(2) disclosures, Oct. 31, 2025 including expert report(s): The Plaintiffs' motion for class Oct. 31, 2025 certification: The Defendants' 26(a)(2) disclosures, Jan. 30, 2026 including expert report(s): The Defendants' response in opposition to Jan. 30, 2026 The motion for class certification: The Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion Apr. 30, 2026 for class certification: Hearing on motion for class certification: June 29, 2026, or at the Court's earliest convenience thereafter Government Employees provides motorcycle, ATV, RV, boat, snowmobile, travel, pet, event, homeowner, renter, and jewelry insurance options. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1bIKvt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Amy E. Keller, Esq. John Tangren, Esq. Eaghan S. Davis, Esq. Diandra S. Debrosse Zimmerman, Esq. Eli Hare, Esq. Kenneth P. Abbarno, Esq. Justin J. Hawal, Esq. Eviealle J. Dawkins, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 10 North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com akeller@dicellolevitt.com jtangren@dicellolevitt.com edavis@dicellolevitt.com fu@dicellolevitt.com ehare@dicellolevitt.com kabbarno@dicellolevitt.com jhawal@dicellolevitt.com edawkins@dicellolevitt.com - and - Benjamin Crump, Esq. Gabrielle Higgins, Esq. Brendan H. Chandonnet, Esq. BEN CRUMP LAW, PLLC 122 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Telephone: (800) 691-7111 E-mail: ben@bencrump.com gabrielle@bencrump.com brendan@bencrump.com The Defendants are represented by: Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq. Jennifer A. Riley, Esq. Justin Donoho, Esq. Tiffany Alberty, Esq. Zev Grumet-Morris, Esq. Tristan Dietrick, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 190 S. LaSalle St., Suite 3700 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 499-6700 Facsimile: (312) 499-6701 E-mail: gmaatman@duanemorris.com jariley@duanemorris.com jrdonoho@duanemorris.com tealberty@duanemorris.com zgrumetmorris@duanemorris.com tdietrick@duanemorris.com GEICO: Seek Bid for Leave to File SAC OK'd ------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as VERETT SEE and SALVATORE CRISTIANO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY d/b/a GEICO, and GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:21-cv-00547-PKC-JMW (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge James M. Wicks entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file the second amended complaint. The Plaintiffs commenced this class action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated against the Defendants asserting breach of contract and violations of New York General Business Law ("NY GBL"). The Plaintiff commenced the action asserting claims for (i) breach of contract alleging that Defendants' utilization of evaluation reports with condition adjustments undervalued the "actual cash value of the claimants loss," and (ii) violations of New York General Business Law ("NY GBL"), alleging that the condition adjustments which undervalued the vehicles' "actual cash value" was "hidden, misrepresented, and unfounded" such that it constitutes a "deceptive practice." Government is an American auto insurance company. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated July 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4sk2Ep at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Hank Bates, Esq. Tiffany Oldham, Esq. Lee Lowther, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC 519 W. 7th St. Little Rock, AR 72201 - and - Thomas M. Mullaney, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. MULLANEY 530 Fifth Ave, 23rd Floor New York, NY 10036 The Defendants are represented by: Dan W. Goldfine, Esq. Jamie L. Halavais, Esq. DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC 1850 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1400 Phoenix, AZ 85004 GENEDX HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Investigate Potential Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of GeneDx Holdings Corp. (NASDAQ: WGS) resulting from allegations that GeneDx may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased GeneDx 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=40333 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 February 5, 2025, Grizzly Research published a report entitled "Insiders Attest that GeneDx (Nasdaq: WGS) Is Actively Committing Widespread Fraud." Grizzly stated that GeneDx's "growth is largely an illusion, driven by fraudulent schemes and illegal tactics deliberately aimed at exploiting Medicaid and Medicare systems to artificially inflate revenue." On this news, GeneDx's stock fell $4.84 per share, or 6.7%, to close at $67.18 per share on February 5, 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. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Powertrain's Problems ------------------------------------------------------------------ Mike Deslauriers, writing for GM Authority, reports that GM and its legal team are facing yet another class action lawsuit over its 6.2L V8 L87 engine, alleging the recently issued recall fails to cure the powertrain's problems. As reported by CarComplaints, this latest lawsuit was filed in the state of Michigan by Betty Sherman and Anthony Lofton, represented by The Miller Law Firm PC, and Barrack, Rodos & Bacine. According to documents, Lofton financially supported Betty Sherman's acquisition of a 2019 GMC Sierra 1500 in 2021, which had about 13,000 miles on the odometer. Prior to May 2025, Lofton heard ticking and knocking noises until the engine heated up, and would occasionally hear the engine misfire in various conditions. Then, in May 2025, with Lofton behind the wheel, the L87 engine in the Sierra died and failed to start up again. Lofton and Sherman's truck emitted the DTC code P0016, which indicates a misalignment between the camshaft and the crankshaft. The GMC Sierra has been sitting at the dealership since early May. The plaintiffs complain that their truck lost its value, and they're still making payments on a vehicle they can't use. Lofton had to rent a vehicle on several occasions to get around. "Anthony Lofton would not have funded the purchase of the Class Vehicle, or would have paid less for it, had he known about the Engine Defect," the lawsuit states. As a reminder, the NHTSA and GM opened an investigation regarding 6.2L V8 L87 failures, based on 28,102 field complaints in the U.S., including about 14,000 involving the loss of power or propulsion. GM expects roughly 21,000 engines will need to be replaced worldwide in vehicles impacted by the recall. Engines that don't need to be replaced after being inspected get an oil viscosity change from 0W-20 to 0W-40, and every unit involved in the recall receive an extended warranty, whether the engine was replaced or not. However, only 2021 to 2024 model-year vehicles are involved in the recall, including the Cadillac Escalade, the Chevy Silverado 1500, the Chevy Suburban, the Chevy Tahoe, the GMC Sierra 1500 and the GMC Yukon. The 2019 and 2020 model years aren't tagged in the recall, and neither are the 2025 model-year vehicles. The lawsuit's plaintiffs allege the GM L87 engine recall isn't good enough because the defective 6.2L V8s will be replaced by equally defective motors. They also stipulate that GM sold these vehicles knowing the engines would fail in the hands of their owners. GM is dealing with several other L87 engine class action lawsuits filed before after the recall was issued, including one in Michigan, a second one in Michigan, a third one in Michigan, and one in Illinois. [GN] GENESCO INC: Edwards Suit Transferred to N.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Lorenda Edwards, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GENESCO INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00452 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida on July 24, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00210-RH-HTC to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Genesco describes itself as "a leading retailer and wholesaler of branded footwear, apparel and accessories with net sales for Fiscal 2025 at $2.3 billion."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reid Dorman Hudson, Esq. THE HQ FIRM PC - WEST JORDAN UT 7533 S Center View Court, Suite 4424 West Jordan, UT 8408489 Phone: (385) 440-4129 Email: reid.hudson@thehqfirm.com GEO GROUP: Bid to Certify Class Stricken ---------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ligaya Ronduen, et al., v. The Geo Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-00481-JGB-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jesus Bernal entered an order striking the following motions for failure to comply with the Court's standing order: (1) Defendants' motions for summary judgment and related documents; (2) Defendants' motions for leave to file an amended answer to the first amended complaint; and (3) Plaintiffs' motion to certify class and related documents. The Court also entered an order continuing the Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Expert Witness Testimony of Dr. Hung K. Cheung; and vacating the Trial and Pre-trial Conference Dates. The Plaintiffs and Defendants may refile their motions on or before Aug. 25, 2025. Chambers copies must be delivered in accordance with the Court's Standing Order. The deadline for hearing dispositive motions is extended to Sept. 29, 2025. The Parties are warned that future failures to comply with the Court's Standing Order may result in the imposition of sanctions. GEO is a publicly traded C corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=j2XaSX at no extra charge.[CC] GNL ENTERPRISES: Swift Sues Over Sexual Harassment, Retaliation --------------------------------------------------------------- SHAWNA M. SWIFT, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GNL ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company, GIANNI LICARI, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00798 (W.D. Mich., July 18, 2025) is an action against the Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Michigan Improved Workforce Opportunity Wage Act due to improper tip-pooling methods, and willful failure to compensate Plaintiff Swift and similarly-situated individuals with minimum wages. Plaintiff Swift, and the similarly-situated persons that Swift seeks to represent, are current and former bartenders and servers employed by Defendants. Swift worked for Ottawa and Kent County locations as a server and bartender since July of 2021, until her recent termination on July 14, 2025. The complaint is also brought by the Plaintiff under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act based on Defendants' sexual harassment and retaliatory conduct. GNL Enterprises, LLC operates Licari's Sicilian Pizza Kitchen in Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert M. Howard, Esq. Bradley K. Glazier, Esq. CUNNINGHAM DALMAN PC 321 Settlers Road Holland, MI 49422 Telephone: (616) 392-1821 E-mail: robert@cunninghamdalman.com GOOGLE INC: Plaintiffs' Class Cert Reply Provisionally Sealed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re: Google Digital Advertising Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:21-md-03010-PKC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge P. Kevin Castel entered an order granting motion to seal provisionally unredacted version of the Publisher Plaintiffs' Reply in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, the Publisher Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Prof. Einer Elhauge, and certain exhibits to the Declaration of Izaak Earnhardt. Google is an American multinational corporation and technology company focusing on online advertising, search engine technology, cloud computing, computer software, quantum computing, e-commerce, consumer electronics, and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Court's order dated July 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yB3Db6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Philip C. Korologos, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 55 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 446-2390 E-mail: pkorologos@bsfllp.com GREENSKY INC: Wins Second Amended Bid to Seal Exhibits ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH BELYEA, et al., v. GREENSKY, INC., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01693-JS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order granting GreenSky's second amended sealing motion. By Sept. 5, 2025, the parties shall re-file briefs, documents, and exhibits consistent with this order and the Court's previous sealing order. In addition, because the parties agree the Plaintiffs' Daubert opposition, GreenSky's Daubert reply, and the Plaintiffs' reply on the motion for class certification can be filed without redactions, the parties shall re-file those briefs without redactions by Sept. 5, 2025. GreenSky's requests are narrowly tailored, and the language GreenSky seeks to seal generally refers to exhibits the Court previously concluded contain confidential business information. The Court grants Greensky's request to seal the specified portions of these exhibits, which describe confidential business strategies. GreenSky operates as a technology company in the payment, credit, and commerce space. A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kVzrwB at no extra charge.[CC] HEALTH FIRST: Seeks Leave to File Opposition Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAURA POWERS and CHRISTINA ROSEAN, v. HEALTH FIRST, INC., Case No. 6:23-cv-00375-JSS-RMN (M.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting leave to seal the materials including any appeals and to destroy them only upon the expiration of any appeals. Pursuant to M.D. Fla. L.R. 1.11 and the legal authorities described below, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"), the Defendant seeks leave to file under seal its Memorandum in Opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, which will be filed publicly in redacted form because it contains both highly commercially sensitive and HIPAA-protected information. This Motion seeks leave to file under seal Health First's Opposition, which references (1) certain information protected by HIPAA, and (2) certain highly commercially sensitive information regarding negotiated insurance contracts. Health is a fully integrated health system. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ercN4O at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Elizabeth B. Honkonen, Esq. Richard Alan Arnold, Esq. Allison G. Margolies, Esq. Campbell Haynes, Esq. SPERLING KENNY NACHWALTER, LLC Four Seasons Tower - Suite 1100 1441 Brickell Avenue Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 373-1000 Facsimile: (305) 372-1861 E-mail: ebh@sperlingkenny.com rarnold@sperlingkenny.com amargolies@sperlingkenny.com chaynes@sperlingkenny.com HECLA GREENS CREEK: Ashenfelter Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ James Ashenfelter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hecla Greens Creek Mining Company, Case No. 3:25-cv-00160-SLG (D. Alaska, July 25, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid wages and other damages under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Alaska Wage and Hour Act ("AWHA") from Defendant. The Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more than 40 hours a workweek. However, the Defendant does not pay Ashenfelter and the other Hourly Employees for all their hours worked, including overtime hours. Rather, Defendant requires Ashenfelter and the other Hourly Employees to suit into protective clothing and safety gear necessary to safely perform their job duties and travel into the mines also known as "donning," while on Defendant's premises, all prior to being "clocked in. But the Defendant does not pay the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees for the time they spend donning and doffing their safety gear and protective clothing, traveling into the mine, and washing-up, "off the clock," before and after their shifts. The Defendant's pre/post shift off the clock policy violates the FLSA and AWHA by depriving the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees of overtime wages when they work in excess of 40 hours in a workweek or, with respect to the AWHA, 8 hours per day, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Miner from October 2021 to Present. The Defendant is a mining company with its principal place of business in Juneau, Alaska.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas V. Wang, Esq. Laura D. Fisher, Esq. ASHBURN & MASON, P.C. 1227 West 9th Ave., Suite 200 Anchorage, AK 99501 Phone: (907) 276-4331 Facsimile: (907) 277-8235 Email: thomas@anchorlaw.com laura@anchorlaw.com - and - Galvin Kennedy, Esq. KENNEDY LAW FIRM, LLP 2925 Richmond Ave., Ste. 1200 Houston, TX 77098 Phone: (713) 425-6445 Facsimile: 888-535-9271 Email: Galvin@KennedyAttorney.com - and - Carl A. Fitz, Esq. FITZ LAW PLLC 3730 Kirby Dr. Ste 1200 Houston, TX 77098 Phone: (713) 766-4000 Email: carl@fitz.legal HYATT CORP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Jimenez Due Jan. 16, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FLOR JIMENEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HYATT CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-03028-TLN-CSK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Troy L. Nunley entered an order granting stipulation to extend discovery deadlines as follows: Event Date Close of Discovery Related to Class Sept. 26, 2025 Certification: Deadline to Designate Experts Related Oct. 24, 2025 to Class Certification: Deadline for Supplemental Expert Designation Nov. 26, 2025 Related to Class Certification: Deadline to File Motion for Class Jan. 16, 2026 Certification: Hyatt is an American multinational hospitality company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dLHud2 at no extra charge.[CC] INSURANCE4TRUCKERS: Pimentel Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Insurance4truckers LLC. The case is styled as Jan Carlos Pimentel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Insurance4truckers LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-23315-RKA (S.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. Insurance4Truckers -- https://insurance4truck.com/ -- is a commercial insurance company specializing in transportation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zane Charles Hedaya, Esq. Gerald Donald Lane, Jr., Esq. Faaris Kamal Uddin, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com faaris@jibraellaw.com INTEGRATED ONCOLOGY: Carmona Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jose Carmona, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INTEGRATED ONCOLOGY NETWORK, LLC, and HEMATOLOGY/ONCOLOGY CONSULTANTS, A MEDICAL CORPORATION, Case No. 3:25-cv-00832 (M.D. Tenn., July 23, 2025), is brought on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendants with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") and Protected Health Information ("PHI") (collectively "Private Information") that was impacted in a data breach that Defendants publicly disclosed on June 25, 2025 (the "Data Breach" or the "Breach"), arising from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to them, and their accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. On June 27, 2025, Defendant ION began mailing notice letters to individuals whose sensitive data was included in the impacted data ("Breach Notice"). The Defendants failed to take precautions designed to keep individuals' Private Information secure. The Defendants owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. The Defendants solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached their duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. The Defendants admit that information in their system was accessed by unauthorized individuals, though they provided little information regarding how the Data Breach occurred. The Defendants, despite having the financial wherewithal and personnel necessary to prevent the Data Breach, nevertheless failed to use reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate to the nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information it maintained for Plaintiff and Class Members, causing the exposure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. As a result of Defendants' inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals. Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries including financial losses caused by misuse of their Private Information; the loss or diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff provided their Private Information to Defendants. The Defendant ION is a private oncology services provider offering diagnostic testing, radiation oncology, medical oncology, and ancillary services across 10 states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexandra M. Honeycutt, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON GROSSMAN PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Phone: (865) 247-0080 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: ahoneycutt@milberg.com - and - Mark S. Reich, Esq. Melissa G. Meyer, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: mreich@zlk.com mmeyer@zlk.com INTEGRATED SPECIALTY: Jarvis Files Suit in S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Integrated Specialty Coverages, LLC. The case is styled as Patrice Jarvis, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Integrated Specialty Coverages, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-01878-DMS-MSB (S.D. Cal., July 24, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Integrated Specialty Coverages (ISC) -- https://www.iscmga.com/ -- is a World-Class Program Administrator dedicated to underwriting excellence, client service, and customer experience.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Dr. Beverly Hills, CA 92102 Phone: (858) 209-6941 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: jnelson@milberg.com J. HILL: Quintero Second Amended Complaint Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL R. QUINTERO, v. J. HILL, Warden, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01141-AJB-KSC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Anthony Battaglia entered an order: 1) Denying the Plaintiff's request for anonymity and emergency injunction petition as moot. 2) Dismissing the Plaintiff's second amended complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sections 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) & 1915A(b)(1) without further leave to amend. The Clerk of Court will enter a final judgment of dismissal and close the case. On June 28, 2024, the Plaintiff Daniel R. Quintero, a state inmate incarcerated in the Eastern District of California and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. Plaintiff claimed that the denial of water and bathroom breaks during his transport in April 2024 from the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility ("RJD") in San Diego, California, to Sacramento in the Eastern District of California interfered with his right to the free exercise of his religion under the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"), and subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. A copy of the Court's order dated July 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oxiyiw at no extra charge.[CC] JET LIMOUSINES: McGhee Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as William McGhee and Michael Reynolds, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals, v. J.E.T. Limousines & Transportation, LLC; JET Limousines Operations, LLC; Arizona Commercial Transportation Services, LLC; Transportation Inc.; Salt River Tubing & Recreation, Inc.; Salt River Tubing Operations, LLC; William Jinks; Mary Ann Cleary; and Eugene Thomas, Case No. 2:24-cv-03394-MTL (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline to file a motion for class certification and the related briefing schedule by 28 days as follows: Current Requested Deadline Deadline Motion for Class Certification: July 25, 2025 Aug. 22, 2025 Opposition to Class Aug. 8, 2025 Sept. 5, 2025 Certification: Reply in Support of Class Aug. 22, 2025 Sept. 19, 2025 Certification: JET provides chauffeured services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OYLUyb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Susan Martin, Esq. Daniel L. Bonnett, Esq. Jennifer Kroll, Esq. Michael M. Licata, Esq. MARTIN & BONNETT, P.L.L.C. 4647 N. 32nd Street, Suite 185 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Telephone: (602) 240-6900 Facsimile: (602) 240-2345 E-mail: smartin@martinbonnett.com dbonnett@martinbonnett.com jkroll@martinbonnett.com mlicata@martinbonnett.com JINNY BEAUTY OF LOS ANGELES: Domingo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jinny Beauty of Los Angeles, LLC. The case is styled as Juan Domingo Domingo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jinny Beauty of Los Angeles, LLC, Case No. 25STCV21666 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 22, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Jinny Beauty Supply -- https://www.jinny.com/ -- stands as the foremost and most expansive multi-cultural and ethnic beauty supply distributor globally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vache Thomassian, Esq. KJT LAW GROUP, LLP 230 N. Maryland Ave., Ste. 306 Glendale, CA 91206-4281 Phone: 818-507-8525 Fax: 818-507-8588 Email: vache@kjtlawgroup.com KPC PROMISE: Filing for Class Cert Bid Amended to Jan. 7, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY LEBRUN OBOT AKATA, et al., v. KPC PROMISE HEALTHCARE LLC, et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-01893-SRM-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Serena Murillo entered an order amending the Scheduling Order as follows: 1. The last day to conduct class certification discovery is Dec. 10, 2025. 2. The last day to file a class certification motion is Jan. 7, 2026. 3. The last day to file any opposition to any class certification motion is Feb. 11, 2026. 4. The last day to file any reply in support of the class certification motion is March 11, 2026. 5. The hearing on the class certification motion will be conducted at 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday, April 1, 2026. 6. The deadline for Notice of Class Action to be mailed to putative Class members is May 6, 2026. 7. The Opt-in period Cut-Off is June 17, 2026. 8. The Fact Discovery Cut-Off is August 19, 2026. 9. The Initial Expert Disclosure deadline is August 26, 2026. 10. The Rebuttal Expert Disclosure deadline is September 9, 2026. 11. The Expert Discovery Cut-Off is September 23, 2026. 12. The Last Day to Hear Motions is November 11, 2026. 13. The Deadline to Complete Settlement Conference is December 16, 2026. 16. The Final Pretrial Conference and Hearing on Motions in Limine is February 3, 2027 at 2:00 p.m. 17. The Jury Trial is set for February 23, 2027 at 9:00 a.m. KPC is a specialty hospital post-acute care health system. A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4uKNbX at no extra charge.[CC] KUEHNE + NAGEL: Garcia Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Hiram Garcia, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. KUEHNE + NAGEL INC., Case No. 250603367 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of Pennsylvania on July 23, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-03802. The Complaint arises out of KN's alleged failure to pay wages owed to Plaintiff under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that KN violated the PMWA by failing to pay employees wages for time associated with "security screening and associated activities."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: David J. Garraux, Esq. Peter Ennis, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR One Oxford Centre 301 Grant Street, Fl. 41 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: (412) 620-6451 Fax: (412) 275-2390 Email: dgarraux@cozen.com pennis@cozen.com - and - Jason Cabrera, Esq. 1650 Market Street, Suite 2800 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 665-7267 Fax: (215) 665-2013 Email: jcabrera@cozen.com LEADER FREIGHT SYSTEMS: James Sues Over Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------- Jason James, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. LEADER FREIGHT SYSTEMS, INC., and DANILO TOSIC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01443-RLY-MG (S.D. Ind., July 19, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Wage Deduction Statute as a result of the Defendant's unpaid wages. The Plaintiff brings this case as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 on behalf of a class consisting of all similarly situated persons who are or were employed as truck drivers for LFS and Mr. Tosic who had monies deducted from their wages in violation of the Wage Deduction Statute, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a truck driver. LFS, is an incorporated company that is headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald E. Weldy, Esq. WELDY LAW 11268 Governors Lane Fishers, IN 46037 Phone: (317) 289-0483 Fax (317) 288-4013 Email: rweldy@weldylegal.com LIGHTING TECHNOLOGIES: Delgadillo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lighting Technologies International, LLC. The case is styled as Edward Delgadillo, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Lighting Technologies International, LLC, Insperity Peo Services L.P., Insperity, Case No. 25STCV21918 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 24, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." LTI -- https://ltilighting.com/ -- is a leading manufacturer of specialty lighting products for the global cinema and entertainment industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Power Jean Hopkins, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N. Brand Blvd., Ste 840 Glendale, CA 91203-2920 Phone: 818-875-2008 Email: j.power@d.law LKS ASSOCIATES: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property ------------------------------------------------------- Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. LKS ASSOCIATES (DELAWARE) LTD. and FRITANGA MONIMBO KENDALL, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-23281-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 22, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA. Although well over 33 years has passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendant has yet to make its/their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead-time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendant has continued to discriminate against people who is disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendant's property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property and the businesses named herein located within the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property, and businesses named herein located within the Commercial Property, and wishes to continue his patronage and use of each of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each denied or diminished Plaintiff’s ability to visit the Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendants' non-compliance with the ADA with respect to the described commercial property and restaurant, including but not necessarily limited to the allegations of this Complaint. Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination at the commercial property, in violation of the ADA. The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. LKS ASSOCIATES (DELAWARE) LTD., owns and/or operates places of public accommodation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 553-3464 Primary Email: aquezada@lawgmp.com Secondary Email: jacosta@lawgmp.com. - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Phone: (305) 350-3103 Primary Email: rdiego@lawgmp.com Secondary Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com LUMINAR TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Suit Over Securities Fraud ------------------------------------------------------------ Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, a nationally recognized law firm, notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Luminar Technologies, Inc. ("Luminar" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: LAZR) and certain of its officers. Class Definition This lawsuit seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Luminar securities between March 20, 2025 and May 14, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: bgandg.com/LAZR. Case Details The complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Defendant Austin Russell ("Russel") was engaged in undisclosed conduct that would make him the subject of an inquiry by the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors; (2) this conduct created material risk that Defendant Russell would be released from his positions at the Company; (3) Luminar's loss of Russell as an employee would then create material risk of adversely affecting the Company's business by making it more difficult to, compete with other market participants, manage R&D activities, and retain existing customers or cultivate new ones. Further, negative public perception and negative news related to Defendant Russell could also adversely affect Luminar's brand, relationships with customers, or standing in the industry; (4) accordingly, Luminar had no reasonable basis to provide and/or maintain the Company's financial guidance; and (5) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. What's Next? A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint, you can visit the firm's site: bgandg.com/LAZR. or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Client Relations Manager, Nathan Miller, of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 332-239-2660. If you suffered a loss in Luminar you have until September 22, 2025, to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. There is No Cost to You We represent investors in class actions on a contingency fee basis. That means we will ask the court to reimburse us for out-of-pocket expenses and attorneys' fees, usually a percentage of the total recovery, only if we are successful. Why Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a nationally recognized firm that represents investors in securities fraud class actions and shareholder derivative suits. Our firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors nationwide. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. Nathan Miller, Esq. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Telephone: (332) 239-2660 E-mail: info@bgandg.com [GN] LUSSO STONE: Sanchez Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Breach of Contract --------------------------------------------------------------- LAZARO MARTIN SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. LUSSO STONE DESIGN LLC and CRISTOPHER MEDINA, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-23218 (S.D. Fla., July 18, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the common law, and Florida Statutes. The Plaintiff brought this complaint to recover unpaid wages due to him, unpaid overtime wages that he worked in excess of 40 per week, and to recover damages for breach of contract. The Plaintiff worked as installer for the Corporate Defendant from approximately 2023 until his wrongful termination on June 6, 2025. Lusso Stone Design LLC is a limited liability company duly authorized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida and conducting business in Miami-Dade County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Martin Saenz, Esq. THE SAENZ LAW FIRM, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 482-1475 E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com MASSACHUSETTS: Class Cert Expert Discovery Due Sept. 10 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Green, et al., v. Massachusetts Department of Correction, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-11504 (D. Mass., Filed Sept. 14, 2021), the Hon. Judge George A. Otoole, Jr. entered an order granting motion for extension of time to Sept. 10, 2025, to Complete Expert Discovery. The Court's Scheduling Order is amended as follows: -- All expert discovery relating to class certification, including any expert depositions relating to class certification, shall be completed by Sept. 10, 2025. The nature of suit states Civil Rights. Massachusetts Department of Correction is the government agency responsible for operating the prison system of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the United States. [CC] MERCURY FINANCIAL: Court Defers Prelim OK of Settlement ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELITA BAILEY, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MERCURY FINANCIAL, LLC, Case No. 8:23-cv-00827-DKC (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Deborah Chasanow entered a memorandum deferring preliminary approval of class action settlement, and for approval of the form, manner and administration of notice, pending receipt of amended notices. The proposed Notice appears accurately and fairly to inform potential Class Members about the Agreement, if some minor additions and corrections are made. The identities of the potential Members are ascertainable because "each Class member is a Maryland resident who has or had a credit card accounts for credit cards issued by First Bank & Trust, Brookings SD and serviced by Mercury on or after August 2018, where the borrower made one or more payments on the loan." Additionally, Defendant "has represented that the Settlement Class consists of up to 60,000 persons" and Defendant is "required by the Agreement to provide extensive data and information to enable the Settlement Administrator to compile a Class List . The Settlement Agreement proposes a Settlement Class defined as: "All Maryland residents with credit card accounts for credit cards issued by First Bank & Trust, Brookings SD ('FB&T') and serviced by Mercury on or after August 2018, and the borrower made one or more payments on the loan (each, a 'Class Member' and each such account, an "Account")." Excluded from the class are all employees or representatives of Mercury, and all Court personnel. The Settlement Agreement creates a settlement fund of $5.75 million for the benefit of the Class Members. Mercury is a non-bank credit card company that develops and manages consumer friendly credit cards and personal loans. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated July 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=A8UTsx at no extra charge.[CC] MERCURY SYSTEMS: North Collier Suit Seeks to Rule 23 Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NORTH COLLIER FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION PLAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. MERCURY SYSTEMS, INC., MARK ASLETT, and WILLIAM L. BALLHAUS, Case No. 1:23-cv-13065-WGY (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- certifying case as class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, -- appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives, and -- approving the Plaintiffs' selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. as Co-Class Counsel. The Court has ordered the following briefing schedule on the Motion: (1) Plaintiffs' opening brief due on July 18, 2025; (2) Defendants’ opposition brief due on September 19, 2025; and (3) Plaintiffs’ reply brief due on October 31, 2025. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs request that any oral argument be scheduled after the due date for the Plaintiffs' reply brief, so that the Court can have the benefit of the Plaintiffs' response to the arguments made by the Defendants in their opposition brief. Mercury is a technology company serving the aerospace and defense industry. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TQDJ0y at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Michael G. Capeci, Esq. Magdalene Economou, Esq. Jonathan A. Ohlmann, Esq. Spencer A. Burkholz, Esq. Laura M. Andracchio, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com mcapeci@rgrdlaw.com meconomou@rgrdlaw.com johlmann@rgrdlaw.com spenceb@rgrdlaw.com landracchio@rgrdlaw.com - and - Caitlin M. Moyna, Esq. Karin E. Fisch, Esq. Cecilia E. Stein, Esq. Timothy Clark B. Dauz, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 722-8500 Facsimile: (646) 722-8501 E-mail: cmoyna@gelaw.com kfisch@gelaw.com cstein@gelaw.com tdauz@gelaw.com - and - Theodore M. Hess-mahan, Esq. HUTCHINGS BARSAMIAN MANDELCORN, LLP 110 Cedar Street, Suite 250 Wellesley Hills, MA 02481 Telephone: (781) 431-2231 Facsimile: (781) 431-8726 E-mail: thess-mahan@hutchingsbarsamian.com - and - Ezekiel D. Carder, Esq. WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD, P.C. 1375 55th Street Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (510) 337-1001 Facsimile: (510) 337-1023 E-mail: ecarder@unioncounsel.net - and - Mitchell M.Z. Twersky, Esq. Jack G. Fruchter, Esq. ABRAHAM FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP 450 Seventh Avenue, 38th Floor New York, NY 10123 Telephone: (212) 279-5050 Facsimile: (212) 279-3655 E-mail: mtwersky@aftlaw.com jfruchter@aftlaw.com MILWAUKEE ENTERTAINMENT: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due June 15, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alatorre v. Milwaukee Entertainment LLC, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00209 (E.D. Wisc., Filed Feb. 11, 2025), the Hon. Judge William E. Duffin entered an order granting the parties' joint motion to modify the scheduling order: -- Amend Pleadings/Join Parties by: Oct. 15, 2025 -- The Plaintiff's motion for conditional Oct. 15, 2025 certification due by: -- The Plaintiff's Rule 23 motion for June 15, 2026 class certification due by: -- The Defendants' motion for June 15, 2026 decertification due by: -- The Plaintiff's Expert Witness Aug. 31, 2026 List due by: -- The Defendants' Expert Witness Sept. 30, 2026 List due by: -- The discovery deadline is: Nov. 20, 2026 -- Dispositive Motions due by: Dec. 31, 2026 The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).[CC] MRO CORPORATION: Court Rules Fee Invalid for Failed Record Search ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chief Judge Fader of the Supreme Court of Maryland affirmed in part and reversed in part the Appellate Court's decision in the case captioned as Janice Hollabaugh v. MRO Corporation, No. 27, September Term, 2024. The Supreme Court held that "Section 4-304(c) of the Health-General Article does not allow a health care provider to charge a preparation fee for a medical records search that does not result in any records being retrieved and prepared to be provided to the requesting party." In February 2020, Janice Hollabaugh, the petitioner and cross-respondent, authorized her attorney to request her medical records from a health care provider for use in pursuing personal injury claims. That provider contracted with MRO Corporation, the respondent and cross-petitioner, to fulfill the request. MRO then sent Ms. Hollabaugh's attorney a document titled "Cancellation Invoice." The ambiguously written document states: "Your request for Medical Records has been cancelled. The medical facility has completed the search and retrieval of the requested records. This invoice is for the Search/Retrieval Fee if applicable in your state.'" Although MRO did not produce any records, it charged Ms. Hollabaugh's counsel a fee of $22.88 "for searching for her Medical Records." Ms. Hollabaugh's attorney paid the fee, and she reimbursed him in full. In August 2022, Ms. Hollabaugh filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. Count I of the first amended complaint alleges that the fee MRO charged for searching for her medical records violates Section 4-304(c) of the Health-General Article. The circuit court determined that Ms. Hollabaugh had standing but concluded that Section 4-304(c) authorized MRO's fee. The circuit court thus granted MRO's motion to dismiss. The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed on both issues. The court held that Ms. Hollabaugh had standing, but it determined that Section 4-304(c) authorized MRO's search fee. The Supreme Court addressed MRO's contention that Ms. Hollabaugh lacks standing to bring her claim because her attorney, rather than Ms. Hollabaugh herself, requested her records and paid MRO's fee. The Supreme Court observed that Ms. Hollabaugh's first amended complaint alleges that she authorized her attorney to request the records, and when he paid the fee MRO charged, she reimbursed him in full. A reasonable inference from that allegation is that she was required to reimburse him for the fee. The Supreme Court concluded: "We therefore agree with the Appellate Court that the circuit court did not err in rejecting MRO's standing defense at the motion to dismiss stage." The Chief Judge noted that "the goal of statutory construction is to discern and carry out the intent of the Legislature." The Supreme Court explained that "Section 4-304(c) regulates the fees a provider may charge for complying with such a request. For hard copy records, subsections (c)(3)(i) and (ii) authorize three fees: (1) 'a fee for copying and mailing not exceeding 76 cents for each page of the medical record'; (2) 'a preparation fee not to exceed $22.88 for medical record retrieval and preparation'; and (3) 'The actual cost for postage and handling of the medical record.'" The Supreme Court found that "the ordinary meanings of both 'retrieval' and 'preparation' thus imply that there is something capable of being obtained and made ready for use. Here, the very thing to be retrieved and prepared was absent." The Supreme Court emphasized that "non-existent records cannot be copied, mailed, handled, retrieved, or prepared, nor can they have postage affixed to them." The Supreme Court observed that "every aspect of Section 4-304 contemplates the existence of medical records maintained by the provider from whom they are requested." The Supreme Court determined that "although neither word is defined by the Confidentiality Act, the ordinary meanings of those terms imply the existence of something that may be both retrieved and prepared." MRO contends that it can charge for a search that does not result in a retrieval because searching for records is a necessary, component part of "retrieval." Chief Judge Fader disagreed, citing two reasons: 1. Although the court agrees that a search for medical records is a necessary antecedent to retrieving those records, that does not necessarily make it a component of that retrieval. 2. "Retrieve" does not have a meaningfully different interpretation than retrieval for these purposes. Retrieve is defined as "get or bring (something) back" or regain possession of, New Oxford American Dictionary (3d ed. 2010), and, most relevantly, "to get back again" or "to return successfully," Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed. 2014). The Supreme Court further explained: "Even if we were to view a search as an integral component of the process of retrieving a record rather than as a separate, antecedent step to retrieval that still would not make a search alone sufficient to constitute the retrieval of a medical record." The Supreme Court noted that the Department of Health and Human Services has explained that such a fee does not include labor costs associated with reviewing the request for access or Searching for, retrieving, and otherwise preparing the responsive information' when the request is made by the patient for the patient's use. Chief Judge Fader concluded: "Given the plain language meaning of 'retrieval' and 'preparation' and the statutory context in which those terms appear, we conclude that the Confidentiality Act's authorization of 'a preparation fee not to exceed $22.88 for medical record retrieval and preparation' allows that fee to be charged only when the health care provider actually retrieves and prepares records. It does not permit providers to charge such a fee for an unsuccessful records search alone." The Supreme Court held that: (1) at the motion to dismiss stage, the allegations of Ms. Hollabaugh's operative complaint were adequate to support the circuit court's conclusion that she has standing to pursue the claim; and (2) Section 4-304(c) of the Health-General Article does not allow a health care provider to charge a preparation fee for a medical records search that does not result in any records being retrieved and prepared to be provided to the requesting party. A copy of the Supreme Court of Maryland's decision is available at https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/coa/2025/27a24.pdf NATIONAL GENERAL: Bid for Class Cert Order Reconsideration Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDD KING, et al., v. NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-00313-DMR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Donna M. Ryu entered an amended order denying motion for reconsideration. The court has considered the Defendants' argument regarding Article III standing and predominance and finds that it does not change the outcome of the order granting class certification. The court denies Defendants' motion for reconsideration. As a result, there is a presumption of harm for each class member who purchased Defendants' policies where Defendants unlawfully failed to make a cross-offer. By allegedly failing to make the statutorily-mandated cross-offer, the Defendants denied class members the option of purchasing a lower-priced policy, whether or not they would have chosen that policy over the one they ultimately selected. The Plaintiffs bring a claim under the "unlawful" and "unfair" prongs of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), alleging that the class was harmed because Defendants failed to discharge their statutory duty to cross-offer the lowest rate Good Driver Discount insurance policy to the class, and therefore the class paid more for their policies than they should have. On May 5, 2025, the court certified a class brought by the the Plaintiffs against the alleging violations of section 1861.16(b) of the California Insurance Code. On May 12, 2025, Defendants filed a timely motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the class certification order. The court granted leave on the issue of Article III standing and predominance, and deemed the Defendants' submission to be their motion for reconsideration. The Plaintiffs filed a response on May 21, 2025. National is property and casualty insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=P29rrv at no extra charge.[CC] NATIONAL GRID: 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 National Grid plc (NYSE: NGG) resulting from allegations that National Grid plc may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased National Grid 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=41344 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 2, 2025, Reuters published an article entitled "'Preventable' National Grid failures led to Heathrow fire, findings say." The article stated that a "fire that shut London's Heathrow airport in March, stranding thousands of people, was caused by the UK power grid's failure to maintain an electricity substation, an official report said on Wednesday, prompting the energy watchdog to open a probe." Further, the article stated that the United Kingdom's Energy minister, Ed Miliband, had "called the report "deeply concerning", after it concluded that the issue which caused the fire was identified seven years ago but went unaddressed by power grid operator National Grid[.]" On this news, the price of National Grid American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") fell 5%, on July 2, 2024. 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. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] NEW YORK, NY: Fact Discovery Completion Extended to Sept. 15 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Z.Q. et al., v. New York City Department of Education et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-09866-JAV-RFT (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Robyn Tarnofsky entered an order as follows: 1. The deadline for completing fact discovery is extended until Sept. 15, 2025. The parties shall meet and confer and shall by July 25, 2025, submit a proposed schedule for expert discovery and briefing on a class certification motion. 2. By July 21, 2025, the Plaintiffs shall identify five items from the privilege log with dates after the date of the relevant policy and 15 additional items, and the Defendants shall provide those documents to the Court for in camera review by July 23, 2025. 3. The Plaintiffs' application concerning applications is denied without prejudice to renewal closer to the deadline for fact discovery. The clerk of court is requested to terminate ECF 333. New York manages the city's public school system. A copy of the Court's order dated July 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LIT0rY at no extra charge.[CC] NEW YORK: Court Reverses Ruling on Housing Assistance Laws ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Matter of Marie Vincent et al., Petitioners-Appellants, v Mayor Eric Adams etc., et al., Respondents-Respondents, and In Matter of The Council of the City of New York, Petitioner-Plaintiff-Appellant, vs Mayor Eric Adams etc., Respondent-Defendant-Respondent, Index No. 450563/24, Judge John R. Higgitt of the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department reversed the lower court's decision and ordered the Mayor to implement Local Law Nos. 99, 100, 101 and 102 (2023). The court explained that in New York State, the social services program is a State program, administered through 58 local social services districts under the general supervision of the State Department of Social Services. The Social Services Law provides that the city of New York is constituted a city social services district and shall have all the powers and duties of a social services district insofar as consistent with the provisions of the special and local laws relating to such city. The State Department of Social Services has authority to "determine the policies and principles upon which public assistance, services and care shall be provided within the state" and to "establish regulations for administration of public assistance and care within the state both by the state itself and by the local governmental units, in accordance with law." The New York City Fighting Homelessness and Eviction Prevention Supplement (FHEPS) was created by the DeBlasio administration in 2018 as an executive branch housing voucher initiative" to "streamline administration of city-funded rental assistance and curb homelessness." According to the court, FHEPS presented restrictive eligibility criteria and significant bureaucratic requirements, and provided relief to a very limited segment of the New York City housing-insecure population. In 2023, the City Council passed four local laws that modify FHEPS, which were prompted by three conditions faced by the City: the rising number of evictions of residential tenants, a dramatic increase in the rate of homelessness, and an overburdened shelter system. These reform laws were designed to broaden eligibility for City-funded rental assistance, and promote quantitatively and qualitatively greater assistance. The reform laws increased the income eligibility threshold, eliminated a 90-day shelter residency requirement, eliminated recipient work requirements, prohibited the New York City Department of Social Services from deducting a utility allowance from the maximum rental allowance for a FHEPS voucher, and expanded the list of individuals eligible for rental assistance. The Mayor responded by vetoing the FHEPS reform laws, citing budgetary and policy concerns. However, the City Council countered by overriding the veto, and the FHEPS reform laws went into effect on January 9, 2024. Despite this, "the Mayor has refused to enforce the FHEPS reform laws claiming that financial, operational, and legal impediments exist that prevent the executive branch of City government from enforcing the new local laws. The individuals commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding, challenging the Mayor's refusal to implement those laws. The City Council was granted leave to intervene in the proceeding, and sought an order directing the Mayor to implement the FHEPS reform laws. The trial court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding, concluding that under the doctrine of field preemption, the FHEPS reform laws are preempted by the Social Services Law. The lower court further concluded that the City DSS is the "social services district" under Social Services Law Section 61, and that the City DSS, not the City Council, has the exclusive authority within City government to make social services policy. The Appellate Division analyzed preemption under the Court of Appeals' decision in Police Benevolent Association of the City of New York, Inc. v City of New York, noting that "field preemption prohibits a local government from legislating in a field or area of the law where the Legislature has assumed full regulatory responsibility." The court determined that the State has not preempted the field of rental assistance, expressly or implicitly. The court found that nowhere in the Social Services Law has the Legislature expressly stated an intention to preempt local legislation relating to rental assistance. Regarding implied preemption, the court concluded that no clear intent to occupy the field to the exclusion of local legislation can be implied under the circumstances. The court reasoned that the State policy regarding social services, generally, and rental assistance, specifically, is one of State and local collaboration, subject to State coordination. The Appellate Division disagreed with the Mayor's contention that the City DSS is the 'social services district' for the City. The court explained that the Legislature created two separate principal local actors in the realm of social services: social services districts and social services departments." The trial court found that the Legislature identified 'the city of New York' as 'a city social services district'" and that giving this phrase "its plain, commonly understood meaning, 'the city of New York' is the City itself and all of its constituent parts, including the Mayor and the City Council." The trial court determined that the City itself, therefore, is the social services district, not the City DSS" and that "the City itself, as the social services district, is responsible for the social service needs of the district's inhabitants, while the City DSS, as the social services department, is charged with the administration of the assistance and care to be provided." The Appellate Division concluded that nothing in the Social Services Law or its implementing regulations preempted the City Council from passing the FHEPS reform laws. Therefore, "the order denying the CPLR article 78 petitions must be reversed, and the petitions granted to the extent of directing respondent to implement those laws." The Appellate Division ordered that "respondent is directed to implement the Local Laws by making an appropriate submission or submissions to the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, within the New York State Department of Family Assistance, for assessment under 18 NYCRR 352.3(a)(3)(ii). The Appellate Division's order can be found at https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2025/2025_04146.htm NIP & TUCK: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Radvansky v. Nip & Tuck Plastic Surgery, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-03502 (N.D. Ga., Filed June 23, 2025), the Hon. Judge Michael L. Brown entered an order granting the consent motion for extension of time file a class certification motion. The parties shall propose in their joint preliminary report and discovery plan a deadline for Plaintiff to move for class certification. The nature of suit states Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Nip is a medical group practice that specializes in cosmetic, plastic & reconstructive surgery.[CC] NOKIA OF AMERICA: Mismanages Employee Retirement Plan, Sims Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES SIMS and ANTONIO SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION, THE (NOKIA) ADMINISTRATIVE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, THE (NOKIA) PENSION & BENEFIT INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, THE (NOKIA) EMPLOYEE BENEFITS COMMITTEE, NOKIA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, and JANE AND JOHN DOES 1–30, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-13494 (D.N.J., July 18, 2025) challenges the Defendants' ongoing and consistent mismanagement of Defendant Nokia of America Corporation's employee retirement plan in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants -- the company itself, its retirement plan's administrative oversight and investment committees, and its advisors -- have failed to prudently invest the Nokia Plan's resources, monitor the Plan's investments, remove underperforming funds from the Plan, and execute their oversight and advisory functions. Each of these failures constitutes a violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, or ERISA, and together, these violations have cost the Plan and Nokia's eligible current and former employees more than $100 million. The Plaintiffs are two former Nokia employees who participated in the Plan and invested in the funds at issue. The Plaintiffs bring claims on behalf of proposed classes of all employees and former employees similarly situated. Each of the at-issue funds materially and consistently underperformed under the Defendants' supervision because the Defendants failed to monitor the Plan's underperforming investment options, remove them in a timely manner, and make prudent changes to the Plan. These breaches caused the Plan's investments to underperform and resulted in significant financial harm to the Plan and its participants, says the suit. Nokia of America Corporation is a global technology company renowned for its extensive portfolio in telecommunications, network infrastructure, and advanced technologies. Nokia of America Corporation has its principal place of business in Murray Hill, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Benjamin J. Widlanski, Esq. Tal J. Lifshitz, Esq. Katherine A. Mitchell, Esq. Clayton J. Schmitt, Esq. KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 372-1800 E-mail: bwidlanski@kttlaw.com tjl@kttlaw.com kmitchell@kttlaw.com cschmitt@kttlaw.com NORTHWELL HEALTH: Blake Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties ------------------------------------------------------------ Latanya Blake, individually, and as a representative of a class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the Northwell Health 401(k) Plan v. NORTHWELL HEALTH, INC., THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF NORTHWELL HEALTH, THE PENSION COMMITTEE OF NORTHWELL HEALTH, THE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE OF NORTHWELL HEALTH, THE FINANCE COMMITTEE OF NORTHWELL HEALTH, JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-30, Case No. 2:25-cv-04080-NJC-LGD (E.D.N.Y., July 24, 2025), is brought against the Plan's fiduciaries, which include Northwell Health, Inc. ("Northwell" or the "Company"); the Board of Trustees of Northwell and its members during the Class Period1 (the "Board"); the Pension Committee and Investment Committee of Northwell and its members during the Class Period, including the Finance Committee of Northwell ("Committees"); and John and Jane Does 1–30 (the "Members") (collectively, the Company, the Board, the Committees, and the Members shall be referred to as the "Defendants"), for breach of ERISA's fiduciary duties; violation of ERISA's anti-inurement provision, and engaging in self-dealing and transactions prohibited by ERISA. The Defendants' breaches of ERISA as alleged herein each arise from Defendants' choice to use Plan participant forfeited funds to reduce Company contributions to the Plan instead of using the funds to reduce or eliminate the amounts charged to Plan participants for administrative and recordkeeping ("RKA") services and Defendants' failure to promptly exhaust millions of dollars of forfeitures. These choices by Defendants have cost Plan participants millions of dollars during the Class Period, including Plaintiff, says the complaint. The Plaintiff, by virtue of her employment with Northwell and participation in the Plan through 2020. Northwell administered the Plan in Westbury, New York, and was New York's largest private employer and health care provider with over 90,000 employees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vicki J. Maniatis, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 405 East 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Phone: (516) 491-4665 Email: vmaniatis@milberg.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com Alexander Rudenco, Esq. Arlene Boruchowitz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 800 S. Gay St., Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Phone: (865) 247-0080 Email: arudenco@milberg.com aboruchowitz@milberg.com - and - Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, LP 14 NE 1st Ave Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: 305-479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Gabriel Mandler, Esq. Omer Kremer, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW 20900 NE 30th Ave Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: gabriel@edelsberglaw.com omer@edelsberglaw.com OCUCO INC: Devinna Sues Over Failure to Secure Private Information ------------------------------------------------------------------ Deborah Devinna, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OCUCO, INC., Case No. 8:25-cv-01936 (M.D. Fla., July 23, 2025), is brought arising out of the recent data breach ("Data Breach") involving Defendant, an eye care technology company providing software solutions for various eye care providers, against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices, including Plaintiff's and Class Members' names, doctor or provider names, medical record numbers, dates of birth, prescriptions or medications, and treatments or diagnoses (collectively defined herein as "Private Information"). By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information––and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted Private Information was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and continuing risk of identity theft and fraud to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes. In breaching its duties to properly safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information and give them timely, adequate notice of the Data Breach's occurrence, Defendant's conduct amounts to negligence and/or recklessness and violates federal and state statutes, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former patients of Defendant's clients. Ocuco states it is "the largest optical retail software company in the World."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: 305-479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com OCUCO INC: Owings Files Suit in M.D. Florida -------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ocuco, Inc. The case is styled as Michelle Owings, as parent and natural guardian of Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ocuco, Inc., Case No. 8:25-cv-01893-WFJ-TGW (M.D. Fla., July 19, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Other Contract. Ocuco -- https://www.ocuco.com/ -- is the largest optical retail software company in the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Sean Almeida, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Phone: (708) 529-5418 Email: david@almeidalawgroup.com - and - Joshua Robert Jacobson, Esq. JACOBSON PHILLIPS PLLC 2277 Lee Rd., Suite B Winter Park, FL 32789 Phone: (321) 447-6461 Email: joshua@jacobsonphillips.com OLD DOMINION FREIGHT: Leger Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Charles Leger, in a Representative capacity, and on behalf of other members of the public similarly situated v. OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE, INC., a Virginia corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2515091 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on July 21, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-01842. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges five causes of action under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") predicated on various alleged violations of California wage and hour law, including meal and rest period violations; minimum wage violations; wage statement violations; failure to reimburse; and failure to timely pay final wages.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Matthew C. Kane, Esq. Amy E. Beverlin, Esq. Kerri H. Sakaue, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90067-4508 Phone: 310.820.8800 Facsimile: 310.820.8859 Email: mkane@bakerlaw.com abeverlin@bakerlaw.com ksakaue@bakerlaw.com - and - Sylvia J. Kim, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP Transamerica Pyramid 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3100 San Francisco, CA 94111-2806 Phone: 415.659.2600 Facsimile: 415.659.2601 Email: sjkim@bakerlaw.com OLD DOMINION: Sealy Seeks Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID K. SEALY, KERRY CARTER and HARVEY L. DAVIS on behalf of the Old Dominion 401(k) Retirement Plan, and all others similarly situated, v. OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00819-TDS-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order as follows: -- preliminarily approving the Parties' class action settlement; -- certifying the proposed settlement class; -- appointing class counsel; approving the form and manner of class notice; -- appointing a settlement administrator; and, -- scheduling a final settlement hearing and hearing on the Plaintiffs' case contribution awards and attorneys' fees and expenses. Old is an inter-regional and multi-regional motor carrier. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nAo4By at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew Norris, Esq. NORRIS LAW FIRM, PLLC 1776 Heritage Center Drive, Suite 204 Wake Forest, NC 27687 Telephone: (919) 981-4475 Facsimile: (919) 926-1676 E-mail: matt@lemonlawnc.com - and - Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. Amanda E. Heystek, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 337-7992 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com lcabassa@wfclaw.com gnichols@wfclaw.com - and - Michael Mckay, Esq. MCKAY LAW, LLC 5635 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 170 Scottsdale, AZ 85258 Telephone: (480) 681-7000 Facsimile: (480) 348-3999 E-mail: mmckay@mckaylaw.us - and - Marc R. Edelman, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 257-0572 E-mail: medelman@forthepeople.com OLYMPIC MAINTENANCE: Camacho Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------------- Raul Ernesto Camacho, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. OLYMPIC MAINTENANCE, INC. and EDWARD LLANOS, individually, Case No. 1:25-cv-04021-CLP (E.D.N.Y., July 21, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") to recover from the Defendants: unpaid wages, and overtime compensation, liquidated and statutory penalties pursuant to the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act, prejudgment and post judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. During his employment, Plaintiff worked over 40 hours per week. Throughout his employment, Plaintiff Raul Ernesto Camacho typically worked approximately a total of 56 hours per week. During his employment, Plaintiff Raul Ernesto Camacho was not permitted to punch a time clock. He was paid according to a weekly schedule he received from the company. The Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, were not paid an overtime premium, as required by Federal and State law. The Plaintiff was not provided with true and accurate wage statement, detailing his true hours worked, hourly rate of pay, the basis for his compensation, itemizing any withholdings, and setting forth his net pay. The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not paying the FLSA overtime rate (of time and one half) or the New York State overtime rate (of time and one-half) to Plaintiff and others similarly situated, for work performed over 40 hours in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was an employee of "Olympic Maintenance, Inc." and was assigned to clean offices, gyms, warehouses and other facilities in New York City. Olympic Maintenance, Inc. provided labor and cleaning services to various companies in the New York Metro area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 60 East 42nd Street - 40th Floor New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 209-3933 Fax: (212) 209-7102 Email: info@jepclaw.com OXY USA: Court Cancels Status Conference in Cherry Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cherry Rider Family Trust et al v. OXY USA, Inc. et al., Case No. 6:23-cv-01274 (D. Kan., Filed Dec. 29, 2023), the Hon. Judge Kathryn H. Vratil entered an order cancelling status conference. At the joint request of the parties, the Aug. 14, 2025, Status Conference regarding Phase II proceedings is cancelled and will be rescheduled after the Tenth Circuit has ruled on Plaintiffs' Petition for Permission to Appeal the District Court's Denial of Class Certification. Within 14 days after the ruling on the appeal petition, the parties shall email the chambers of the Magistrate Judge to reschedule the Status Conference The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract. Oxy explores for, develops, produces, and markets crude oil and natural gas.[CC] PACIFIC GAS: Moon Suit Transferred to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jeromy Moon, Ricardo Luna, and Guy Graff, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:25-cv-05178 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 23, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-06716-JFW-RAO to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Labor/Mgt. Relations. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) -- https://www.pge.com/en.html -- provides natural gas and electric service to residential and business customers in northern and central California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alexander S Nazarov, Esq. Winnie Giang Vien, Esq. WEINBERG ROGER AND ROSENFELD 1375 55th Street Emeryville, CA 94608 Phone: (510) 337-1001 Fax: (510) 337-1023 Email: anazarov@unioncounsel.net wvien@unioncounsel.net The Defendants are represented by: Joshua D. Kienitz, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Treat Towers, 1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Phone: 925.932.2468 Facsimile: 925.946.9809 Email: jkienitz@littler.com - and - P. Dustin Bodaghi, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612 Phone: 949.705.3000 Facsimile: 949.724.1201 Email: dbodaghi@littler.com - and - Olivia Florio Roberts, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 Phone: 310.553.0308 Facsimile: 800.715.1330 Email: oflorioroberts@littler.com PELLE JEREMY: Dutto Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pelle Jeremy. The case is styled as Tabar Dutto, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pelle Jeremy d/b/a Phoenix Prime Security, Case No. 25STCV21504 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 21, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Pelle Jeremy doing business as Phoenix Prime Security -- https://phoenixprimesecurity.com/ -- is a veteran and law enforcement-owned and operated company, providing premium protection.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sacha Pomares, Esq. J. GILL LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 S Flower St, Ste 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2231 Phone: 213-459-6023 Email: sacha@jkgilllaw.com PENNEY OPCO: Must File Class Cert Reply by August 29 ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cervantes v. Penney Opco, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-03038 (E.D. Cal., Filed Dec. 28, 2023), the Hon. Judge Dena M. Coggins entered an order granting the Parties' request as follows: -- The Plaintiff shall file his Opposition or Statement of Non- Opposition by Aug. 8, 2025; and -- The Defendants shall file their Reply by Aug. 29, 2025. -- In addition, the Motion Hearing set for Aug. 15, 2025, is reset to Oct. 3, 2025, at 1:30 PM in Courtroom 8 before District Judge Dena M. Coggins. The suit alleges violation of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). Penney is a major American retail company known for its department stores.[CC] PHARMACARE US: Corbett Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 9th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- MONTIQUENO CORBETT, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled Montiqueno Corbett, et al., individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PharmaCare U.S., Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-00137-JES-AHG, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against PharmaCare, asserting consumer protection and breach of warranty claims based on its Sambucol product, a dietary supplement that is alleged to contain a proprietary extract of black elderberry. On Nov. 29, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. On May 25, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which was granted in part and denied in part. On Jan. 2, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. On Feb. 5, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to file documents under seal and motion to allow non-electronic filing of portions of Exhibit F of the Declaration of Trenton R. Kashima. On June 24, 2025, Judge James E. Simmons, Jr. entered an Order granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment on both the New Dietary Ingredient (NDI) claims and the Disease claims. The Plaintiffs' request to file portions of their opposition under seal and to allow non-electronic filing of portions of Exhibit F are also granted. In sum, there is no dispute of material fact. As a matter of law, the challenged misrepresentations are ambiguous, not deceptive, and are not misleading to a reasonable consumer. The appellate case is entitled Corbett, et al. v. PharmaCare U.S., Inc., Case No. 25-4419, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 17, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on July 22, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on July 28, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on August 28, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on October 7, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on November 7, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants MONTIQUENO CORBETT, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Alex Rafael Straus, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive, Penthouse Suite Beverly Hills, CA 90212 - and - Martha Geer, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 - and - Russell Busch, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 - and - Trenton R. Kashima, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 402 W. Broadway, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Defendant-Appellee PHARMACARE U.S., INC. is represented by: Lawrence E. Butler, Esq. Giovanna Alicia Ferrari, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP 560 Mission Street, Suite 3100 San Francisco, CA 94105 - and - Aaron Belzer, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP 2029 Century Park, E Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 PHOENIX FOOTWEAR: Randolph Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- ERIKA RANDOLPH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. Phoenix Footwear Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08207 (N.D. Ill., July 18, 2025) is a civil rights action the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://trotters.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 April 1, 2025, the Plaintiff was searching for a women's footwear brand and discovered the Defendant's website. 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 landmark structure, inaccurate heading hierarchy, changing of content without advance warning, lack of alt-text on graphics, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Phoenix Footwear 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. Phoenix Footwear Group, Inc. operates the website that offers various types of women footwear including boots, casual, dress shoes, and sandals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: uri@horowitzlawpllc.com POLYLOOM CORPORATION: Moreno Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Jaime Moreno, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. POLYLOOM CORPORATION OF AMERICA, a Delaware corporation doing business in California; SYNTHETIC GRASS WAREHOUSE; HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a Delaware corporation doing business in California; and DOES 1through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV17861 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on July 22, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-06704. In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendants for violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17500, et seq. (False and Misleading Advertising) and violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq. (Unlawful, Unfair, and Fraudulent Business Acts for Practices and Unfair, Deceptive, Untrue, or Misleading Advertising).[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Stacy L. Hambleton, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213 443 4355 Facsimile: 213 443 4310 Email: slhambleton@kslaw.com PREMIER INFUSION: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Premier Infusion and Healthcare Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jaime Hernandez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Premier Infusion and Healthcare Services, Inc., Premier Infusion & Healthcare Services, Premier Infusion Care, Case No. 25STCV21888 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 24, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Premier Infusion and Healthcare Services, Inc. -- https://premierinfusion.com/ -- provide the most clinically comprehensive and cost-effective management for patients with acute and chronic conditions for both pediatric and adult patients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Power Jean Hopkins, Esq. Roman Shkodnik, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N Brand Blvd., Ste. 840 Glendale, CA 91203-2920 Phone: 818-875-2008 Email: r.shkodnik@d.law j.power@d.law PROGRESS RESIDENTIAL: Harris Suit Seeks Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHEYENNE HARRIS and ROBERT WHITAKER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. PROGRESS RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 6:24-cv-00859-CEM-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for class certification and appointing the undersigned as Class Counsel. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have shown that common questions predominate and should not be defeated by individualized damages. Damages are reflected specifically in the Defendant's accounting records for each tenant and therefore are easy to determine. Thus, there are no manageability issues that would preclude trial on a class wide basis. In fact, once certification is granted, the issues are likely to be decided on summary judgment. This class action by tenants seeks to recover security deposits unlawfully retained by Defendant Progress Residential Management Services, Inc. The Plaintiffs propose certification of the following Classes: BREACH OF CONTRACT CLASS: "All persons in the State of Florida who signed a lease substantially similar to Exhibit B for a residential property managed by Progress Residential and had any portion of their security deposit retained without first receiving the FRLTA Notice Language in written form by certified mail, as required by the Lease." NOTICE CLASS: All persons in the State of Florida who signed a lease substantially similar to Exhibit B for a residential property managed by Progress Residential and had any portion of their security deposit retained without first receiving the FRLTA Notice Language by certified mail." Progress is the property management subsidiary of Pretium Partners LLC and Progress Residential, LLC. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KhMB8j at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey L. Newsome, II, Esq. Brian W. Warwick, Esq. Janet R. Varnell, Esq. Christopher J. Brochu, Esq. Pamela G. Levinson, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A. 400 N. Ashley Drive, Suite 1900 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (352) 753-8600 Facsimile: (352) 504-3301 E-mail: jnewsome@vandwlaw.com bwarwick@vandwlaw.com jvarnell@vandwlaw.com cbrochu@vandwlaw.com plevinson@vandwlaw.com ckoerner@vandwlaw.com QUAKER WINDOW: Kauluwehi Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Juline Nalia Kauluwehi and Tiphani Wegs, on behalf of themselves individually and all other similarly situated employees v. QUAKER WINDOW PRODUCTS CO., Case No. 25OS-CC00022 was removed from the Circuit Court of Osage County, Missouri, to the United States District Court for Western District of Missouri on July 23, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01384. The Plaintiff's Complaint purports to allege claims under the Missouri Minimum Wage Law ("MMWL") and Missouri common law for alleged violations of MMWL and unjust enrichment, the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and associated regulations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brad K. Thoenen, Esq. John J. Ziegelmeyer, III, Esq. Kevin A. Todd, Esq. Ethan R. Crockett, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 1501 Westport Road Kansas City, MO 64111 Phone: 816-875-9339 Email: bthoenen@hkm.com jziegelmeyer@hkm.com ktodd@hkm.com ecrockett@hkm.com The Defendants are represented by: Brodie W. Herrman, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 700 W. 47th St., Suite 500 Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: 816-471-1301 Facsimile: 816-471-1303 Email: brodie.herrman@ogletree.com - and - Jason N.W. Plowman, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. Gateway Tower West 15 West South Temple, Suite 950 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Phone: 801-658-6085 Email: jason.plowman@ogletree.com REAL HEALTH: Wilson Suit Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Erin Wilson, on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Real Health Roots, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-03808-SEG (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the time to file a motion for class certification. The Plaintiff filed this Class Action Complaint, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, on behalf of a national class. The Defendant has not yet responded to the complaint and the Plaintiff will need to conduct discovery and secure expert testimony before a motion for class certification can be filed. As such, the Plaintiff requests that the motion for class certification be filed at a time that is Ordered by the Court when a joint proposed Scheduling Order is issued. Real specializes in advanced treatments for Type 2 diabetes and more. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gqlnDI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com REPLIMUNE GROUP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Set Sep 22 --------------------------------------------------------------- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is investigating potential claims against Replimune Group, Inc. ("Replimune" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: REPL) and reminds investors of the September 22, 2025 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed against the Company. Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading national securities law firm with offices in New York, Pennsylvania, California and Georgia. The firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors since its founding in 1995. See www.faruqilaw.com. As alleged, the complaint alleges that the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by making false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose 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. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. On July 22, 2025, before the market opened, Replimune issued a press release entitled "Replimune Receives Complete Response Letter from FDA for RP1 Biologics License Application for the Treatment of Advanced Melanoma." The press release stated that Replimune had received a Complete Response Letter (CRL) from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding the Biologics License Application (BLA) for RP1 (vusolimogene oderparepvec) in combination with nivolumab for the treatment of advanced melanoma." The press release stated that the CRL "indicates that the FDA is unable to approve the application in its present form. The FDA has indicated that the IGNYTE trial is not considered to be an adequate and well--controlled clinical investigation that provides substantial evidence of effectiveness." On this news, Replimune common stock plummeted over 73% during intraday trading on July 22, 2025. The court--appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead plaintiff or not. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding Replimune's conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. To learn more about the Replimune class action, go to www.faruqilaw.com/REPL or call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh Wilson directly at 877--247--4292 or 212--983--9330 (Ext. 1310). Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your particular case. All communications will be treated in a confidential manner. [GN] RETINA GROUP: Class Settlement Gets Final Approval -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Retina Group of Washington Data Security Incident Litigation, Case No. 8:24-cv-00004-DKC (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Deborah K. Chasanow will grant in part and deny in part the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses, and service awards, and will grant the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class settlement. The lack of objections to the specific amount of attorneys' fees “tends to show that at least from the class members' perspective, the requested fee is reasonable for the services provided and the benefits achieved by class counsel." Accordingly, compared to attorneys' fees approved in cases of similar fund sizes and similar litigation subjects, the reduced fee of 30% of the $3,600,000 Settlement Fund, or $1,080,000 is reasonable. The preliminarily approved Settlement Agreement created a Settlement Class of approximately 450,000 individuals consisting of residents of the United States identified on the Settlement Class List whose personal information may have been involved in the data security incident on or about March 26, 2023, and who do not meet an exclusion. On March 26, 2023, the Defendant experienced a data breach, potentially exposing the personally identifiable information and/or personal health information of the Named Plaintiffs and approximately 450,000 individuals. The Settlement Agreement called for a settlement fund of $3,600,000 to be used for notice and claims administration costs, any taxes owed, service awards to Named Plaintiffs, attorneys’ fees and costs, and benefits to the Settlement Class Members, with any remaining amount to be donated to the Maryland Bar Foundation, Inc. Plaintiffs request attorneys' fees of $1,200,000, which is 33.33% of the Settlement Fund, as set out in the Settlement Agreement. (ECF No. 38, at 1, 6). Plaintiffs also request reimbursement of litigation expenses of $2,637.20, and service awards of $2,000 for each of the nine Named Plaintiffs. Retina is a "healthcare company that provides ophthalmology and vision care services." A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated July 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=a4jpEM at no extra charge.[CC] ROCKETREACH LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Sant Due Jan. 9, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH SANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ROCKETREACH LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-01626-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Ricardo Martinez entered an order Class certification discovery cut-off: Nov. 7, 2025 Deadline for Plaintiffs to file motion for Jan. 9, 2026 class certification: Opposition to Motion to Certify Class: Jan. 23, 2026 Reply in Support of Motion to Certify Class: Jan. 30, 2026 Hearing on Motion to Certify Class: To be set by the Court after briefing completed RocketReach provides technology solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated July 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uxGrBz at no extra charge.[CC] RXO INC: Collects Website Users' Data Without Concent, Orr Says --------------------------------------------------------------- SALLY ORR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RXO, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-06581 (C.D. Cal., July 18, 2025) arises from the Defendant's installation and use of data broker software without obtaining consent in violation of the California Trap and Trace Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant uses data broker software on its website, https://coyote.com, to secretly collect data about a Website visitor's computer, location, and browsing habits. The data broker software then compiles this data and correlates that data with extensive external records it already has about most Californians in order to learn the identity of the Website user. Specifically, the Defendant has installed the Data Broker Software Development Kit of Demandbase, Inc. The Demandbase DBSDK turns anonymous web traffic into identifiable leads by identifying people and accounts. The Defendant received other relevant data obtained by Demandbase regarding Plaintiff. Demandbase could then use data regarding Plaintiff's visit to further profile Plaintiff, with the objective of monetizing this data by selling or licensing it to other entities, including law enforcement, says the suit. The Plaintiff visited the Website on April 6, 2025. When Plaintiff did so, her identifying information by way of electronic impulses was sent to Demandbase. The purpose of this transfer of data from Defendant to Demandbase was for de anonymization, profiling, and targeting. The transfer allegedly benefitted both Defendant and Demandbase financially. RXO, Inc. owns, operates, and/or controls the website, an online platform that allows parties seeking to ship freight within the United States to connect with independent freight carriers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Tauler, Esq. J. Evan Shapiro, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-927 E-mail: rtauler@taulersmith.com eshapiro@taulersmith.com SHADE STORE: Bid to Seal Class Cert Opposition Partly OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEE FITZGERALD and KATHERINE ADLER, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE SHADE STORE, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-01435-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Ricardo Martinez entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's Motion to seal re: opposition to motion for class certification and other filings. The Court agrees that the exhibits at Dkt. No. 87 should remain under seal for the reasons articulated by the parties. On the other hand, the Court finds no compelling reason for the redactions made to the Opposition to the Motion for Class Certification. These redactions do not articulate strategies, just approximate, high-level numbers describing the standard operations of Defendant’s business. The Court sees no reason why these numbers would be confidential or particularly damaging to Defendant if shared with competitors. These redactions are general in nature, not pertaining to specific customers. The Court is not convinced this is the kind of information likely to "harm a litigant's competitive standing." Shade is a home decoration products provider. A copy of the Court's order dated July 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2ReBYA at no extra charge.[CC] SIEMENS ENERGY: Babinski Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties --------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Babinski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SIEMENS ENERGY, INC., THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SIEMENS ENERGY, INC., THE SIEMENS ENERGY, INC. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, THE SIEMENS ENERGY, INC. INVESTMENT COMMITTEE and JOHN DOES 1-40, Case No. 4:25-cv-03381 (S.D. Tex., July 22, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), for breaches of their fiduciary duties. To safeguard plan participants and beneficiaries, ERISA imposes strict fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence upon employers and other plan fiduciaries. Fiduciaries must act “solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries,” with the “care, skill, prudence, and diligence” that would be expected in managing a plan of similar scope. During the putative Class Period, Defendants, as the “fiduciaries” of the Plan, as that term is defined under ERISA, breached the duties owed to the Plan, to Plaintiff, and to the other participants of the Plan by, inter alia: failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan’s investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of cost and performance; failing to control the Plan’s RKA and managed account services costs; engaging in prohibited transactions in violation of the ERISA’s; and failing to defray reasonable expenses of administering the Plan. The Defendants’ mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment of participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duties of prudence, in violation of the ERISA’s. Their actions were contrary to actions of a reasonable fiduciary and cost the Plan and its participants millions of dollars. Based on this conduct, Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendants for breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence (Count I), breach of the fiduciary duty of loyalty (Count II), breach of ERISA’s Anti-Inurement Provision (Count III), failure to monitor fiduciaries (Count IV) and violation of ERISA’s prohibited transactions (Count V), says the complaint. The Plaintiff participated in the Plan. Siemens Energy, Inc. is the sponsor and a named fiduciary of the Plan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel L. White, Esq. WARD + WHITE PLLC 114 1/2 E. Louisiana Street, Suite 206 McKinney, TX 75069 Phone: (469) 941-0040 Email: dwhite@wardwhitepllc.com - and - Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. James A. Maro, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Phone: (610) 890-0200 Fax: (717) 232-3080 Email: markg@capozziadler.com jamesm@capozziadler.com SONY INTERACTIVE: Class Cert Bid Terminated as Moot --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Caccuri v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-03361 (N.D. Cal., Filed May 5, 2021), the Hon. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin entered an order on motion to certify class. Accordingly, the Court having resolved the motion for preliminary approval of class settlement, the earlier-filed motion to certify class for settlement purposes and preliminary approval of proposed settlement is terminated as moot. The nature of suit states Antitrust Litigation. Sony is an American game and digital entertainment company. [CC] SOUTHWOOD FINANCIAL: Murray Files Suit in E.D. Virginia ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Southwood Financial, LLC. The case is styled as Jacob Murray, Christa Murray, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Southwood Financial, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00573-JAG (E.D. Va., July 24, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Southwood Financial, LLC -- https://swfin.com/ -- partner with private student loan lenders to address defaulted student loans and shepherd borrowers to financial stability.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth R. Carroll, Esq. COMMONWEALTH LAW GROUP 3311 West Broad Street Richmond, VA 23230 Phone: (804) 999-9999 Email: scarroll@hurtinva.com SP MANAGEMENT: Williams Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Christy Williams, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. SP MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., a Tennessee corporation; PAIN MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES INC., a California corporation; SEQUOIA SURGICAL PAVILION LLC, a California limited liability company; NSH CALIFORNIA, LLC, a California limited liability company; NSH MANAGEMENT OF CALIFORNIA, LLC, a California limited liability company; NATIONAL SURGICAL HOSPITALS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; SEQUOIA SURGICAL CENTER, L.P., a California limited partnership; SEQUOIA SURGICAL CENTER HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, a California limited liability company; SURGERY PARTNERS, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. C25-02024 (Cal. Super. Ct., Contra Costa Cty., July 15, 2025), is brought for Violation of California Labor Codes as a result of Unpaid Overtime; Unpaid Minimum Wages; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Periods; Non-Compliant Wage Statements and Failure to Maintain Payroll Records; Wages Not Timely Paid Upon Termination; Failure to Timely Pay Wages During Employment; Unlawful Business Practices; and Violation of California Business & Professions Code for Unfair Business Practices. The Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff and class members were entitled to receive at least minimum wages for compensation and that they were not receiving at least minimum wages for work that was required to be done off-the-clock. In violation of the California Labor Code, Plaintiff and class members were not paid at least minimum wages for work done off-the-clock, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a Receptionist at Defendants' Pain Management Associates office location in Laguna Hills, California. SP MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. was and is a Tennessee corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bevin Allen Pike, Esq. Daniel S. Jonathan, Esq. Trisha K. Monesi, Esq. Shealene P. Mancuso, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 Email: Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com Daniel.Jonathan@capstonelawyers.com Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com Shealene.Mancuso@capstonelawyers.com SPECIALIZED PROTECTIVE: Guzman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Specialized Protective Services, Inc. The case is styled as Guadalupe Martinez Guzman, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Specialized Protective Services, Inc., Case No. 25STCV21517 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 21, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Specialized Protective Services Inc. (SPS) -- https://1sps.pro/ -- is a security services company offering various security solutions, including armed and unarmed security personnel, vehicle patrols, investigative services, and emergency response.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY: Chism Suit Removed to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kenneth Chism, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, California statutory corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25CV466632 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on July 23, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-06183. On May 23, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging damages under the California Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), California Labor Code section 2698.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Mia Farber, Esq. Steven M. Zimmerman, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Phone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 Email: Mia.Farber@jacksonlewis.com Steve.Zimmerman@jacksonlewis.com - and - Benjamin J. Schnayerson, Esq. Dahn A. Levine, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 50 California Street, 9th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4615 Phone: (415) 394-9400 Facsimile: (415) 394-9401 Email: Ben.Schnayerson@jacksonlewis.com Dahn.Levine@jacksonlewis.com STELLANT SYSTEMS: Griffin Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Nathan Griffin, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. STELLANT SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV14939 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on July 24, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-06760. The Complaint contains ten causes of action, alleging: Violation of California Labor Code Sections 510 and 1198 (Unpaid Overtime); Violation of California Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512(a) (Unpaid Meal Period Premiums); Violation of California Labor Code Section 226.7 (Unpaid Rest Period Premiums); Violation of California Labor Code Sections 1194, 1197, and 1197.1 (Unpaid Minimum Wages); Violation of California Labor Code Sections 201 and 202 (Final Wages Not Timely Paid); Violation of California Labor Code Section 204 (Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment); Violation of California Labor Code Section 226(a) (Non-Compliant Wage Statements): Violation of California Labor Code Section 1174(d) (Failure to Keep Requisite Payroll Records); Violation of California Labor Code Sections 2800 and 2802 (Unreimbursed Business Expenses); and Violation of California Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Steven A. Groode, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Treat Towers 1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Phone: 925.932.2468 Facsimile: 925.946.9809 Email: sgroode@littler.com - and - Matthew Morris, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213.443.4300 Facsimile: 800.715.1330 Email: mamorris@littler.com SYMMETRY FINANCIAL: Class Certification Bid in Bennett Due Nov. 3 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRADY BENNETT, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, v. SYMMETRY FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC; and QUILITY SOFTWARE APPLICATIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00067-MR-WCM (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge W. Carleton Metcalf entered a pretrial order and case management plan as follows: Rule 26 Disclosures: July 25, 2025 Designation of Mediator: Aug. 8, 2025 Class Certification Motion: Nov. 3, 2025 Expert Reports – Party w/ Burden: March 17, 2026 - Responsive: April 17, 2026 - Rebuttal: May 18, 2026 Discovery (Class Cert. & Merits): July 17, 2026 Mediation: July 31, 2026 Symmetry offers life insurance, mortgage protection, critical illness insurance, disability insurance, retirement protection, and much more. A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MiLzno at no extra charge.[CC] TASKRABBIT INC: Cross Suit Removed to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Joshua Cross, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TASKRABBIT, INC., Case No. C25-01684 was removed from the Superior Court of the Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on July 22, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-06161. The Complaint contains three causes of action against Defendant alleging unfair competition in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq. (“UCL”); violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) in violation of Cal. Civ. Code Section 1750 et seq.; and violations of California’s False Advertising Law (“FAL”) in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17500.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Fred B. Burnside, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 50 California Street, 23rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 276-6500 Facsimile: (415) 276-6599 Email: fredburnside@dwt.com - and - Nancy Thomas, Esq. Marcy Blattner Micale, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, 27th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 633-6800 Facsimile: (213) 633-6899 Email: nancythomas@dwt.com marcymicale@dwt.com TD AMERITRADE: Jacobs Suit Transferred to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Djakarta A. Jacobs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TD AMERITRADE, INC., and TD AMERITRADE CLEARING, INC., Case No. 8:25-cv-00016 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 23, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-01604-FWS-JDE to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation was a stockbroker that offered an electronic trading platform for the trade of financial assets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob L. Phillips, Esq. Joshua R. Jacobson, Esq. JACOBSON PHILLIPS PLLC 2277 Lee Road, Suite B Winter Park, FL 32789 Phone: (321) 447-6461 Email: jacob@jacobsonphillips.com joshua@jacobsonphillips.com The Defendant is represented by: Matthew G. Munro, Esq. Patrick E Brookhouser, Jr., Esq. MCGRATH NORTH LAW FIRM 1601 Dodge Street, Suite 3700 First National Tower Omaha, NE 68102-1627 Phone: (402) 341-3070 Fax: (402) 341-0216 Email: mmunro@mcgrathnorth.com pbrookhouser@mcgrathnorth.com - and - Jason Jacob Mendro, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN AND CRUTCHER LLP 1700 M Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 887-3726 Fax: (202) 467-0539 Email: jmendro@gibsondunn.com - and - Joseph E. Floren, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP Spear Street Tower One Market San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 442-1391 Email: joseph.floren@morganlewis.com TD BANK: Bid for More Time to Oppose Class Cert Sought ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dou et al., v. TD Bank N.A., Case No. 1:23-cv-04880-JPO (S.D.N.Y.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of TD's deadline to oppose the Plaintiffs' recently filed motion for class certification from July 29 to Aug. 19, 2025 and of the Plaintiffs' deadline to reply to TD's expected opposition to Sept. 22, 2025. On July 9, the Court denied the parties' motions and cross-motions for summary judgment and ordered the Plaintiffs to file any motion for class certification within 14 days, which meant by July 23. The Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification early, on July 15, putting TD's default deadline to oppose on July 29, 2025. The requested extension would be appreciated by TD in order to adequately evaluate and brief the substantive class certification motion, which includes 10 proposed class representatives, and to accommodate counsel's longstanding plan for an overseas vacation with family. The Plaintiffs request a reply deadline of September 22, 2025, on the grounds that both of Plaintiffs' counsel are traveling in late August and September. TD does not oppose the request. This is the parties' first request for an extension of the deadlines to brief class certification. We appreciate the Court’s consideration of this request. TD is an American national bank and a subsidiary of TD Bank Group. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tqiS2q at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. LEVIN EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2458 New York, NY 10170 Telephone: (212) 792-0046 E-mail: joshua@levinepstein.com - and - Glenn Dunn Jr., Esq. GLEN J. DUNN & ASSOCIATES 1 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2510 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 546-5056 E-mail: gdunn@gjdlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Lynn K. Neuner, Esq. Patrick K. Barry, Esq. SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 455-2000 E-mail: lneuner@stblaw.com patrick.barry@stblaw.com TD BANK: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid in Dou Suit by August 19 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dou et al v. TD Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:23-cv-04880 (S.D.N.Y., Filed June 11, 2023), the Hon. Judge J. Paul Oetken entered an order granting Letter Motion for Extension of Time: -- The Defendant's time to oppose the motion for class certification is extended to Aug. 19, 2025. -- The Plaintiffs' time to file a reply is extended to Sept. 22, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Securities & Exchange Commission related violations. TD is the U.S. national bank subsidiary of The Toronto-Dominion Bank.[CC] TOPEKA, KS: Moore Wins Class Certification Bid ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VAL G. MOORE et. al., v. CITY OF TOPEKA; COUNTY OF SHAWNEE CHIEF CHILES AND COMMANDER OFT. P. D., Case No. 6:25-cv-01150-DDC-BGS (D. Kan.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for class certification. Accordingly, Plaintiff Levi Love has kept Mary Love's and Val Moore's claims of illegal search of their apartment and illegal search & seizure of their grandam alive. Mary Love's and Val Moore's cases are "intertwined" (connected) and inseparable from 97CR878. Topeka is the capital city of the U.S. state of Kansas and the county seat of Shawnee County. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fFOe4z at no extra charge.[CC] UNION PACIFIC: Grigg Must File Reply Brief by August 11 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Grigg v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., Case No. 4:21-cv-03124 (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] UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE: Suszka Seeks COVID-19 Tuition Fee Refunds -------------------------------------------------------------- JIMMY SUSZKA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff V. UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME DU LAC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00626 (N.D. Ind., July 18, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons who satisfied their payment obligations of tuition and/or fees to attend Notre Dame for in-person and on-campus educational services and experiences for the semesters or terms affected by Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), including the Spring 2020 semesters, and were denied such services, access, and experiences and had their course work moved to online only learning. In March 2020, in response to the outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the virus that causes the COVID-19 disease, Notre Dame, like many other universities, transitioned to remote online-only instruction, canceled athletic and other on-campus recreational events, canceled student activity events, and ordered students to refrain from going on campus. As a result of Defendants COVID-19 Response during the middle of the Spring 2020 semester, the Defendant was only able to partially perform -- by providing instruction and progress towards the degree, without access to campus. The University's failure to provide the services for which tuition and the Mandatory Fees were intended to cover since approximately March 11, 2020, is a breach of the contracts between the University, Plaintiff, and the members of the Class, and as so is unjust. Despite the reality that students could no longer enjoy the benefit of the bargain for which they pre-paid, Notre Dame refused to provide a pro-rated refund of tuition or fees tied to on-campus education, services, and amenities that were not available to students for a significant part of the Spring 2020 semester, alleges the suit. Notre Dame is a private university in Notre Dame, Indiana that was founded in 1842. The University offers numerous major fields for undergraduate students, as well as a number of graduate programs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq. Cohenmalad, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Facsimile: (317) 636-2593 E-mail: sgilchrist@cohenmalad.com - and - Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. Anthony M. Alesandro, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com VOLUNTEER BEHAVIORAL: Mitchell Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- EDWARD MONTRELL MITCHELL, individually, and on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiff v. VOLUNTEER BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00232 (E.D. Tenn., July 18, 2025) is brought against the Defendant as a multi-plaintiff action under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover overtime compensation and other damages owed to Plaintiff and other similarly situated current and former hourly-paid employees of Defendant. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated performed "off the clock" work activities within weekly pay periods but were not compensated for such work time at the FLSA overtime compensation rates of pay during all times material. Volunteer Behavioral Health Care System provides integrated services to meet the needs of individuals with mental illness, addiction, and co-occurring disorders.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood, IV, Esq. Joshua Autry, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, HOLT, OWEN & BRYANT Attorneys at Law 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com jautry@jsyc.com WALMART INC: Court Dismisses Appeal for Lack of Final Judgment -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Eric Tublin v. Walmart, Inc., No. 10, September Term, 2024, Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County Case No. C-02-CV-23-001374, Circuit Judge Zic of the Appellate Court of Maryland dismissed an appeal without reaching the merits of the issues presented. The Court found that the Plaintiff's appeal was taken from an order by the circuit court that grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss and expressly permits the Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint. The Plaintiff did not amend his complaint, and neither party requested that the court enter an order dismissing the action as required by Maryland Rule 2-322(c). Therefore, the order was not a final judgment, and the Court dismissed the appeal. Tublin alleged a violation of Maryland's Consumer Protection Act and negligent misrepresentation. Walmart moved to dismiss the action with prejudice, arguing that the Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies or, in the alternative, state a claim for which relief could be granted. Following a hearing, the court granted the Defendant's motion but permitted the Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint. The Plaintiff appealed the court's order without amending his complaint or moving for a final order of dismissal pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-322(c). On March 11, 2023, the Plaintiff purchased an American flag and various other items from a Defendant-owned store in Gaithersburg, Maryland. The sales receipt indicated that the Defendant charged the Plaintiff a sales tax on his purchase. The Plaintiff believes the sales tax was improper because, under Section 11-205 of the Tax-General Article of the Maryland Code, sales of American flags are exempt from Maryland sales tax. Several months after his purchase, in July 2023, the Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit against the Defendant in which he claimed that the Defendant's practice of charging sales tax on tax-exempt flags constituted a violation of the MCPA and negligent misrepresentation. In September 2023, the Defendant moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's class action, and the Plaintiff opposed. Following a hearing on February 12, 2024, the circuit court granted the Defendant's motion. The corresponding written order permitted the Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint on or before February 22, 2024, after which time the matter would be dismissed with prejudice. The Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint or move for a final order dismissing his complaint. On March 1, 2024, the Plaintiff filed the instant appeal challenging the court's dismissal of the underlying action with prejudice. The Court addressed sua sponte whether the Plaintiff's appeal was properly before it. Unless constitutionally authorized, Maryland appellate courts have jurisdiction only where granted by the Legislature. Pursuant to Section 12-301 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article of the Maryland Code, the Court generally reviews only appeals taken from final judgments. An order entered pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-322(c), i.e., one that dismisses the action but expressly grants a plaintiff leave to amend the complaint, is not a final judgment and therefore is not appealable. Instead, after the period prescribed for amendment has expired, the circuit court, on motion, may enter an order dismissing the action. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=u8CtjZ WELLS FARGO: Class Cert Filing in Cash Sweep Suit Due Nov. 20 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Re Wells Fargo Cash Sweep Litigation, Case No. 3:24-cv-04616-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order granting as modified joint stipulation extending deadline for the Defendant to answer operative complaint and scheduling class certification briefing: 1. The deadline for the Defendant to answer the operative complaint is Aug. 18, 2025. 2. The deadlines for expert reports related to class certification issues are as follows: a. The Plaintiffs will serve any expert reports related to class certification issues by Sept. 26, 2025. b. The Defendant will serve any expert reports related to class certification issues by Oct. 27, 2025. c. The Plaintiffs will serve any rebuttal expert reports related to class certification issues by Nov. 20, 2025. 3. The briefing schedule for the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is as follows: a. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and any Daubert motion(s) are due Nov. 20, 2025. b. The Defendant's oppositions to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the Plaintiffs' Daubert motion(s), and any Daubert motion(s) by the Defendant are due on Jan. 9, 2026. c. The Plaintiffs' reply in support of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the Plaintiffs' Daubert motion(s), and the Plaintiffs' opposition to the Defendant’s Daubert motion(s) are due on Jan. 30, 2026. Wells is an American multinational financial services company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=i90DR0 at no extra charge.[CC] WELLS FARGO: More Time for Class Cert Response Sought ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Re Wells Fargo Cash Sweep Litigation, Case No. 3:24-cv-04616-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending deadline for the Defendant to answer operative complaint and scheduling class certification briefing: 1. The deadline for Defendant to answer the operative complaint is Aug. 18, 2025. 2. The deadlines for expert reports related to class certification issues are as follows: a. The Plaintiffs will serve any expert reports related to class certification issues by Sept. 26, 2025. b. The Defendant will serve any expert reports related to class certification issues by Oct. 27, 2025. c. The Plaintiffs will serve any rebuttal expert reports related to class certification issues by Nov. 20, 2025. 3. The briefing schedule for the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is as follows: a. The Plaintiffs' reply in support of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the Plaintiffs' Daubert motion(s), and the Plaintiffs' opposition to the Defendant's Daubert motion(s), together in one brief of no more than 30 pages, are due on Feb. 5, 2026. b. The Defendant's reply in support of the Defendants' Daubert motion(s), of no more than 5 pages, is due on Feb. 12, 2026. Wells is an American multinational financial services company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7gyJ1e at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq. John Rizio-Hamilton, Esq. Adam H. Wierzbowski, Esq. Michael Blatchley, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 E-mail: salvatore@blbglaw.com johnr@blbglaw.com adam@blbglaw.com michaelb@blbglaw.com - and - Joshua P. Davis, Esq. Kyla J. Gibboney, Esq. Julie A. Pollock, Esq. Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq. Andrew D. Abramowitz, Esq. Jacob M. Polakoff, Esq. Alex B. Heller, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (800) 424-6690 E-mail: jdavis@bm.net kgibboney@bm.net jpollock@bm.net -and- mdellangelo@bm.net aabramowitz@bm.net jpolakoff@bm.net aheller@bm.net - and - Deborah Rosenthal, Esq. Sona R. Shah, Esq. Thomas I. Sheridan, III, Esq. Michael J Angelides, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLP 455 Market St., Ste. 1270 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 536-3986 E-mail: drosenthal@simmonsfirm.com sshah@simmonsfirm.com tsheridan@simmonsfirm.com mangelides@simmonsfirm.com - and - Robert J. Jackson, Jr., Esq. BUZIN LAW, P.C. 3003 Purchase Street Purchase, NY 10577 Telephone: (212) 879-8100 E-mail: robert.j.jackson@nyu.edu The Defendant is represented by: David G. Hille, Esq. Gregory M. Starner, Esq. Bryan A. Merryman, Esq. WHITE & CASE LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 819-8200 Facsimile: (212) 354-8113 E-mail: dhille@whitecase.com gstarner@whitecase.com bmerryman@whitecase.com WEXFORD HEALTH: Spurlock Wins Bid for Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN SPURLOCK; HEATHER SMITH; and SHAWN ZMUDZINSKI, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INCORPORATED, Case No. 3:23-cv-00476 (S.D.W. Va.), the Hon. Judge Robert Chambers entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, but redefining the proposed class definitions as follows: Damages Class: "All individuals who were confined at a listed facility during the applicable relevant time period, who (1) (a) had a diagnosis of Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) at the time of intake, and reported that diagnosis during intake, or were diagnosed during such incarceration, (b) had a prescription for FDA- approved Medication for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD) at the time of intake, or (c) were monitored for opioid withdrawal during such incarceration; and (2) who were not continued on MOUD, if already prescribed MOUD, or screened for MOUD induction; and (3) who were thereafter released from the Listed Facility." Injunctive Relief Class: "All persons who are currently, or will in the future, be confined at a carceral facility for which Wexford provides comprehensive medical and/or healthcare services, who have a diagnosis of Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) at the time of intake, and report that diagnosis during intake, or are diagnosed during such incarceration, test positive for opioids during such incarceration, or are monitored for opioid withdrawal during such incarceration." The Plaintiffs' claims are based on violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution for failing to provide adequate medical care. The law firms and practitioners of Tycko & Zavareei LLP, Forbes Law Offices, PLLC, Calwell Luce diTrapano PLLC, and Berger Montague are appointed class counsel. The Court directs the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented parties. The Court finds that a class action is superior to other methods to adjudicate this controversy. The Plaintiffs initiated this action on July 7, 2023. Wexford is an American healthcare services company. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion & order dated July 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TmGX7G at no extra charge.[CC] WK KELLOGG: Faces Class Action Suit Over Froot Loops Serving Size ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims Kellogg has falsely advertised the number of servings in its Froot Loops with Marshmallows cereal, resulting in consumers receiving less food per box than they believe they are paying for. According to the 41-page lawsuit, filed against WK Kellogg Co and Walmart Inc., the advertised mass of each one-and-one-third cup serving of Kellogg's Froot Loops with Marshmallows cereal (which comes in 23.7 oz, 16.2 oz and 9.3 oz sizes) is less than the actual mass, meaning each box of cereal actually contains fewer servings than represented on the packaging. For example, the filing states that the 16.2 oz Froot Loops box claims to have "about 12 servings" of cereal, which, by FDA regulations, should mean between 11.5 and 12.49 servings. On the boxes' Nutrition Facts panel, the case says, Kellogg represents that one serving of cereal is one-and-one-third cup and has a mass of 39 grams. The lawsuit alleges, though, that according to independent testing commissioned by the plaintiff, each one-and-one-third cup serving actually has a mass of 45.26 grams. With the overall mass of the box being 459 grams, each box of cereal contains only 10.16 servings, the complaint states, which is 15.33% short of what the packaging promises. The suit further claims that because Kellogg uses the same miscalculated serving size mass for the other box sizes of its Fruit Loops cereal, each contains fewer servings of cereal than the packaging claims. A reasonable consumer, the lawsuit says, expects that the representations on food product packaging about serving size and total number of servings will be truthful. The complaint alleges that Kellogg knew or should have known about the error in its serving size calculations and instead both misled consumers into paying more for less cereal and failed to meet its own standard of "[providing] consumers with high-quality products." The lawsuit also alleges that Walmart, which sells the Froot Loops with Marshmallows cereal in its retail stores, is also at fault given its promises to "help people around the world save money" and "make trust a competitive advantage." Per the case, the retailer has both cost consumers money in their cereal purchases and broken their trust by allowing products packaged with fraudulent claims to be sold in its stores. The Kellogg's Froot Loops class action lawsuit seeks to represent anyone in the state of New York who purchased any of the Froot Loops with Marshmallows products for personal, family or household use and not for resale within the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] ZANDER GROUP: Court Cancels Trial & Pretrial Conference in Jones ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM H. "CHIP" JONES, II, v. ZANDER GROUP HOLDINGS, INC., ET AL., Case No. 3:23-cv-00687 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Eli Richardson entered an order cancelling the trial and pretrial conference, scheduled for Aug. 26, 2025, and Aug. 18, 2025, pending motion to dismiss and motion for class certification. Zander is an independent insurance agency. A copy of the Court's order dated July 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ttuBXi at no extra charge.[CC] ZANDER GROUP: Court Upholds Subpoena Quashing Order --------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as William H. Jones II, Plaintiff, v. Zander Group Holdings, Inc., Zander Group Holdings, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, Zander Group Holdings, Inc. 401(K) Plan, Jeffrey J. Zander, JJZ Insurance Agency Partnership, Zander Insurance Agency, Joshua Vollet, Shervin Eftekhari, Elizabeth Collins, Steven James, John Does 1-8, and John Does 4-8, Defendants, Civil Action No. 8:24CV428 (D. Neb.), Senior United States District Judge Joseph F. Bataillon of the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska overruled Defendants' objection to a magistrate judge's order protecting attorney-client privilege. The parties are engaged in class-action litigation in the Middle District of Tennessee regarding Defendant's purported violations of ERISA in conjunction with rolling over the funds in Plaintiff's employee stock ownership plan account to a 401(k) account after Plaintiff's employment with Defendants ended. Plaintiff consulted with attorneys at the McGrath North law firm in Omaha, Nebraska, prior to, and during, the rollover of the funds. Defendants issued document subpoenas for Plaintiff's communication with his McGrath North attorneys and sought to depose the attorneys as well. Plaintiff moved to quash the subpoenas, arguing they sought irrelevant information and were protected by work-product and attorney-client privilege. Magistrate Judge Nelson granted the motions to quash. Judge Bataillon overruled Defendants' objection to the magistrate judge's memorandum and order granting Plaintiff's motion to quash subpoena for documents and deposition subpoena. The Court applied the standard that on review of a decision of the magistrate judge on a nondispositive matter, the district court may set aside any part of the magistrate judge's order that it finds is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. A decision is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. A decision is contrary to the law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law or rules of procedure. The Court noted that parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. Judge Bataillon cautioned that although the scope of discovery is extremely broad, courts should not allow fishing expeditions in discovery. According to the Court, the attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between a client and his attorney made for the purpose of facilitating the rendering of legal services to the client. The Court determined that voluntary disclosure of attorney client communications expressly waives the privilege, and such waiver covers any information directly related to that which was actually disclosed. Rule 26(b)(3) allows a party to discover materials prepared in anticipation of litigation only upon a showing that the requesting party has a substantial need for the material and cannot obtain the material or its equivalent elsewhere without incurring undue hardship. Judge Bataillon affirmed that Magistrate Judge Nelson correctly determined that the information Defendants sought was irrelevant to the underlying lawsuit. The magistrate judge noted that Plaintiff's allegations were that Defendants failed to comply with ERISA and the question of whether Plaintiff's incorrect beliefs regarding his rollover options may have been based on legal advice from his McGrath North attorneys was not of consequence to the causes of action. The Court further upheld the magistrate judge's rejection of Defendants' contention that the attorneys' advice was relevant to the question of standing, noting this was a post-hoc rationale as the motion-to-dismiss briefing filed in the Tennessee court did not rely on the attorney-client communications when discussing standing. The Court confirmed that Magistrate Judge Nelson correctly concluded that even if the materials sought were relevant, the Court would still be required to quash the subpoenas because the information was protected by the attorney-client and work-product privileges. The magistrate judge correctly determined that Plaintiff had waived privilege only as to two emails he shared with third parties, not the entirety of his communication with his attorneys, and that he did not put his attorneys' advice at issue in the Tennessee case. A Copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KQ9lJn from PacerMonitor.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 ***