250806.mbx

250806.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, August 6, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 156 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Caswell Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Halcum Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams 3M COMPANY: Keeley Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams 3M COMPANY: Keil Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Lancaster Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams 3M COMPANY: Lawson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Miller Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ALASKA AIRLINES: Alters Flight Pass Program Terms, Burton Says AMAZON.COM INC: Court Stays Discovery in Cain AMERICAN ECONOMY: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by August 5 AMETROS FINANCIAL: Louisiana Pain Seeks Class Certification ANNE ARUNDEL: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Beville Says ANNE ARUNDEL: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Beville Says BAXTERBOO INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cole Alleges BEAR & BEAR: Chronister Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages BIOELEMENTS INC: Faces Bowman Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BLOOMBERG LP: Seeks to Maintain Confidential Info Under Seal BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD: Amended Class Cert Scheduling Order Entered BOSCOV'S INC: Clas Cert Oral Argument Set for Sept. 10 CVS HEALTH: Lewis Suit Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid DATAVANT INC: Court Stays Briefing on Class Certification ESUPPLEMENTS LLC: Cohen Seeks to Modify Class Cert Briefing Sched EXCLUSIVE FABRICS: Faces Bowman Over Blind-Inaccessible Website FULFILLMENT AMERICA: Salazar Seeks to Amend Class Definition HERRSCHNERS INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Frost Alleges HORIZON LAND: Seeks More Time to File Collective Cert Response JET LIMOUSINES: Class Cert Bid Fling Extended to August 22 LIBERTY MUTUAL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Ward Due Jan. 23, 2026 LIBERTY MUTUAL: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response LOVO INC: Court Narrows Claims in AI Voice Cloning Class Suit LVNV FUNDING: Shaw Allowed Leave to File Class Cert Reply NAVY FEDERAL: Stephenson Seeks Prelim. Approval of Settlement NEW YORK, NY: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Opposition NORTH AMERICAN: Siri Seeks Conditional Collective Certification OREGON: Jacobson Files TCPA Suit in D. Oregon PROGRESS RESIDENTIAL: Harris Seeks to File Class Cert Under Seal QP CAPITAL: Pimentel Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida RB GLOBAL: Faces Coneco Suit Over Equipment Rentals' Conspiracy RB GLOBAL: PS Bruckel Sues Over Horizontal Price-Fixing RED LIFE STUDIOS: Connors Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida RELX GROUP: Dismissal of Claims in Wanna Suit Upheld RETENTION BRANDS: Casillas Sues Over Unlawful Tracing Process RIVERTON SQUARE: Summary Judgment Bid in Joachim Suit Denied SANSMARK INC: Beltran Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SENTRY INSURANCE: Collects Web Visitors' Data, Hughes Alleges SEWON AMERICA: Heredia Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid SIMILASAN CORP: Class Settlement in Plowden Gets Final Nod SLIM CD: Fails to Secure Financial Data, First Choice Federal Says STATES LOGISTICS: Williams Suit Removed to C.D. California STEMILT AG: 9th Cir. Vacates Protective Order in Farmworkers Suit TESLA INC: Matsko Seeks to File Class Cert Reply Under Seal THREDUP INC: Dalton Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users UNION PACIFIC: Grigg Suit Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply UNION PACIFIC: Waldschmidt Seeks More Time to File Reply Brief UNITED STATES: Court Vacates Case Schedule UNITED STATES: Loses Bid to Dismiss Henkel Suit UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Marden Seeks Final OK of Class Settlement VCE THEATERS: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Atkins Due Sept. 2 VIA RENEWABLES: Seeks Sept. 18 Class Cert. Hearing VIRGINIA: King Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Citizens VOYA FINANCIAL: Class Cert. Filing in Ravarino Due Jan. 30, 2026 WALT DISNEY: Court Appoints Bathaee Dunne as Interim Lead Counsel WESTERN DENTAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Bonkowski Says WORKFORCE7 INC: Ballast Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply ********* 3M COMPANY: Caswell Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams ------------------------------------------------------------- Angelo Caswell, 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-06276-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. 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: 205-328-945 3M COMPANY: Halcum Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams ---------------------------------------------------- Thomas L. Halcum, 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-06230-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 kidney and cancers 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: Keeley Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams ---------------------------------------------------- Terry L. Keeley, 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-06290-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 kidney 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: Keil Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams --------------------------------------------------------------- Gary Keil, 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-06239-RMG (D.S.C., June 26, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use and was diagnosed with testicular cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Phone: 540-672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com 3M COMPANY: Lancaster Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams ------------------------------------------------------- Brad Lancaster, 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-06216-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 Ulcerative Colitis as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Y. Shenkar, Esq. MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS, LLP 101 West Elm St., Suite 520 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: (803) 315-3357 Fax: (610) 941-9880 Email: jshenkar@bernllp.com 3M COMPANY: Lawson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals ---------------------------------------------------------------- Donna Lawson, 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-06281-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 thyroid 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: Miller Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals -------------------------------------------------------- Jody Miller, 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-06242-RMG (D.S.C., June 26, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use and was diagnosed with testicular cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Phone: 540-672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com ALASKA AIRLINES: Alters Flight Pass Program Terms, Burton Says -------------------------------------------------------------- LUKE BURTON individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALASKA AIRLINES INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-06156 (N.D. Cal., July 22, 2025) is a class action lawsuit against Alaska Airlines for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment/restitution, and violating the consumer protection laws of California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, and Washington. In September 2024, Alaska Airlines engaged in unfair and deceptive practices by unilaterally and fundamentally altering the terms of its Flight Pass program, a subscription service marketed as a cost-effective solution for frequent travelers (the Program). The Program required its subscribers to pay a non-refundable monthly fee for 12 months to Defendant without the ability to terminate. In exchange, the Subscribers were eligible to receive credits that entitled them to a fixed number of flights per month for the year. However, Alaska Airlines drastically reduced the Program's core benefit in September 2024, cutting the number of guaranteed flight redemptions in half, while retaining Subscribers' payments, says the suit. This breached the terms of the parties' agreement, and also constitutes unfair and deceptive practices under the consumer protection statutes of the relevant states, causing significant harm to Plaintiff and other similarly situated Subscribers. This all happened on or around the same time as the Defendant's lucrative $1.9 billion deal to acquire another airline. Upon information and belief, Alaska Airlines made this decision to unjustly enrich itself by unilaterally altering the Program's terms, prioritizing its financial interests over the commitments made to the Program's Subscribers. The Plaintiff entered into a contract with Alaska Airlines by subscribing to its Flight Pass program on July 29, 2024. Alaska Airlines subsequently breached the terms of this contract and violated applicable consumer protection statutes through its unilateral alteration of the Program, causing Plaintiff Burton to suffer damages. The Defendant engaged in providing air transportation services. It operates flights throughout the United States, including in California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, and Washington, and actively markets its services to residents of these states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peng Shao, Esq. Jared Walder, Esq. R23 LAWAPC 633 West Fifth Street, 26th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (888) 533-2948 E-mail: peng@r23law.com jared@r23law.com - and - Jing He, Esq. Ryan McMenamin, Esq. Sherry Yu, Esq. MORROW NI LLP 41 Madison Ave, 31st Floor New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (773) 543-3223 E-mail: Jing@moni.law ryan@moni.law sherry@moni.law AMAZON.COM INC: Court Stays Discovery in Cain --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER CAIN, KIMBERLY HALO, KELLY KIMMEY, JUMA LAWSON, and PHILIP SULLIVAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., and AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-00204-BJR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Rothstein entered an order granting the stipulated motion for stay of discovery. All further case deadlines are stayed during the pendency of the Plaintiffs' appeal of this Court's order denying class certification. Amazon.com is an online retailer that offers a wide range of products. A copy of the Court's order dated July 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=38pr28 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Hillary Schwab, Esq. Brant Casavant, Esq. Brook Lane, Esq. FAIR WORK, P.C. 192 South Street, Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617) 607-3260 E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com brant@fairworklaw.com brook@fairworkflow.com - and - Beth E. Terrell, Esq. Toby J. Marshall, Esq. Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com jmurrary@terrellmarshall.com - and - Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. Paul M. Botros, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 327-5352 E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com pbotros@forthepeople.com The Defendants are represented by: Andrew DeCarlow, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 3000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 274-6400 E-mail: andrew.decarlow@morganlewis.com - and - Walter F. Brown, Esq. Shawn M. Estrada, Esq. Marco A. Torres, Esq. Amy L. Barton, Esq. Matthew P. Merlo, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 535 Mission Street, 24th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (628) 432-5100 Facsimile: (628) 232-3101 E-mail: wbrown@paulweiss.com sestrada@paulweiss.com mtorres@paulweiss.com abarton@paulweiss.com mmerlo@paulweiss.com AMERICAN ECONOMY: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by August 5 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Glasner v. American Economy Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-11047 (D. Mass., Filed June 24, 2021), the Hon. Judge Denise J. Casper entered an order granting motion for extension of time to Aug. 5, 2025, to file Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification. -- The Plaintiffs must file their reply brief by Sept. 5, 2025. The nature of suit states Diversity-Contract Dispute. American offers auto, home, renters, condo, boat, car, motorcycle, recreational vehicle, and landlord protection insurance services.[CC] AMETROS FINANCIAL: Louisiana Pain Seeks Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOUISIANA PAIN SPECIALISTS, LLC, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. AMETROS FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Case No. 3:25-cv-00391-BAJ-SDJ (M.D. La.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the Plaintiff Class consisting of: "All individuals and entities in the State of Louisiana who, provided healthcare services to patients whose medical expenses were to be covered by a Medicare Set Aside ("MSA") administered by AMETROS as part of a workers' compensation settlement and who, rendered healthcare services, within the last three years of the filing of the Complaint, and did not receive any payment; or received insufficient and/or reduced payments, within the last three years of the filing of the complaint, which did not comply with the Louisiana Workers' Compensation rate schedule." The Plaintiff further requests that the Court appoint the Plaintiff as the class representative, and Chehardy, Sherman, Williams, Recile, & Hayes, L.L.P as class counsel, all for the reasons set forth in the memorandum attached hereto. Ametros provides medicare set-aside post-settlement administration services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LUozjD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy N. Gettes, Esq. George B. Recile, Esq. Matthew A. Sherman, Esq. Adam M. Stumpf, Esq. CHEHARDY, SHERMAN, WILLIAMS, RECILE & HAYES 1 Galleria Blvd., Suite 1100 Metairie, LA 70001 Telephone: (504) 830-4100 Facsimile: (504) 833-8080 E-mail: gbr@chehardy.com mas@chehardy.com as@chehardy.com jgettes@chehardy.com ANNE ARUNDEL: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Beville Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- EARL BEVILLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ANNE ARUNDEL DERMATOLOGY, P.A., Case No. 1:25-cv-02384-GLR (D. Md., July 22, 2025) is a class action against AAD for its failure to secure and safeguard personally identifying information and personal health information of approximately 1,905,000 individuals, including Plaintiff, that contains names, addresses, dates of birth, medical information, and health insurance information. Between 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. 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, says the suit. 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. The 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 February 14, 2025, and May 13, 2025. The Plaintiff asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, and seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, monetary damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, equitable relief, and all other relief authorized by law. 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 Telephone: (410) 269-6620 Facsimile: (410) 269-1235 E-mail: 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 Telephone: (312) 621-2000 Facsimile: (312) 641-5504 E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com aparkhill@barnowlaw.com ANNE ARUNDEL: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Beville Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- EARL BEVILLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ANNE ARUNDEL DERMATOLOGY, P.A., Case No. 1:25-cv-02384-GLR (D. Md., July 22, 2025) is a class action against AAD for its failure to secure and safeguard approximately 1,905,000 individuals', including Plaintiff's, personally identifying information and personal health information, including names, addresses, dates of birth, medical information, and health insurance information. According to the complaint, 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. 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, says the suit. 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. The 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. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other Class members, asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, and seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, monetary damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, equitable relief, and all other relief authorized by law. 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 Telephone: (410) 269-6620 Facsimile: (410) 269-1235 E-mail: 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 Telephone: (312) 621-2000 Facsimile: (312) 641-5504 E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com aparkhill@barnowlaw.com BAXTERBOO INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cole Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- MORGAN COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Baxterboo, Inc, Case No. 1:25-cv-08347 (N.D. Ill., July 22, 2025) alleges that Canali failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, Baxterboo.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services the Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through Exoticsnackguys.com. 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 the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of leather sandals on Pikolinos.com. Despite his efforts, however, the Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted individual due to the Website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations, says the suit. Baxterboo.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Baxterboo.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 914-9694 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law BEAR & BEAR: Chronister Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- KARMAN CHRONISTER, on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees v. BEAR & BEAR, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-01343-KMN (M.D. Pa., July 22, 2025) is collective action lawsuit against Defendant seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant paid Plaintiff and other Camp Hill restaurant employees an hourly wage plus tips. The Plaintiff's most recent hourly wage stood at $13. From October 2022 until around May 2024, the Defendant employed Plaintiff and primarily assigned her to the Camp Hill restaurant. The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit on behalf of herself and all other individuals who, during any time since July 22, 2022, have been employed at Defendant's Camp Hill restaurant and paid an hourly wage plus tips. The Defendant owns and operates restaurants under the brand name "Simply Turkey & More."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Winebrake, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com BIOELEMENTS INC: Faces Bowman Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ TANISIA BOWMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bioelements, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-08389 (N.D. Ill., July 22, 2025) contends that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, Bioelements.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant is denying the blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Other Half Brewing Company provides to their non-disabled customers through its website, the suit alleges. Accordingly, Bioelements.com contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website. The Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of a youth serum on Bioelements.com. Despite her efforts, however, Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted individual due to the Website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations. Unless Defendant remedies the numerous access barriers on its website, Plaintiff and Class members will continue to be unable to independently navigate, browse, use, and complete a purchase on Bioelements.com, the suit alleges. Bioelements.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Bioelements.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com BLOOMBERG LP: Seeks to Maintain Confidential Info Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Syeed v. Bloomberg L.P. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-07464-GHW-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting requests to maintain under seal its confidential information are narrowly tailored to protect the legitimate privacy information of third-parties and BLP's proprietary information and therefore are consistent with Lugosch. Accordingly, BLP has designated all of the documents and testimony that Plaintiff is describing and/or summarizing in her Reply brief and the Webber Declaration as confidential in the course of discovery. The confidential business information contained in these documents is proprietary to BLP. There is no compelling reason why the general public should have access to the information described above, as this Court has recognized previously in sealing the same, or similar, documents—and summaries thereof in the parties’ written submissions—in this case. Bloomberg is an American privately-held financial, software, data, and media company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KbWb6O at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Elise M. Bloom, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP Eleven Times Square New York, NY 10036-8299 Telephone: (212) 969-3410 Facsimile: (212) 969-2900 E-mail: ebloom@proskauer.com BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD: Amended Class Cert Scheduling Order Entered ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM CUMALANDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD OF TENNESSEE, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00176-TRM-CHS (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Travis R. McDonough entered an order granting the parties' joint motion to amend the scheduling order. The parties represent that the Defendant has produced the administrative records of forty putative class members, comprising over 1,200 documents and is in the process of producing the records of producing thirty more. However, the parties state that additional time is needed to "complete written class discovery and adequately prepare their experts for disclosures." The schedule for class certification is amended as follows: (a) Expert Testimony: Disclosure of any expert testimony in accordance with Rules 26(a)(2)(B) and 26(a)(2)(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as it relates to class issues shall be made by the parties on or before Nov. 14, 2025. Disclosure of rebuttal expert testimony on class issues shall be made by the parties on or before Dec. 12, 2025. (b) Class Certification Discovery: All discovery related to class certification issues shall be completed by Jan. 9, 2026. If the parties believe that a longer discovery period is needed as to the class issues, they must move to amend the Court's scheduling order. (c) Motion for Class Certification: The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be filed on or before Feb. 6, 2026. The Defendant's response shall be filed on or before Mar. 6, 2026. The Plaintiff's reply, if any, shall be filed on or before March 20, 2026. BlueCross is a health benefit plan company in Tennessee. A copy of the Court's order dated July 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=D273gj at no extra charge.[CC] BOSCOV'S INC: Clas Cert Oral Argument Set for Sept. 10 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as POLITI v. BOSCOV'S, INC. et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01616 (D.N.J., Filed March 22, 2022), the Hon. Judge Madeline Cox Arleo entered an order scheduling oral argument on the motion to Certify Class on Sept. 10, 2025. The nature of suit states Contract related issues. Boscov's is a family-owned department store. [CC] CVS HEALTH: Lewis Suit Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT LEWIS JR., on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. CVS HEALTH CORPORATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-03763-SEG (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the time for the Plaintiff 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. CVS is an American healthcare company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NupNMb 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 DATAVANT INC: Court Stays Briefing on Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- 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, et al., Case No. 9:25-cv-80345-DMM (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks entered an order granting joint motion to stay briefing on class certification: Datavant is a health information technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sUhW6V at no extra charge.[CC] ESUPPLEMENTS LLC: Cohen Seeks to Modify Class Cert Briefing Sched ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cohen et al., v. eSupplements, LLC d/b/a Nutricost, Case No. 2:23-cv-06387-NJC-AYS (E.D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order modifying the briefing schedule regarding the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification such that the motion is to be served following the conclusion of fact discovery, which ends on Aug. 25, 2025. As such, Plaintiffs request the Court modify the briefing schedule to the following: -- The Plaintiffs to serve a motion for class certification by Sept. 9, 2025. -- The Defendant to serve any opposition by Nov. 10, 2025. -- The Plaintiffs to serve any reply by Dec. 3, 2025, and file the entirety of the briefing with the Court by that date. The modification moves the date by which briefing on the motion will be completed back by approximately three weeks; from Nov. 14, 2025 to Dec. 3, 2025. This modification does not prejudice the Defendant which maintains the same amount of time to respond to the motion for class certification. By shortening the Plaintiff's reply time from the set schedule, the modification only moves back the end of the briefing by three weeks. eSupplements is the parent company that owns and operates the Nutricost brand of supplements. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SVmloW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephen Taylor, Esq. LEMBERG LAW 43 Danbury Road Wilton, CT 06897 Telephone: (203) 653-2250 x5502 Facsimile: (203) 653-3424 E-mail: staylor@lemberglaw.com EXCLUSIVE FABRICS: Faces Bowman Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- TANISIA BOWMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. Exclusive Fabrics & Furnishings, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-08358 (N.D. Ill., July 22, 2025) contends that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, Halfpricedrapes.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant is denying the blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Other Half Brewing Company provides to their non-disabled customers through its website, the suit alleges. Accordingly, Halfpricedrapes.com contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website. The Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of a youth serum on Bioelements.com. Despite her efforts, however, the Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted individual due to the Website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations. Unless Defendant remedies the numerous access barriers on its website, Plaintiff and Class members will continue to be unable to independently navigate, browse, use, and complete a purchase on Bioelements.com, the suit asserts. Halfpricedrapes.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Bioelements.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law FULFILLMENT AMERICA: Salazar Seeks to Amend Class Definition ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as AURA SALAZAR, DAMARIS VENTURA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. FULFILLMENT AMERICA, INC., JOHN BARRY SR., JOHN BARRY JR., Case No. 1:23-cv-11625-LTS (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order amending the Class Definition contained in the Court's Order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Specifically, the Plaintiffs request that the class definition be amended as follows: "Workers who performed any hours of work in December 2022 at Fulfillment America, were laid off by Fulfillment America between Dec. 31, 2022, and Jan. 8, 2023, and who suffered a loss of employment and/or did not receive full wages owed at termination." This amendment is consistent with the relevant statutes and ensures that all individuals affected by the challenged practices are properly included in the class and receive notice. Accordingly, for the avoidance of doubt and pursuant to pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(C), the Plaintiffs request that the Court amend the class definition. The Plaintiffs further request that the Court authorize supplemental notice to individuals within this class definition who were not included on the class list used for the notice sent on Jan. 13, 2025. The Plaintiffs have been unable to ascertain whether Defendants would assent to this motion. The Court certified a Rule 23 class as to Plaintiffs' claims under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification ("WARN") Act and the Massachusetts Wage Act and approved the proposed procedure for providing notice outlined in the Parties' joint status report regarding proposed notices to class members and procedure for providing notice. Fulfillment is a six sigma fulfillment company specialized in providing fulfillment services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uKsSIP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Osvaldo Vazquez, Esq. Hillary Schwab, Esq. FAIR WORK, PC. 192 South Street, Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617) 607-3261 Facsimile: (617) 488-2261 E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com oz@fairworklaw.com www.fairworklaw.com - and - Thomas Smith, Esq. JUSTICE AT WORK, INC. 33 Harrison Ave., Suite 501 Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (857) 350-3873 Facsimile: (617) 995-0910 E-mail: tsmith@jatwork.org HERRSCHNERS INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Frost Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- Clarence and Tammy Frost, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Herrschners, Inc., Case No. 0 0:25-cv-02936 (D. Minn., July 22, 2025) arises because the Defendant's Website e www.herrschners.com is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations as well as asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others who are similarly situated, seek relief including an injunction requiring Defendant to make its website accessible to Plaintiffs and the putative class; and requiring Defendant to adopt sufficient policies, practices, and procedures to ensure that Defendant's website remains accessible in the future. The Plaintiffs also seek an award of statutory attorney's fees and costs, damages, a damages multiplier, a civil penalty, and such other relief as the Court deems just equitable, and appropriate. The Defendant offers craft supplies for sale, including but not limited to, yarn, knitting and crochet supplies, needlework supplies, painting supplies, coloring supplies, and puzzles.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. HRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 South 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: chad@throndselaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com HORIZON LAND: Seeks More Time to File Collective Cert Response -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SABRINA LUCERO, DONOVAN MCCLURE, KARIANE AMPARAN, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v. HORIZON LAND MANAGEMENT, LLC and RYAN HOTCHKISS, Case No. 1:25-cv-00903-JKB (D. Md.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting unopposed motion for an extension of time to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of collective action of Fair Labor Standards Act claim, and the Plaintiffs' time to reply to defendants' response from Aug. 12, 2025, to and including Aug. 20, 2025. Horizon provides affordable housing. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WVwJEU at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Jennifer Squillario, Esq. Vincent E. Polsinelli, Esq. Christopher J. Stevens, Esq. NIXON PEABODY LLP 799 9th Street NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20001-5327 Telephone: (202) 585-8000 E-mail: jsquillario@nixonpeabody.com vpolsinelli@nixonpeabody.com cstevens@nixonpeabody.com JET LIMOUSINES: Class Cert Bid Fling Extended to August 22 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as William McGhee, et al., v. J.E.T. Limousines & Transportation LLC, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-03394-MTL (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Michael Liburdi entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to extend the class certification deadlines. The Court's Scheduling Order is amended as follows: (1) The deadline for the Plaintiffs to file a motion for class certification is extended to Aug. 22, 2025. (2) The deadline for the Defendants to file an opposition to class certification is extended to Sept. 5, 2025. (3) The deadline for Plaintiffs to file a reply in support of class certification is extended to Sept. 19, 2025. It is further ordered reaffirming the Court's scheduling order in all other respects. JET is a chauffeured transportation company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dfYSup at no extra charge.[CC] LIBERTY MUTUAL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Ward Due Jan. 23, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ward v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. 1:24-cv-10526 (D. Mass., Filed March 1, 2024), the Hon. Judge Brian E. Murphy entered an order granting second joint motion to extend deadlines: -- Parties' positions regarding mediation Aug. 15, 2025 due by: -- Affirmative Expert Report Deadline is: Sept. 15, 2025 -- Rebuttal Expert Report Deadline is: Oct. 17, 2025 -- Expert Deposition Deadline is: Jan. 19, 2026 -- Fact Discovery Deadline is: Jan. 19, 2026. -- Class Certification Deadline is: Jan. 23, 2026 The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Liberty is an American diversified global insurer. [CC] LIBERTY MUTUAL: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANICE FASSINA, STEVEN EDELEN, and KENNETH BLACK, HEATHER TRYON, JOSHUA TRYON, CRAIG DOBBS, and NANCY DOBBS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, and LM INSURANCE CORPORATION, and LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Case No. 1:22-cv-11466-DJC (D. Mass.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their unopposed motion for extension of time to respond to the Plaintiffs' opposed motion for class certification, appointment of class representatives and appointment of class counsel. The Defendants request that the Court grant this Motion and enter an order extending Defendants’ deadline to respond to 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. Liberty offers home, farm, mobile, seasonal property, renters, personal umbrella, business owners, commercial insurance, and more. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=M3cpvW 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. 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 - and - Marilyn Brown, Esq. JACKSON WALKER L.L.P. 100 Congress Avenue, Suite 1100 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 236-2000 Facsimile: (512) 236-2002 E-mail: mbrown@jw.com LOVO INC: Court Narrows Claims in AI Voice Cloning Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Paul Lehrman and Linnea Sage, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Lovo, Inc., Defendant, Civil Action No. 24-cv-3770 (JPO) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge J. Paul Oetken of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The motion was denied as to Sage's copyright claims based on use of her original recordings, Plaintiffs' breach of contract claims, New York Civil Rights Law claims, and New York consumer protection claims. The motion was granted with leave to amend as to copyright claims based on AI training, and otherwise granted. Plaintiffs were directed to file a letter within 14 days indicating whether they intend to amend. If no amendment is filed, Defendant must answer within 14 days. Upon careful examination of the claims, the Court concluded that Plaintiffs failed to state cognizable claims under federal trademark and copyright law for the most part. However, Plaintiffs adequately stated claims under Sections 50 and 51 of the New York Civil Rights Law for misappropriation of their voices, as well as claims under New York consumer protection law and for breach of contract. Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. The Plaintiffs alleged that they entered into contracts with Lovo's agents through online communications on the Fiverr platform, agreeing to provide voice recordings under certain usage restrictions. The Defendant paid $1,200 for these recordings but allegedly breached the contracts by using the voices beyond the agreed limitations, including training an AI model named Genny and selling synthetic voice clones without authorization or adequate compensation. The Court found these allegations sufficient to plausibly establish contract formation including offer, acceptance, consideration, and mutual assent. The Court rejected the Defendant's argument that the contracts were invalid under the Statute of Frauds, holding that the online communications and the Fiverr Terms of Service together embodied the essential terms and parties' intent. Therefore, the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' breach of contract claims was denied. Regarding federal trademark claims under Section 43(a)(1)(A) of the Lanham Act, the Court held that Plaintiffs failed to identify a protectable mark. Under the Act, the plaintiff must prove that: (1) the mark or dress is distinctive as to the source of the good or service at issue; and (2) there is the likelihood of confusion between the plaintiff's good or service and that of the defendant. While the Act protects distinctive marks that indicate the source of goods or services, Plaintiffs' voices were found to function primarily as professional services rather than source identifiers. The Court acknowledged that the Lanham Act has recognized trademark-like interests in personal attributes such as a celebrity's image or likeness, and that voices may be included within "name, symbol, or device." However, Plaintiffs did not allege that their voices had acquired secondary meaning as marks or that the voices functioned primarily as source identifiers rather than as products or services themselves. The Court analogized the claims to trade dress infringement involving product design, which requires showing that the mark's primary function is source-identifying and typically requires secondary meaning. Because Plaintiffs failed to plead secondary meaning or sufficiently allege that their voices function as marks, the motion to dismiss was granted as to Claims under Section 43(a)(1)(A). In the context of false advertising claims under Section 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act, the Court concluded that Plaintiffs failed to plead falsity or consumer injury. Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant marketed synthetic voices under fictitious names and falsely represented that the clones "came with all commercial rights." However, the Court found that representations about licensing rights do not concern the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of the voices and thus are not actionable as false advertising. The Court also held that Plaintiffs could not disguise false association claims as false advertising claims to avoid the requirement of a valid mark. Further, Plaintiffs did not allege consumer confusion caused by advertising statements, and Defendant's marketing clearly disclosed that the voices were synthetic clones. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss was granted with respect to the false advertising claims. Plaintiffs asserted multiple copyright infringement claims, including direct infringement based on: (1) the Defendant's use of Sage's original voice recordings in investor presentations and marketing materials, (2) The use of Plaintiffs' recordings to train the AI model Genny, (3) The use of Genny to output synthetic voice clones, and (4) contributory infringement. The Court denied the motion to dismiss as to Sage's claim for direct infringement based on use of her original recordings, finding the claim timely under the discovery rule and adequately pleaded. However, the Court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice and with leave to amend as to the claims based on the use of Plaintiffs' recordings to train the AI model. The operative complaint failed to explain what "training" entails or how it infringed exclusive rights, providing insufficient factual detail to support these claims. The Court invited Plaintiffs to amend to supply necessary factual allegations. The Court dismissed claims based on AI outputs of synthetic voices because copyright law protects only fixed expressions, not voices themselves. Plaintiffs did not register copyrights covering the voices as such but only the original sound recordings. The Court emphasized that copyright protects expressions of ideas, not the ideas or characteristics themselves, such as a voice. Similarly, contributory infringement claims failed as there was no direct infringement of original sound recordings pleaded with respect to AI-generated outputs [[26]][[35]]. Turning to New York Civil Rights Law Sections 50 and 51, which prohibit the unauthorized use of a living person's voice or likeness for advertising or trade, the Court held that Plaintiffs adequately pleaded claims. The Court rejected the Defendant's arguments that the statute did not cover digital voice replicas or that the claims were untimely. The Court reasoned that the statute's legislative context and New York precedent support coverage for digital replicas of living persons' voices, as the law protects identity rather than merely names or pictures. Plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the synthetic voices were recognizable as their own and were used in advertising and trade within New York. The Court also found that the statute's one-year limitations period was not a bar because the ongoing production of new synthetic voice clips constituted republication, refreshing the limitations period. Plaintiffs' claims under New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350 for consumer protection were sustained in part. The Court found that Plaintiffs failed to state claims based on misrepresentations that duplicated those rejected under the Lanham Act. However, Plaintiffs successfully alleged that the Defendant misrepresented the scope of commercial rights granted to subscribers, making the product appear more valuable than it was. This was found to be materially misleading and consumer-oriented conduct causing injury by diverting customers. The Court rejected Defendant's argument that Plaintiffs lacked standing as non-consumers, citing established New York law allowing competitors to sue for deceptive consumer practices. The Court dismissed Plaintiffs' fraud claims due to inadequate pleading of damages as Plaintiffs do not attempt to quantify the true value of the recordings they sold to Lovo, as opposed to what Lovo paid and because the alleged misrepresentations were essentially promises of future performance rather than actionable present facts. The Court noted that damages for fraud must be compensable and not merely speculative or duplicative of contract damages. Further, the fraud claims were duplicative of contract claims and lacked allegations of independent fraudulent misstatements. Finally, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment and conversion claims as preempted by the New York Civil Rights Law, which occupies the field of unauthorized use of name, image, or voice in New York. The Court also dismissed the common-law unfair competition claims for failure to state a claim under the Lanham Act standards. The Court's memorandum and order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vIfmeY * * * Pursuant to the Court's judgment, counsel for Plaintiffs informed the Court on July 23 that Plaintiffs intend to amend their Complaint with respect to their training-based copyright claims. The second amended complaint was filed July 31. Defendant Lovo, Inc. is represented by: William Webb Bergesch, Esq. Michael S. Lazaroff, Esq. David Evan Case, Esq. Rimon P. C. Tel: 516-479-6317 E+mail: william.bergesch@rimonlaw.com michael.lazaroff@rimonlaw.com dcase@rimonlaw.com Plaintiffs Paul Lehrman and Linnea Sage are represented by: Steve Cohen, Esq. Anna Menkova, Esq. Pollock Cohen LLP Tel: 917-364-4197 E-mail: scohen@pollockcohen.com anna@pollockcohen.com LVNV FUNDING: Shaw Allowed Leave to File Class Cert Reply --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BETSY SHAW, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. LVNV FUNDING, LLC, and LLOYD & MCDANIEL, PLLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-00205-MW-MAF (N.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Mark E. Walker entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for leave to file a reply in support of her motion for class certification. The Plaintiff's reply is due on or before Friday, Aug. 1, 2025. LVNV is a company that buys charged-off accounts from companies like credit card issuers and personal loan lender. A copy of the Court's order dated July 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zvSkF2 at no extra charge.[CC] NAVY FEDERAL: Stephenson Seeks Prelim. Approval of Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY STEPHENSON and BILLY SMITH II, individually, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No. 3:23-cv-01851-WQH-KSC (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Aug. 25, 2025, will request that the Court grant Preliminary Approval of the Settlement. Navy is the largest natural member (or retail) credit union in the United States, both in asset size and in membership. A copy of Plaintiffs' motion dated July 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rfmrf2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. Adam A. Schwartzbaum, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 1925 Century Park E #1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: Scott@edelsberglaw.com Adam@edelsberglaw.com - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. Sophia G. Gold, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com sgold@kalielgold.com - and - Edwin E. Elliot, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: edwine@shamisgentile.com NEW YORK, NY: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Opposition ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lewis et al., v. The New York City Department of Correction et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-08428-LAK (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time to Sept. 12, 2025, to file their opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Under the Scheduling Order dated February 27, 2025, the deadline for Plaintiffs to file their class certification motion is August 15, 2025. On March 21, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. Accordingly, it is ordered that the March 21 motion for class certification is denied without prejudice to renewal following decision on the July 8 motion to intervene. New York City Department of Correction oversees the city's correctional facilities and manages the care and custody of individuals in the jail system. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=C847jO at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Eric Teszler, Esq. THE CITY OF NEW YORK LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-1652 NORTH AMERICAN: Siri Seeks Conditional Collective Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MILSI SIRI, on behalf of herself, FLSA collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, v. NORTH AMERICAN PACKAGING, LLC, d/b/a ECONO-PAK, COSMOPOLITAN STAFFING SERVICES, LLC, and PAUL A.S. WIEBEL JR., a/k/a PJ WIEBEL, Case No. 2:25-cv-01186-KSM (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for conditional collective certification. Econo-Pak is a packaging service provider. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UBok5T at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th St., Eighth floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 OREGON: Jacobson Files TCPA Suit in D. Oregon --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against State of Oregon. The case is styled as James E. Jacobson, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. State of Oregon, Case No. 3:25-cv-01303-AR (D. Ore., July 24, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Civil Rights: Accommodations. Oregon -- https://www.oregon.gov/ -- is a state in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. PROGRESS RESIDENTIAL: Harris Seeks to File Class Cert Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 motion to provisionally seal class certification material along with Exhibit A, the deposition transcript of Jefferey H. Milgroom. The Plaintiffs conferred with the Defendant through counsel and the Defendant does not oppose this motion. On March 24, 2024, the parties agreed to a "Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Governing Confidentiality of Discovery Materials and Preservation of Privilege." Progress is the property management subsidiary of Pretium Partners LLC and Progress Residential, LLC. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UvSFn3 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 QP CAPITAL: Pimentel Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against QP Capital LLC. The case is styled as Jan Carlos Pimentel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. QP Capital LLC doing business as: QP Capital Trucking Solutions, Case No. 1:25-cv-23253-RAR (S.D. Fla., July 21, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. QP Capital -- https://qpfactoring.com/ -- renders comprehensive funding solutions including trucking authority set up for transportation, manufacturing, oil & gas sectors.[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 RB GLOBAL: Faces Coneco Suit Over Equipment Rentals' Conspiracy --------------------------------------------------------------- CONECO BUILDING LLC, individually, and on behalf all others similarly situated v. RB GLOBAL, INC.; ROUSE SERVICES LLC; UNITED RENTALS, INC.; SUNBELT RENTALS, INC.; HERC RENTALS INC.; HERC HOLDINGS INC.; H&E EQUIPMENT SERVICES, INC., and SUNSTATE EQUIPMENT CO., LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-08396 (N.D. Ill., July 22, 2025) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and a class of person and entities who directly rented from any Defendant or current or former subsidiary or affiliate, construction equipment for their own business use in the United States from at least March 31, 2021 through such time as the anticompetitive effects of Defendants' conduct ceases. According to the complaint, the Defendants have formed a cartel to artificially inflate the price and/or decrease the supply of construction equipment rentals from competitive levels. The Defendants' conduct in furtherance of the unlawful scheme described herein was authorized, ordered, or executed by their officers, directors, agents, employees, or representatives while actively engaging in the management of Defendants' affairs. Before 2011, the construction equipment rental industry was fragmented and characterized by price competition. Each rental company's unilateral interest in competing for rental volume led to lower prices, resulting in periods of broad price declines. Over time, however, the industry became increasingly concentrated. Between 2011 and the present, the Rental Company Defendants' -- the largest construction equipment rental companies in the nation -- collective market share increased from approximately a quarter of the industry to the majority of the industry. The Rental Company Defendants recognized that, together, they had the power to increase prices, but they were faced with a collective action problem. To achieve the collective goal of increasing overall industry profitability, rental companies had to work together to increase prices, alleges the suit. The Plaintiff is a commercial contractor. The Defendants are lessors of major construction equipment. Collectively, they control approximately 90% of this market.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq. Thomas H. Burt, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 984-0000 E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com burt@whafh.com - and - Fred T. Isquith, Sr., Esq. ISQUITH LAW PLLC 103 East 84th Street New York, NY 10028 Telephone: (718) 775-6478 E-mail: isquithlaw@gmail.com - and - Richard J. Vita, Esq. VITA LAW OFFICES, P.C. 100 State Street Suite 900 Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 426-6566 E-mail: rjv@vitalaw.com - and - Justin S. Nematzadeh, Esq. NEMATZADEH PLLC 101 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 909 New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (646) 799-6729 E-mail: jsn@nematlawyers.com RB GLOBAL: PS Bruckel Sues Over Horizontal Price-Fixing ------------------------------------------------------- PS Bruckel, Inc., individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. RB Global, Inc.; Rouse Services LLC; United Rentals, Inc.; Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.; HERC Rentals Inc.; H&E Equipment Services, Inc.; and Sunstate Equipment Co., LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-01191 (D. Conn., July 24, 2025), is brought arising from a horizontal price-fixing agreement through which through Defendants conspired to fix, maintain, and/or stabilize rental prices for rental equipment and tools used for construction, entertainment, and other industries ("Rental Equipment") during the Class Period. Through sustained efforts to buy and merge with hundreds of competitors, the Rental Defendants have consolidated and maintained their dominant position in the rental equipment market. Circa 2023, Defendants United and Sunbelt alone controlled 60% of the rental equipment market. Recognizing that they could collectively increase pricing in the Rental Equipment market, the Rental Defendants engaged in a continuing horizontal agreement to leverage the power of analytics technology and effectuate higher rental rates for their equipment. Rental Defendants subsequently urged Rouse to develop a digital platform that could solve the "pricing" that Rental Defendants believed plagued the industry. Rouse now owns and operates Rouse Services, a digital platform that collects invoice-level transactional and inventory data for Rental Equipment and uses that data to calculate and disseminate to Rouse clients, including the Rental Defendants, a Rouse Rental Insights price ("RRI Price") for adoption in the market. Rouse and the Rental Defendants have violated and continue to violate U.S. antitrust laws. Instead of setting their rates independently, the Rental Defendants, who control much of the U.S. Rental Equipment market, outsource rate-setting to Rouse as a common entity. By acting collectively through Rouse, the Rental Defendants eliminate price competition between themselves, says the complaint. The Plaintiff rented Rental Equipment directly from one or more Defendants during the Class Period. RB Global, Inc. is a public company, traded on the Toronto and New York Stock Exchanges.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth R. Lesser, Esq. KLAFTER LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Phone: 914 934 9200 Facsimile: 914 934 9220 Email: seth@klafterlesser.com - and - Kevin S. Landau, Esq. Archana Tamoshunas, Esq. Gwendolyn Nelson, Esq. TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP 123 William Street, Suite 1900A New York, NY 10038 Email: klandau@tcllaw.com atamoshunas@tcllaw.com gnelson@tcllaw.com RED LIFE STUDIOS: Connors Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Red Life Studios, LLC. The case is styled as Ryan Connors, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Red Life Studios, LLC, Case No. 9:25-cv-80923-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 23, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Red Rocket Studios -- https://redlifestudios.com/ -- is an award winning,full-service meeting management/event agency specializing in creative event brand development.[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 RELX GROUP: Dismissal of Claims in Wanna Suit Upheld ---------------------------------------------------- Judge Erickson of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a district court ruling dismissing plaintiff's claims in the case captioned as Melissa Wanna, on behalf of herself individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RELX Group, PLC; Reed Elsevier, Inc., doing business as LexisNexis; RELX, Inc., doing business as LexisNexis; LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc.; LexisNexis Risk Solutions FL, Inc., Defendants-Appellees, No. 24-1916 (8th Cir.). Plaintiff Melissa Wanna searched for her name online and discovered her profile on MyLife, an information broker that creates reputation scores for individuals using public records." MyLife sourced most of those records from Lexis. Wanna's profile contained a poor reputation score and ominous references to court records. MyLife offered to provide details or remove the profile for a fee. Believing she lost employment opportunities because of her MyLife profile, Wanna filed a putative class action in federal court. Wanna sued RELX Group, PLC, Reed Elsevier, Inc., RELX, Inc., LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc., and LexisNexis Risk Solutions FL, Inc., alleging that Lexis violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), and the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). She also advanced several Minnesota state law claims. Lexis moved to dismiss Wanna's claims on the ground that it was not responsible for MyLife's conduct. Lexis managed its relationship with MyLife using a series of data-licensing agreements. Only one of the named Lexis entities, LexisNexis Risk Solutions FL, Inc., was a point of contact with MyLife and party to the most recent data-licensing agreement. Based on the disclaimer in the data-licensing agreement, the district court granted Lexis's motion to dismiss. The district court held that Wanna's federal claims can succeed only if Lexis is liable for MyLife's actions as MyLife's principal in an agency relationship. Since Wanna did not plead such a relationship, the district court concluded the federal claims failed. While the district court could have exercised supplemental jurisdiction over Wanna's state law claims, it declined to do so and dismissed them without prejudice. Wanna appealed contending Lexis was responsible for MyLife's actions. She sought reversal of the district court's order dismissing her claims. The Court of Appeals determined that Wanna's four federal claims depend on an agency relationship between Lexis and MyLife. Her two FCRA claims require her to identify a consumer reporting agency (CRA) as a defendant. The Court observed that while MyLife could be a CRA, because it created consumer reports, Lexis does not qualify as a CRA because it does not collect or evaluate consumer credit information or other information on consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties. Wanna's DPPA and RICO claims have the same issue. Both claims require proof of tortious conduct, and Wanna's theory of tortious conduct turns on MyLife's actions rather than Lexis's actions. The only allegations Wanna makes are that MyLife used its information to extort her and other individuals. She makes no allegations of any such conduct against Lexis. Lexis managed its relationship with MyLife using a series of data-licensing agreements. The Court of Appeals found that MyLife lacked actual authority to act on Lexis's behalf under the express terms of their data-licensing agreement. Although MyLife operated an independent business and relied on Lexis to sell information used in its business, Lexis and MyLife had no relationship beyond those arm's length transactions. "The evidence in the record shows that Lexis did not grant MyLife actual authority to act as its agent, and Wanna has alleged no facts implying actual authority where none was expressly granted," rules the 8th Circuit. The Appeals Court further notes that Wanna has not connected Lexis with the specific uses to which MyLife put data purchased from Lexis, or any facts suggesting Lexis approved of those uses. Given these deficiencies, Wanna cannot demonstrate MyLife was Lexis's agent under any theory of agency. The district court did not err when it dismissed her federal claims, it held. According to the Appeals Court, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Wanna's state law claims after it dismissed her federal claims. When a district court dismisses all the claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it is usually appropriate to decline supplemental jurisdiction. Wanna's case is no exception. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed her state law claims without prejudice after declining to exercise jurisdiction over them. "For the foregoing reasons, the district court's judgment is affirmed," Judge Erickson wrote in his 6-page decision, a copy of which is available at https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/25/07/241916P.pdf RETENTION BRANDS: Casillas Sues Over Unlawful Tracing Process ------------------------------------------------------------- Miltita Casillas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RETENTION BRANDS BB LLC, a Delaware entity, d/b/a WWW.BIRCHBOX.COM, Case No. 25STCV21790 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 23, 2025), is brought against the Defendant's installation of the Meta tracing process violates California's Trap and Trace Law. The Defendant well understands that its Website is a means to communicate privately with potential customers — a consumer expectation that is not only reasonable, but actively nurtured by Defendant. Indeed, Defendant assures visitors that the company "is committed to preserving the privacy of those who visit the site." The Defendant's promise is false. In reality, Defendant aids a third party (Meta Systems, Inc., owner of Facebook and Instagram) to surveil every detail of its interactions with visitors to its Website, thereby allowing Meta to create detailed portraits of Website visitors' interests, needs, and desires and bombard them with advertising. In short, Defendant falsely promised Website visitors that it would protect their privacy, but then secretly monetized their personal information by enabling Meta to spy on those visitors, surveil their journey across the web, track their location and lifestyle habits, and bombard them with targeted advertising. Rather than candidly disclose this arrangement, Defendant explicitly and implicitly assured Website visitors that their identities and privacy would be protected. In short, Defendant lied., says the complaint. The Plaintiff visited Defendant's website several times, most recently in mid-2024. The Defendant is a beauty box subscription company based in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. David W. Reid, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com dreid@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com RIVERTON SQUARE: Summary Judgment Bid in Joachim Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Lori S. Sattler of the Supreme Court of the State of New York denied a motion for summary judgment and a cross-motion for summary judgment filed by defendants and plaintiff, respectively, in the residential rent overcharge action captioned as Mirlande Joachim, Plaintiff, v. Riverton Square LLC, Riverton Square Housing Development Fund Corporation, Defendants, Index No. 155157/2020 (N.Y. County). The plaintiff is the tenant of record of Apartment 12F in a building located at 2235 Fifth Avenue in Manhattan, part of an apartment complex owned by defendant Riverton Square Housing Development Fund Corporation. On October 7, 2013, the plaintiff executed a non-rent-regulated lease beginning October 9, 2013 and ending on October 31, 2014 for a monthly rent of $2,200. At the time, the building was owned by non-party 2171-2200 Madison Avenue Holdings, LLC. Pursuant to a deed annexed by Defendants, the building was sold to Riverton Square Housing Development Fund Corporation on January 5, 2016. Defendant Riverton Square LLC is the managing agent of the apartment complex. The plaintiff subsequently signed a series of lease renewals and defendants represent that the plaintiff's current rent is $2,500. On September 11, 2014, the Riverton Tenants' Association commenced a rent overcharge class action against the former owner styled as Riverton Tenants' Association et al v Compassrock Real Estate LLC et al, NY County Index No. 652778/2014 (the "Prior Action"). Plaintiffs in that action claimed the defendants improperly collected rent increases that were based on purported Major Capital Improvements. The complaint alleged that the members of RTA are rent regulated tenants who occupy and live in certain rent regulated or rent stabilized apartments in the buildings including apartment 12F in the building located at 2235 Fifth Avenue. The Prior Action settled on February 3, 2015. The court so ordered the Stipulation of Settlement and entered an order certifying the class and approving the Notice of Settlement of Class Action Lawsuit. The Stipulation of Settlement provides that the parties agree that for purpose of this stipulation and settlement of all claims, this action shall be treated and certified by the Court as a class action, with the Riverton Rent stabilized tenants constituting the class. The settlement finally resolved all claims including claims related to rental overcharges, MCIs, SCRIE, DRIE, Late Fees, Leases, Rent Reduction orders, Casado, Errors in calculation, Interest claims and Treble Damage claims. The plaintiff commenced the present action on July 8, 2020, and filed an amended complaint on July 20, 2021. The Amended Complaint alleges defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme by misrepresenting the regulation status of plaintiff's apartment, by presenting her with a non-rent-regulated lease and lease renewals, and by failing to file annual registration statements. The parties have engaged in some discovery, but it is incomplete and depositions have not been held. Before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment, contending they are entitled to summary judgment dismissing the Amended Complaint based on the Prior Action's Stipulation and on the theory of res judicata. Defendants maintain the plaintiff was a plaintiff in the Prior Action, was bound by its settlement, and therefore is precluded from bringing the instant rent overcharge claims. Defendants further claim that the apartment was deregulated in 2011 by the former owner and that although plaintiffs in the Prior Action included the apartment in their complaint, the Stipulation did not ultimately identify it as a rent regulated unit. In opposition, the plaintiff argues that she is not bound by the Stipulation. She characterizes defendants' motion as on one hand claiming the apartment is not rent stabilized because it was acknowledged as such in the Prior Action, while on the other hand taking the position that her claims are precluded by the settlement in that action, which only applied to the rent stabilized apartments. The plaintiff further states: "I never signed on to any class action settlement. I was never made aware of it nor agreed to the same." Judge Sattler finds that the Prior Action does not preclude the plaintiff from bringing the instant claims here. Although the plaintiff may have been a party to that action by virtue of being a tenant in the building and therefore a member of the Riverton Tenants' Association, the Stipulation limits the class to "Riverton Rent stabilized tenants." It is undisputed that the plaintiff was not in that group and therefore did not receive the Class Notice, could not have opted out, and is not receiving any benefit from the settlement, notes Judge Sattler. Additionally, the Stipulation's release provides that the parties "mutually release each other from any and all claims relating to the rent overcharges set forth in the Complaint in the instant action." Those claims involved rent stabilized apartments with purported overcharges stemming from Major Capital Improvements. The plaintiff here is a tenant pursuant to a non-rent-regulated lease who claims her apartment was unlawfully deregulated. Therefore, her claim is beyond the scope of the Stipulation's release language. Accordingly, Defendants' motion for summary judgment on this basis is denied, rules Judge Sattler. With respect to the merits, this action was filed after the enactment of the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 ("HSTPA") but the purported overcharges occurred prior to the statute's effective date, therefore pre-HSTPA law applies. Under this law, a complaining tenant is limited to recovery based on overcharges incurred up to four years before the complaint, but the court may look beyond the four-year period to determine the base date amount if the tenant can demonstrate that the landlord engaged in a fraudulent scheme to unlawfully inflate rents and unlawfully deregulate their unit. A court must approach a fraud determination considering the "totality of the circumstances". At this stage, where discovery is incomplete, issues of fact exist with respect to the plaintiff's fraud claim. The DHCR records do not clearly indicate who lived in the plaintiff's apartment at what time, and these discrepancies may have had an impact on the apartment's deregulation. Additional discovery, including depositions, might clarify the information obtained from the DHCR. The parties' motions are therefore premature, the Court opines. In light of the foregoing, defendants' motion for summary judgment on their counterclaim for legal fees, which is based on a provision in the plaintiff's lease, is likewise denied, Judge Sattler says. The motion and cross-motion are denied without prejudice, and counsel is ordered to appear for a Status Conference on September 16, 2025 at 9:30 a.m. at 60 Centre Street, Room 212. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=6soLQdYL2BRjEC91sZELdQ==&system=prod SANSMARK INC: Beltran Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sansmark Inc. The case is styled as Susana Beltran, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sansmark Inc. d/b/a Randy's Donuts, Case No. 25STCV21902 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 24, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Sansmark Inc. doing business as Randy's Donuts is a donut shop chain originated in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jasmin Kaur Gill, Esq. J. GILL LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 S Flower St., Ste. 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2231 Phone: 213-459-6023 Email: jasmin@jkgilllaw.com SENTRY INSURANCE: Collects Web Visitors' Data, Hughes Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- DANA HUGHES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SENTRY INSURANCE COMPANY, a Wisconsin corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-06693 (C.D. Cal., July 22, 2025) alleges that the Defendant uses data broker software on its website -- https://sentry.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. The Defendant's installation and use of data broker software without obtaining consent is a violation of the California Trap and Trace Law. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant specifically intended its surveillance operations to cause injury to California residents. Defendant configured its tracking systems on its Website to identify, profile, and exploit California users. The Defendant's purposeful direction of its surveillance activities at California residents through its own Website satisfies all constitutional due process requirements for the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction by this Court, the suit adds. The Plaintiff maintains reasonable expectations of privacy when browsing websites. The Defendant systematically violated these expectations through its unauthorized surveillance activities. The Defendant is a Wisconsin corporation that owns, operates, and/or controls https://sentry.com/, an online platform that offers insurance plans to businesses and related news, information and resources.[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) 927-9270 E-mail: rtauler@taulersmith.com eshapiro@taulersmith.com SEWON AMERICA: Heredia Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JIMMY RUIZ HEREDIA AND EDGAR EMMANUEL SERRANO MONDRAGON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SEWON AMERICA, INC., AND TOTAL EMPLOYEE SOLUTION SUPPORT, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00050-LMM-RGV (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs, with the Defendants' consent, ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline for filing a motion for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 to Jan. 28, 2026. The Plaintiffs seek an extension until January 28, 2026, for the deadline before which they must file a motion for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1) so that they will have an opportunity to complete discovery beforehand. The Parties have conferred regarding class certification and the second extension of this deadline, and Defendants consent to the requested relief. Sewon manufactures and supplies automobile parts and components. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WGgX0t at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian J. Sutherland, Esq. Rachel Berlin Benjamin, Esq. BEAL SUTHERLAND BERLIN & BROWN LLC 945 East Paces Ferry Rd NE, Suite 2000 Atlanta, GA 30326 Telephone: (404) 476-5305 E-mail: brian@beal.law rachel@beal.law - and - Justin Beecher Connell, Esq. Andrew Cassidy Suarez, Esq. ELARBEE, THOMPSON, SAPP & WILSON, LLP 800 International Tower 229 Peachtree St., N.E. Atlanta, GA 30303-1614 Telephone: (404) 659-6700 E-mail: connell@elarbeethompson.com suarez@elarbeethompson.com The Defendants are represented by: Jon M. Gumbel, Esq. Zack McCormack, Esq. Michael L. Lucas, Esq. Gerald P. Gillespy, Esq. Ingu Hwang, Esq. Allison Hawkins, Esq. BURR & FORMAN LLP 1075 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 3000 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 815-3000 Facsimile: (404) 817-3244 E-mail: jgumbel@burr.com zmccormack@burr.com mlucas@burr.com ihwang@burr.com ahawkins@burr.com - and - Chan M. Ahn, Esq. AHN LAW FIRM, LLC 2180 Satellite Blvd., Suite 400 Duluth, GA 30097 E-mail: chan@ahnlawfirmllc.com SIMILASAN CORP: Class Settlement in Plowden Gets Final Nod ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID PLOWDEN; MARIO ORTEGA; and KAMILLE FAYE VINLUAN-JULARBAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SIMILASAN CORP., Case No. 1:23-cv-02511-DDD-STV (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Daniel D. Domenico entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final approval of class action settlement. The Court approves the parties' class action settlement agreement and release, and incorporates the terms of that agreement into this Order. The Plaintiffs David Plowden, Mario Ortega, and Kamille Faye Vinluan-Jularbal are appointed as Class Representatives. Melissa S. Weiner of Pearson Warshaw, LLP; Nick Suciu and Rachel Soffin of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC; Jonas Ja cobson of Dovel & Luner, LLP; and William H. Anderson of Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC are appointed as Class Counsel. The Court CERTIFIES a Rule 23 settlement class defined as: "All Persons in the United States, its territories, and/or the District of Columbia who purchased, for personal use and not for resale, any Covered Product from Sept. 11, 2017 until Feb. 20, 2025, excluding (i) Defendant and its respective subsidiaries and affiliates, members, employees, officers, directors, agents, and representatives and their family members; (ii) Class Counsel; (iii) the judges who have presided over the Action; (iv) local, municipal, state, and federal governmental agencies; and (v) all Persons who have timely elected to become Opt-Outs from the Settlement Class in accordance with the Court's Orders." The Plaintiffs' Motion for attorney fees, costs, and service awards, is granted. Class Counsel is awarded attorney fees of $1,191,666.66 and $23,316.42 for reimbursement for costs incurred in pursuing this Action and achieving the Settlement. A Service Award of $2,500.00 is granted to each Named Plaintiff. The Court will retain jurisdiction for implementation and enforce ment of the Settlement and the Settlement Agreement; and This action is dismissed with prejudice, without fees or costs except as provided in this Order, and the Clerk of Court is directed to enter a final judgment and close the case. Similasan distributes pharmaceutical products. A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lswwO3 at no extra charge.[CC] SLIM CD: Fails to Secure Financial Data, First Choice Federal Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ FIRST CHOICE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION and FINANCIAL HORIZONS CREDIT UNION, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SLIM CD, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-01088 (W.D. Pa., July 22, 2025) is a class action on behalf of a class of financial institutions that suffered, and continue to suffer, harm as a direct result of Slim CD's conscious failure to take adequate and reasonable measures to protect Plaintiffs' and their customers' personal and financial data. According to the complaint, Slim CD's negligent actions exposed highly sensitive Payment Card Data (PCD), including cardholder names, credit card numbers, card expiration dates, and other critical payment card details, belonging to approximately 1.7 million consumers. This data was left vulnerable and accessible to hackers between August 17, 2023, and June 15, 2024. As a direct consequence, Plaintiffs have incurred significant damages, including, but not limited to: costs associated with replacing compromised payment cards, covering fraudulent transactions, and expenses related to customer service, increased fraud monitoring, and operational disruptions. Slim CD is a payment processing gateway that facilitates electronic credit and debit card transactions for numerous U.S.-based merchants across various industries, including retail, hospitality, and restaurants through web-based terminals, and mobile and/or desktop applications. Due to the nature of its business, Slim CD knowingly collects, processes, and stores large quantities of sensitive financial information. Consequently, Slim CD owed an explicit duty to Plaintiffs and the Class to adequately secure such information from unauthorized access and exfiltration. Despite its obligations under industry standards, including the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standards and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, Slim CD failed to adequately safeguard Plaintiffs' customers' PCD, directly resulting in the Data Breach, alleges the suit. FCFCU is a federally-chartered credit union with a principal place of business in New Castle, Pennsylvania. Slim CD is a payment gateway and processing provider for merchants across the United States, handling electronic payment transactions, including those involving credit and debit cards.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Patrick D. Donathen, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, Fifth Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: gary@lcllp.com patrick@lcllp.com - and - Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. Andrew Stanko, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 24th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com astanko@scott-scott.com STATES LOGISTICS: Williams Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Nathan Williams, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. STATES LOGISTICS SERVICES, INC.; a California corporation; KELLY SERVICES GLOBAL, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, Case No. CIVSB2510823 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on July 23, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-01888. The Plaintiff bases his claims on alleged violations of the California Labor Code and Business and Professions Code. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that Defendants violated these laws by: failing to pay minimum wages; failing to pay overtime wages; failing to provide meal breaks; failing to provide rest breaks; failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failing to pay all wages due upon separation of employment; and, engaging in unfair and/or unlawful business practices to deprive class members of compensation.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jennifer Riley, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Email: jariley@duanemorris.com - and - Aaron Winn, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 750 B St Ste 2900 San Diego, CA 92101-8127 Email: awinn@duanemorris.com - and - Gerald L. Maatman, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 190 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 3700 Chicago, IL 60603 Email: gmaatman@duanemorris.com - and - Shannon Noelle, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 30 South 17th Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-4196 Email: snoelle@duanemorris.com STEMILT AG: 9th Cir. Vacates Protective Order in Farmworkers Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned Margarito Fierro Cordero, Fernando Mendez Franco, Jose Rodriguez Llerenas, Sandro Vargas Leyva, Victor Padilla Plascencia, Jose Mendoza Anguiano, Fernando Martinez Perez, Jose Gallegos Gonzalez, Hector Bautista Salinas, Bismark Zepeda Perez, Plaintiffs, v. Stemilt AG Services, LLC, Defendant-Appellee, v. Columbia Legal Services, counsel for plaintiffs, Appellant, No. 23-3548, D.C. No. 2:22-cv00013-TOR, Circuit Judge William A. Fletcher of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's protective order and remanded for further proceedings. Columbia Legal Services is a part of the Alliance for Equal Justice, a Washington State network of attorneys whose purpose, according to a declaration of a Columbia attorney, is to "provide and support civil legal aid to low income, vulnerable, and marginalized individuals and communities." The organization provides a range of legal assistance, including both impact litigation and legislative advocacy. In the underlying class action, Columbia represented H-2A temporary agricultural workers employed by Stemilt, a subsidiary of a large fruit grower in Washington State. The case began when Plaintiffs Gilberto Gomez Garcia and Jonathan Gomez Rivera initiated the class action in 2020, alleging that Stemilt engaged in forced labor and trafficking. Subsequently, other farmworkers brought a separate lawsuit against Stemilt in 2022, and the suits were eventually consolidated. Columbia represented the plaintiffs in both suits, both before and after consolidation. This appeal arises from a discovery order entered in the initial class action. There were numerous discovery-related motions and orders during the course of that litigation, including two protective orders. The district court wrote with some understatement, "Discovery in this case ha[s] proven quite litigious, with the parties unable or unwilling to resolve disputes independently and without judicial intervention." The first protective order concerned records from the Washington State Employment Security Division (ESD). The parties disagreed on how best to protect sensitive employment data. Stemilt proposed a "universal protective order" that "would control access to and the use and dissemination of private materials throughout [the] litigation." However, Plaintiffs proposed a narrower protective order that would protect only addresses, medical records, dates of birth, telephone numbers, and social security numbers found in ESD or other government agency documents. The district court adopted Plaintiffs' proposed order because it reached a middle ground. The second protective order addressed Stemilt's own financial and employment records. Again, Stemilt proposed a universal protective order, asserting that Columbia "intend[ed] to use the materials outside of this litigation." Stemilt pointed out that Columbia had already used Stemilt's domestic payroll data in another lawsuit to advocate for higher hourly wages in Washington H-2A contracts. Plaintiffs again proposed a narrow protective order that covered only (1) "health data and medical records"; and (2) "data concerning Stemilt's sales, profits and revenue generated by Stemilt or its parent company from 2016-2020." The district court adopted Plaintiffs' proposed order on the ground that it was "more in line with the Court's prior order to identify specific discovery for which a protective order is needed." However, the district court concluded that Columbia should "not have free [rein] to utilize the information and documents discovered in this action in other advocacy with which Plaintiffs are not involved." To address concerns about use of discovered information outside the suit at issue, the court ordered: "Plaintiffs must seek leave of this Court before they -- or counsel -- utilize discovery from this action in other advocacy." The district court warned it would "grant leave only in limited circumstances." The parties subsequently settled the underlying class action. The settlement agreement released and resolved all claims between "Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and any of their relatives, heirs, and successors" and Stemilt. It also "explicitly" waived the right to appeal for "Plaintiffs, in their individual capacities." The parties filed a stipulated motion to dismiss the action with prejudice, which the district court entered in 2023. Columbia then timely appealed. The question before the Appeals Court concerns the district court's limitation, contained in the second order, on Columbia's use outside the class action of information obtained during discovery. Columbia contends that the protective order entered by the court with respect to use of discovered material is overly broad. In his 13-page opinion, Judge Fletcher ruled that the district court entered a broad and undifferentiated order prohibiting Columbia from using any information and documents obtained in discovery in this case without prior approval from the district court. He said the order included only a brief explanation and no finding of good cause to support this prohibition. The district court did not identify any prejudice or particularized harm that would result from Columbia's use of or public access to particular documents or information, and it did not balance the relevant interests against any potential harm, he added. "We therefore conclude that the district court erred in thus restricting Columbia's use of information and documents obtained in this litigation," Judge Fletcher opined. "We vacate the portion of the district court's order requiring Columbia to seek court leave before using in other advocacy information obtained in discovery in the class action. We remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion." A copy of the Appeals Court's order is available at https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/07/10/23-3548.pdf TESLA INC: Matsko Seeks to File Class Cert Reply Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Matsko v. Tesla, Inc., et al., (re Tesla Advanced Driver Assistance Systems Litigation), Case No. 3:22-cv-05240-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to file under seal portions of the Plaintiff's reply in support of motion for class certification and supporting exhibits. The Plaintiff filed this administrative motion in compliance with the Protective Order and Civil Local Rule 79-5 to identify portions of the Certification Motion and exhibits that Defendant has designated "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential" and to redact the information in accordance therewith. Tesla is an American multinational automotive and clean energy company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pA2Vwx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank M. Pitre, Esq. Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. Julie L. Fieber, Esq. Makena A. Kershaw, Esq. COTCHETT PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP 840 Malcolm Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 E-mail: fpitre@cpmlegal.com tloeser@cpmlegal.com jfieber@cpmlegal.com mkershaw@cpmlegal.com - and - Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq. Nicholaus H. Woltering, Esq. BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC. 7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 914-2001 E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com nwoltering@bottinilaw.com - and - David S. Casey, Jr., Esq. Gayle M. Blatt, Esq. P. Camille Guerra, Esq. CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD LLP 110 Laurel Street San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 238-1811 E-mail: dcasey@cglaw.com gmb@cglaw.com camille@cglaw.com THREDUP INC: Dalton Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users -------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ThredUp Inc., Case No. 0:25-cv-02937 (D. Minn., July 22, 2025) arises because the Defendant's Website, www.thredup.com, is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota; damages, and a damage multiplier. The Defendant offers resale clothing and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, tops, bottoms, dresses, jackets, shoes, and handbags.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com UNION PACIFIC: Grigg Suit Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nancy Pollard, as personal representative of Charlie Grigg, and Charles Waldschmidt, v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., Case No. 4:21-cv-03124-JFB (D. Neb.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their reply brief in support of their class-certification motion from July 28, 2025 to and including Aug. 11, 2025. The Defendant does not oppose this motion. The current motion honors the concerns this Court expressed at the status conference. The modest 14-day request won’t require any downstream adjustments to any of the other case deadlines—including the critical dispositive-motion and pretrial deadlines. Plaintiffs' reply would still be due before the parties’ August mediation. Without an extension, the Plaintiffs will be unable to complete a thorough, evidence-backed, and neatly presented response to the Defendant's arguments. That would have the unfortunate effect of taxing this Court with the responsibility of doing much of the spade work in resolving the Defendant's arguments. Union is a Class I freight-hauling railroad. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=66qbYj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam W. Hansen, Esq. Colin R. Reeves, Esq. APOLLO LAW LLC 333 Washington Avenue North, Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 927-2969 E-mail: adam@apollo-law.com colin@apollo-law.com - and - Nicholas D. Thompson, Esq. Mark E. Thomson, Esq. CASEY JONES LAW LLC 525 Junction Rd, Ste 6500 Madison, WI 53717 Telephone: (612) 293-5249 E-mail: nthompson@caseyjones.law mthomson@caseyjones.law UNION PACIFIC: Waldschmidt Seeks More Time to File Reply Brief -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Waldschmidt v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, Case No. 8:22-cv-00210-JFB-RCC (D. Neb.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their reply brief in support of their class-certification motion from July 28, 2025, to and including Aug. 11, 2025. The Defendant does not oppose this motion. The current motion honors the concerns this Court expressed at the status conference. The modest 14-day request won’t require any downstream adjustments to any of the other case deadlines—including the critical dispositive-motion and pretrial deadlines. Plaintiffs' reply would still be due before the parties’ August mediation. Without an extension, the Plaintiffs will be unable to complete a thorough, evidence-backed, and neatly presented response to the Defendant's arguments. That would have the unfortunate effect of taxing this Court with the responsibility of doing much of the spade work in resolving the Defendant's arguments. Union is a Class I freight-hauling railroad. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FzAmtF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam W. Hansen, Esq. Colin R. Reeves, Esq. APOLLO LAW LLC 333 Washington Avenue North, Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 927-2969 E-mail: adam@apollo-law.com colin@apollo-law.com - and - Nicholas D. Thompson, Esq. Mark E. Thomson, Esq. CASEY JONES LAW LLC 525 Junction Rd, Ste 6500 Madison, WI 53717 Telephone: (612) 293-5249 E-mail: nthompson@caseyjones.law mthomson@caseyjones.law UNITED STATES: Court Vacates Case Schedule ------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Monk v. USA, Case No. 3:22-cv-01503 (D. Conn., Filed Nov. 28, 2022), the Hon. Stefan R. Underhill Judge entered an order granting joint motion to vacate case schedule. The scheduled deadlines for class certification and discovery are vacated. The parties shall meet and confer within 14 days of the resolution of Motion for Protective Order and promptly thereafter submit an updated, proposed scheduling order to the Court. The nature of suit states Statutory Actions -- Tort Claim.[CC] UNITED STATES: Loses Bid to Dismiss Henkel Suit ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIELLE HENKEL, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Case No. 1:24-cv-01676-SLS (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Sparkle Sooknanan entered a memorandum denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss. Ms. Henkel sued the Department, alleging a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. She alleges that this failure to correct the error in her file has caused her substantial harm, including lost credit opportunities, waste of time and resources lodging futile disputes trying to correct the Department's false credit reporting, harm to her credit reputation and credit score, and emotional distress. And she seeks to certify two classes of federal student loan borrowers who have been similarly harmed. The Department moves to dismiss this case under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. Because the Court finds that Ms. Henkel has sufficiently alleged standing and the necessary facts for a claim under Subsection 1681s-2(b), it denies the motion. Ms. Henkel filed the operative Amended Complaint on November 21, 2024, suing the Department of Education for violating 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b). She also seeks to represent two different classes in this litigation, although she has not yet moved for class certification. On February 5, 2025, the Department moved to dismiss this case under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The Defendant is a carebinet-level department of the United States government, originating in 1980. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated July 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=G3zjoF at no extra charge.[CC] UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Marden Seeks Final OK of Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARDEN'S ARK CORP., and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED, Case No. 5:23-cv-00708-M-KS (E.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- granting final approval to the Settlement, -- finding that the class notice program satisfies due process and Rule 23, -- finding the Settlement Agreement to be fair, reasonable, and adequate for the Class, and -- dismissing the claims against the Defendant with prejudice, retaining jurisdiction of matters only relating to enforcement of the Settlement Agreement. On Dec. 11, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against UHG asserting that the Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by making pre-recorded calls to consumers who were not United Healthcare insureds without consent and for failing to stop the calls when consumers expressly requested to not be called. On Feb. 20, 2024, UHG answered the complaint. The proposed Settlement Class includes: "All regular users or subscribers to numbers assigned to wireless carriers which Optum Community Health Workers called as part of the Optum at Home program during the Settlement Class Period using an artificial or pre-recorded voice who were not members or subscribers of United Healthcare or that opted out of receiving calls from United Healthcare. Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) the Judges presiding over this action and members of their families; (2) the Defendant, Defendant's respective subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendant or their parents have a controlling interest and its current or former officers and directors; (3) persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the class; and (4) the legal representatives, successors or assigns of any such excluded person(s). The Settlement provides meaningful monetary relief. Pursuant to the Agreement, Defendant will cause to be created a non-reversionary Settlement Fund in the amount of $1,846,500.00 for the purpose of making all required payments under this Settlement. UnitedHealth is a health care and well-being company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3VJPmD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 South Dixie Highway, Floor 4 Coral Gables, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com - and - Stefan Coleman, Esq. COLEMAN PLLC 66 West Flagler Street, Suite 900 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (877) 333-9427 E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com - and - Ryan Duffy, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RYAN P. DUFFY, PLLC 1213 W. Morehead Street Suit 500, Unit #450 Charlotte, NC 28208 Telephone: (704) 741-9399 E-mail: ryan@ryanpduffy.com VCE THEATERS: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Atkins Due Sept. 2 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Atkins v. VCE Theaters, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01332 (D. Or., Filed Sept. 13, 2023), the Hon. Judge Stacie F. Beckerman entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for extension of time as follows: -- Motion for class certification to be filed by Sept. 2, 2025. -- Response is due by Sept. 23, 2025. -- Reply is due by Oct. 7, 2025. The nature of suit states Civil Rights – Employment. VCE Theaters, LLC, doing business as Studio One Theaters, is a movie theater company operating a seven-screen luxury theater in Portland, Oregon.[CC] VIA RENEWABLES: Seeks Sept. 18 Class Cert. Hearing -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN CLARK, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. VIA RENEWABLES, INC., F/K/A SPARK ENERGY, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00568-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order setting the following schedule and hearing date: (1) Aug. 1, 2025 for the Defendant to file its opposition to the class certification motion, (2) Aug. 15, 2025 for the Plaintiff to file his reply in support of the class certification motion, and (3) Sept. 18, 2025 for the hearing on the class certification motion, or another later date that is more convenient for the Court. Additionally, the Parties stipulate to extend the hearing date by seven days from Sept. 11, 2025, to Sept. 18, 2025, or another later date of the Court’s choosing. However, if the Court does not choose to extend the hearing date, the Parties' stipulation as to the briefing schedule still remains in effect. The Court held a hearing on March 25, 2025 regarding the Plaintiff filing a renewed motion for class certification, in which the following briefing schedule was set for a renewed class certification motion: June 27, 2025 for the Plaintiff's renewed motion, July 25, 2025 for the Defendant's opposition, and Aug. 8, 2025 for the Plaintiff's reply. Via is an independent retail energy services company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fVs4C0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Eric J. Troutman, Esq. Puja Amin, Esq. Brittany A. Andres, Esq. TROUTMAN AMIN, LLP 400 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1550 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 350-3663 Facsimile: (949) 203-8689 E-mail: troutman@troutmanamin.com amin@troutmanamin.com brittany@troutmanamin.com VIRGINIA: King Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Citizens ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TATI ABU KING and TONI HEATH JOHNSON, v. JOHN O'BANNON, in his official capacity as Chairman of the State Board of Elections for the Commonwealth of Virginia, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00408-JAG (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting certification of the following class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2), or, in the alternative, 23(b)(1)(A): "All citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia who are currently, or in the future will be, disqualified from voting under Article II, Section 1 of the Virginia Constitution because they were convicted of a crime that was not a felony at common law in 1870." The Plaintiffs also move the Court to appoint (1) the Plaintiffs as class representatives and (2) the undersigned counsel as class counsel, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(B) and 23(g). The Defendants include ROSALYN R. DANCE, in her official capacity as Vice Chair of the State Board of Elections for the Commonwealth of Virginia; GEORGIA ALVIS-LONG, in her official capacity as Secretary of the State Board of Elections for the Commonwealth of Virginia; DONALD W. MERRICKS, in his official capacity as a member of the State Board of Elections for the Commonwealth of Virginia; MATTHEW WEINSTEIN, in his official capacity as a member of the State Board of Elections for the Commonwealth of Virginia; SUSAN BEALS, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Department of Elections for the Commonwealth of Virginia; ERIC SPICER, in his official capacity as the General Registrar of Fairfax County, Virginia; and SANDY C. ELSWICK, in her official capacity as the General Registrar of Smyth County, Virginia. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ieZXJU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brittany Blueitt Amadi, Esq. Medha Gargeya, Esq. Robert Kingsley Smith, Esq. Jason H. Liss, Esq. Robert Donoghue, Esq. Nicholas Werle, Esq. Noelle Higginson, Esq. Brandon Roul, Esq. Dylan S. Reichman, Esq. Nitisha Baronia, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 2100 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (202) 663-6000 E-mail: brittany.amadi@wilmerhale.com robert.smith@wilmerhale.com nick.werle@wilmerhale.com nitisha.baronia@wilmerhale.com - and - Vishal Agraharkar, Esq. Eden Heilman, Esq. ACLU FOUNDATION OF VIRGINIA 701 E. Franklin Street, Ste. 1412 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 523-2151 E-mail: vagraharkar@acluva.org eheilman@acluva.org - and - Jared Fletcher Davidson, Esq. Benjamin L. Berwick, Esq. Beau C. Tremitiere, Esq. PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT 3014 Dauphine Street, Suite J New Orleans, LA 70117 Telephone: (202) 579-4582 E-mail: jared.davidson@protectdemocracy.org ben.berwick@protectdemocracy.org beau.tremitiere@protectdemocracy.org VOYA FINANCIAL: Class Cert. Filing in Ravarino Due Jan. 30, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ravarino et al., v. Voya Financial, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-01658 (D. Conn., Filed Dec. 14, 2021), the Hon. Judge Omar A. Williams an order as follows: -- All discovery shall be completed May 15, 2026 on or before: -- Plaintiffs' motion for class Jan. 30, 2026 certification shall be filed on or before: The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (E.R.I.S.A.) Voya provides retirement planning, investment, and insurance services.[CC] WALT DISNEY: Court Appoints Bathaee Dunne as Interim Lead Counsel ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HEATHER BIDDLE, et al., v. THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY, Case No. 5:22-cv-07317-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward Davila entered an order granting in part and denying in part Bathaee Dunne's motion, and granting DiCello Levitt and Lite DePalma's cross-motion. As such, the Court appoints Bathaee Dunne as interim lead counsel for the putative YouTube TV and DirecTV Stream classes, and appoints DiCello Levitt and Lite DePalma as interim co-lead counsel for the putative FuboTV class. The Court converts the upcoming motion hearing, scheduled for July 31, 2025 into a status conference and continues the status conference to 10:00 AM. The parties shall file a joint status report by July 28, 2025 describing how they intend to proceed. IT IS SO ORDERED. Accordingly, the Court finds that Bathaee Dunne cannot adequately serve as lead counsel for the FuboTV class. And even if Mr. Bathaee’s statements do not render his firm completely inadequate, they certainly make his firm less adequate than the team of DiCello Levitt and Lite DePalma. Walt operates as an entertainment company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oljl1c at no extra charge.[CC] WESTERN DENTAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Bonkowski Says ------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT BONKOWSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WESTERN DENTAL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 8:25-cv-01600 (C.D. Cal., July 22, 2025) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all Western Dental patients who accessed www.westerndental.com and scheduled an appointment for dental treatment and/or services. The Defendant and its affiliates operate 560 dental offices in 20 states that serve over 3 million patients. When booking dental procedures online, patient privacy is crucial. Patients expect, as they should, that their information will be held in confidence and not shared with third parties without their knowledge or consent. The sensitive nature of information related to dental procedures, such as those offered by Defendant, amplifies the need for privacy during online bookings, asserts the suit. Moreover, information concerning an individual's healthcare, including dental procedures, is protected by state and federal law. Despite these protections, and unbeknownst to Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant aided, employed, agreed, and conspired with Google and AdRoll to intercept sensitive and confidential communications sent and received by Plaintiff and Class Members, including communications containing protected medical information. Plaintiff brings this action for legal and equitable remedies resulting from these illegal actions, the suit adds. The Plaintiff has booked several dental appointments through the Website over the relevant time period. The Plaintiff attended his scheduled medical appointments and received dental treatment for the services he selected. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, the Defendant intercepted and/or assisted Google and AdRoll with intercepting his communications, including those that contained personally identifiable information, protected health information, and related confidential information. The Defendant disclosed this confidential and protected medical information without Plaintiff's knowledge, consent, or express written authorization. As a consequence of these interceptions, Plaintiff has received advertisements marketing various dental procedures, specifically targeted at Plaintiff as a result of Defendant's disclosure of his dental booking information to Google and AdRoll. The Defendant breached its duty of confidentiality by unlawfully disclosing Plaintiff's PII and PHI, says the suit. The Defendant provides dental services such as general dentistry dental implants and restorative crowns periodontics, endodontics, orthodontics and extractions as well as oral hygiene services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah N. Westcot, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2100 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 676-9006 E-mail: swestcot@bursor.com WORKFORCE7 INC: Ballast Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ballast et al., v. Workforce7 Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-03812-ER (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting a two (2)-week extension of their deadline to file their reply, to Aug. 11, 2025. The extension for the Plaintiffs' deadline to submit their Reply is necessary due to competing deadlines in other matters and scheduling constraints due in part to the Plaintiffs' counsel's travel commitments. On May 21, 2025, the Court entered a revised civil case discovery plan and scheduling order setting the Plaintiffs' deadline to file their motion for class certification as June 6, 2025, the deadline for Con Edison's opposition as July 14, 2025, and the deadline for the Plaintiffs' reply as July 28, 2025. Workforce7 provides professional flagging services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vZ0wmY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brent E. Pelton, Esq. PELTON GRAHAM LLC 111 Broadway 1503 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 385-9700 E-mail: Pelton@PeltonGraham.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 ***