250807.mbx

250807.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, August 7, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 157 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Makki Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Murphy Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals Foams 3M COMPANY: Nalle Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Pacheco Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Piazza Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams ALLEN PARK, MI: Appeals Court Order in Covert Class Suit ALLEN PARK, MI: Appeals Court Order in Retirees Association Suit ALLIANZ LIFE: May Face Class Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ALTRIA GROUP: Sealing Procedures for Daubert Briefing Modified AMERICAN HONDA: Caine Suit Seeks to Certify Two Class & Subclass AMETROS FINANCIAL: Louisiana Seeks to Stay Class Cert Hearing ANTHROPIC PBC: Seeks to Stay Proceeding Pending 9th Cir Appeal APPLE INC: Court Dismisses Kapil Fraud Suit With Leave to Amend APPLE INC: Court Dismisses Mirage Antitrust Suit Without Prejudice APRIA HEALTHCARE: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $6.375-MM ARCIS GOLF: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $950,000 ARISA HEALTH: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $1.9MM AUDI CANADA: CAD$240,000 Settlement in Breach Suit Gets Court OK AW DISTRIBUTING: Class Cert Bid Filing in Whiten Due Sept. 1, 2026 BAYER AG: $38MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 30 BEENVERIFIED LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 29, 2027 BEST BUY: Faces Locicero Class Suit Over Civil Rights Violations BLIBAUM AND ASSOCIATES: Phased Discovery Ordered in Dixon Suit BNSF RAILWAY: Donnelly Appeals Summary Judgment Order to D.D.C. BONE & JOINT: Agrees to Settle Ransomware Class Suit for $575,000 BREEZE HOLDINGS: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With YD Biopharma BTL INDUSTRIES: King Sues Over Deceptive Marketing Practices CALIFORNIA CEMETERY: Quevedo Loses Bid to Move Suit to Super. Court CALIFORNIA WASTE: Pina Sues Over Unlawful Wage and Hour Practices CANVAS ENERGY: Fails to Pay Late Payments' Interest, Wake Alleges CAPE COD: Goulart Appeals ECPA Suit Dismissal to 1st Circuit CAREDX INC: $20.25MM Settlement Gets Initial Nod CERNER CORP: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Evans Says CHARLES BARATTA: Court Refuses to Dismiss VanderSloot TCPA Suit CHILDREN'S PLACE: Dalton Seeks Blind Users' Equal Website Access CHRISTIAN DIOR: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Toikach Says CLARIS VISION: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Glidden Says COVE HOUSE: Park Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA DIAMOND ADULT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, White Suit Claims DOORDASH INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Subscription Charges ENDURANCE WARRANTY: Faces Class Suit Over Car Repair Contracts ENZO BIOCHEM: M&A Investigates Sale to Battery Ventures EXOS HUMAN: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration; Stone Wage Suit Stayed FAMILY HEALTH: Settles Data Breach Class Action Suit for $850,000 FANATICS INC: Faces Nachman Suit Over Sports Cards Market Monopoly FAST RESPONDER: Fails to Pay Drivers Salary Rate, Mariscal Alleges GENESCO INC: Faces Class Suit Over Promotional SMS Messages GIGACLOUD TECHNOLOGY: $2.75MM Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 9 GOOGLE LLC: Agrees to Settle Biometric Data Suit for $8.75-Mil. HARPER WOODS, MI: Wayne Cty. Wins Bid to Dismiss Carlock Complaint HEALTHPRO HERITAGE: Smith Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA HOGAN PERSONNEL: Bid to Remand Hill Suit to Superior Court Denied HOME DEPOT: Faces Class Action Suit Over Use of Non-Compete Law HORMEL FOODS: Workers File Class Action Suit Over Unpaid Leaves IMA-SUNSET ASSOCIATES: Property Violates ADA, Pardo Suit Alleges INFINITE SERVICES: May Face Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach INNOVAGE HOLDING: $27MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 26 INSPIRA MEDICAL: Class Cert. Bids in Oatman Due July 17, 2026 JAMES ALPHA: Fulford Sues Over Fund's Net Asset Value Drop JOHNSON CONTROLS: Faces Suit Over Data Privacy Violations KRCX WRI: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Pardo Suit Says LOCKHEED MARTIN: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sept. 26 LUCKY OPCO: Faces Rose Suit Over Deceptive Ads & Sales Campaigns LUMINAR TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit LUMINAR TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Yskollari Suit Over Stock Price Drop LYNCHBURG SOAP: Pittman Sues Over Website Inaccessibility MARRIOTT INT'L: Judge Trims Claims in Westin Seattle Workers' Case MASAYA TRADING: Faces Evans Suit Over Website's ADA Non-Compliance MDL 3040: Arbitration Bid Denial in Chrysler Defect Case Overturned MID-FLORIDA PRIMARY: May Face Class Action Suit Over Data Breach MIDDLEBURG-LEGACY PLACE: Green Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA MISS TOYA'S: Discovery Bid in Johnson Suit Gets Partial Approval MOHAWK GAMING: Wins Cross-Bid to Confirm Class Determination Award MONTGOMERY COUNTY: Union Sue Over Payment Platform for Educators MW SERVICES: Faces Wiseman Over Alleged Illegal Online Casino MYTEE AUTOMATIVE: Faces Dorman Suit Over Wage & Hour Violations NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Judge Certifies Tennis Antitrust Class Suit NEW AMERICAN: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Marton Says NEWTON, MA: Judge Dismisses Parents' Second Attempt to Sue Teachers NEWYORK-PRESBYTERIAN: Faces Class Suit Over Health Plan Insurance NICKY'S FOOD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rodriguez Suit Alleges NIKITA BAKER: Parties Must Follow Class Cert Hearing Procedure NORDSTROM INC: McWashington Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit PANDADOC INC: Senior Sues Over Blind Inaccessible Website PAPA MERCHANT: Esckilsen Seeks Minimum Wages for Delivery Drivers PERION NETWORK: Menora Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. PREMIUM MERCHANT: Class Cert Bid Filing in Weingrad Due Dec. 6 PRIME ASCOT: Filing of Bid for Class Cert. Due Sept. 24 PROTECTIVE LIFE: Settlement Fairness Hearing Scheduled for Oct. 24 RADIATION ONCOLOGY: Salgado Sues Over Private Data Breach RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Dargan Alleges RALPH LAUREN: Class Cert. Discovery Cutoff Continued to Sept. 2 RBA INC: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $200,000 RED ROOF: Final Approval of Class Settlement Sought REPLIMUNE GROUP: Faces Jboor Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop RICKY SHULER: Faces Hatton et al. Suit Over Breach of Contract ROCKET CO: Illegally Uses Trap & Trace Devices, Arnold Alleges ROCKETREACH LLC: Bids to Dismiss, Strike Sant's Class Claims Denied RURAL MEDIA: Fifth Cir. Vacates Sanctions Against Wissel's Atty. SABLE OFFSHORE: Faces Class Action Suit for Securities Violations SABLE OFFSHORE: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit SCENT SPLIT: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Pittman Suit Says SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Appeals Denied Motion to Stay to 5th Cir. SCOTT MARSH: Court Denies Waggoner's Bid to Recuse Federal Judge SIRIUS XM: Appeals Denied Arbitration Bid in Woods Suit to 9th Cir. SMALL MINE: Faces McNicol Suit Over Labor Law Breaches SOC LLC: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Zavala Due March 23, 2026 SPRING ENERGY: Nock Suit Transferred to D. of Maryland STUBHUB INC: Janiga Sues Over Unlawful Private Info Disclosure TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR: Parties Submit Court Discovery Letter TANNER MACIOCE: Class Cert Bid Filing in Butera Due Jan. 30, 2026 TAPESTRY INC: Ayala Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Classes TARGET CORP: C.D. California Refuses to Remand Haro Labor Case TASKRABBIT INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Hidden Junk Fees TC HEARTLAND: Class Certification & Daubert Hearing Set for Nov. 19 TEA DATING: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach THOMPSONGAS LLC: Gahrmann Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA TITAN PHARMACEUTICALS: M&A Investigates Proposed BSKE Ltd. Merger TIVITY HEALTH: $17.05 Class Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 12 TRUIST BANK: Agrees to Settle TCPA Class Action for $4.1 Million UNITED STATES: Doster Asks to Extend Time for Writ of Certiorari UNITED STATES: Faces ITAX Class Suit Over Withholding Reductions UNITED STATES: Haitians Sue Over Deportation for Nationals UNITED STATES: Hernandez et al. Sue Over Immigration Law Breaches UNITED STATES: Motion to Certify Immigrant Detention Suit Denied UNITED STATES: Refugee Resettlement Ban to Proceed as Class Suit UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces Suit Over Misleading Business Statements VENTURE GLOBAL: IMRF Appointed as Lead Plaintiff in Firstfire Suit VESYNC CORPORATION: Chen Seeks to File Documents Under Seal VILLAGES AT NOAH'S: Murphy Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. WELLMADE INDUSTRIES: Liu Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Mortgage Fees WEST VIRGINIA: 4th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Sheppheard Prison Suit WHOLE FOODS: Agrees to Settle Canisters Class Suit for $650,000 WISCONSIN: Court Refuses to Dismiss or Transfer Robillard Suit WORKFORCE7 INC: Ballast Must File Class Cert Reply by August 11 XTREMELY CLEAN: Santana Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA ********* 3M COMPANY: Makki Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ------------------------------------------------------- Youssef Makki, 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-06217-RMG (D.S.C., June 26, 2025), is brought for damages stemming from personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during their firefighting career and diagnosed with Thyroid Cancer and High Cholesterol 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: Murphy Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals Foams -------------------------------------------------------------- William Murphy, 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-06284-RMG (D.S.C., June 26, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with testicular cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products and/or PFAS chemicals. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 3M COMPANY: Nalle Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams --------------------------------------------------------------- Reginald Nalle, 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-06285-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 and prostate 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: Pacheco Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals --------------------------------------------------------- Donald Pacheco, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-06247-RMG (D.S.C., June 26, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use and was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Phone: 540-672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com 3M COMPANY: Piazza Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Emanuel Piazza, 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-06248-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 thyroid 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 ALLEN PARK, MI: Appeals Court Order in Covert Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF ALLEN PARK is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Dale Covert, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. City of Allen Park, Defendant, Case No. 18-004458-CK, in the Wayne Circuit Court of Michigan. The case arises from modifications to retiree healthcare benefits under collective-bargaining agreements. The appellate case is entitled Dale Covert vs. City of Allen Park, Case No. 376574, in the Michigan Court of Appeals, filed on July 23, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee DALE COVERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Mark A. Porter, Esq. MARK A. PORTER & ASSOCIATES PLLC 551 12 Mile Rd., #3d Madison Heights, MI 48071 Telephone: (248) 547-1911 Defendant-Appellant CITY OF ALLEN PARK is represented by: Mark S. Roberts, Esq. Matthew T. Nicols, Esq. SECREST WARDLE 2600 Troy Center Drive P.O. Box 5025 Troy, MI 48007 Telephone: (248) 851-9500 Facsimile: (248) 538-1223 ALLEN PARK, MI: Appeals Court Order in Retirees Association Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF ALLEN PARK is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Allen Park Retirees Association Inc., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. City of Allen Park, et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-003826-CZ, in the Wayne Circuit Court of Michigan. The case arises from modifications to retiree healthcare benefits under collective-bargaining agreements. The appellate case is entitled Allen Park Retirees Association vs. City of Allen Park, Case No. 376572, in the Michigan Court of Appeals, filed on July 23, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees ALLEN PARK RETIREES ASSOCIATION INC., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Mark A. Porter, Esq. MARK A. PORTER & ASSOCIATES PLLC 551 12 Mile Rd., #3d Madison Heights, MI 48071 Telephone: (248) 547-1911 Defendant-Appellant CITY OF ALLEN PARK is represented by: Mark S. Roberts, Esq. Matthew T. Nicols, Esq. SECREST WARDLE 2600 Troy Center Drive P.O. Box 5025 Troy, MI 48007 Telephone: (248) 851-9500 Facsimile: (248) 538-1223 ALLIANZ LIFE: May Face Class Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- ClassAction.org reports that attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Allianz Life data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from customers of Allianz Life, including those who received a notice stating they were impacted. Allianz Life Security Incident: What Happened? Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America, which provides financial and retirement solutions, has confirmed that a data breach on July 16, 2025 impacted the majority of its 1.4 million U.S. customers. The Allianz Life data breach reportedly involved hackers using social engineering to gain access to a third-party, cloud-based CRM system. According to a statement provided by the Minneapolis-based life insurance and annuities provider, a malicious threat actor was able to obtain personal information related to customers, financial professionals and “select” employees. Allianz said that this personal information may include names, addresses and dates of birth. On July 25, 2025, Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America reported the data breach to the Maine Attorney General’s Office. According to the report, the security incident was discovered on July 17. BleepingComputer.com writes that the ShinyHunters extortion group may be behind the attack, though Allianz has not confirmed the identity of the hackers or their motive. Allianz Life said that its investigation into the data breach is still ongoing, noting that the incident did not impact its own systems, and that it has begun to notify impacted individuals. What You Can Do After the Allianz Life Data Breach If your information was exposed in the data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Allianz Life to ensure it takes proper steps to protect the information it was entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] ALTRIA GROUP: Sealing Procedures for Daubert Briefing Modified -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Reece v. Altria Group, Inc. et al (RE: JUUL LABS, INC. ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No. 3:20-cv-02345-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Orrick entered an order modifying sealing procedures for Daubert briefing and remainder of class certification briefing: Filing Provisionally Due Date Proposed Due Date for a Under Seal Consolidated Chart of Proposed Sealing Daubert motions; July 28, 2025 Aug. 27, 2025 The Defendants' class certification oppositions: Daubert oppositions; Sept. 8, 2025 Sept. 26, 2025 The Plaintiffs' class certification replies: Daubert replies: Sept. 22, 2025 Oct. 3, 2025 Altria manufactures and sells smokeable and oral tobacco products in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ydJ9oW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP 601 California St. Suite 1505 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com - and - Robin F. Zwerling, Esq. ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP 41 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (212) 223-3900 Email: rzwerling@zsz.com ssalvetti@zsz.com The Defendants are represented by: David I. Gelfand, Esq. Jeremy J. Calsyn, Esq. Nowell D. Bamberger, Esq. Caleb J. Robertson, Esq. CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP 2112 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (202)974-1500 Facsimile: (202)974-1999 E-mail: dgelfand@cgsh.com jcalsyn@cgsh.com nbamberger@cgsh.com cjrobertson@cgsh.com - and - Beth A. Wilkinson, Esq. James M. Rosenthal, Esq. Matthew Skanchy, Esq. Alysha Bohanon, Esq. Jenna Pavelec, Esq. Moira K. Penza, Esq. Jeremy Barber, Esq. WILKINSON STEKLOFF LLP 2001 M Street NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 847-4000 Facsimile: (202) 847-4005 E-mail: bwilkinson@wilkinsonstekloff.com jrosenthal@wilkinsonstekloff.com mskanchy@wilkinsonstekloff.com abohanon@wilkinsonstekloff.com jpavelec@wilkinsonstekloff.com mpenza@wilkinsonstekloff.com jbarber@wilkinsonstekloff.com - and - Lauren Sachi Wulfe, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLC 777 S. Figueroa Street, 44th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 243-4211 Facsimile: (213) 243-4199 E-mail: lauren.wulfe@arnoldporter.com - and - Mark C. Hansen, Esq. Michael J. Guzman, Esq. David L. Schwarz, Esq. KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD, FIGEL & FREDERICK, P.L.L.C. 1615 M Street, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 326-7900 E-mail: mhansen@kellogghansen.com mguzman@kellogghansen.com dschwarz@kellogghansen.com AMERICAN HONDA: Caine Suit Seeks to Certify Two Class & Subclass ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Marc Caine, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-08610-PKC-AYS (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the following classes: New York Class: "All persons who purchased or leased any 2020-2022 Honda Pilot (all except LX), 2020 Honda Passport (all except Sport), 2021- 2022 Honda Passport, and 2020-2022 Honda Odyssey (all except LX) vehicle in the State of New York." Breach of Express Warranty Subclass: "All persons who (1) purchased or leased any 2020-2022 Honda Pilot (all except LX), 2020 Honda Passport (all except Sport), 2021-2022 Honda Passport, and 2020-2022 Honda Odyssey (all except LX) vehicle in the State of New York; and (2) presented their vehicle to a Honda dealership for a repair regarding their infotainment system (3) during the 3 year/36,000 miles Time and Mileage Period set forth in Honda's New Vehicle Limited Warranty." American develops and manufactures automobiles. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dvyUUO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sergei Lemberg, Esq. Stephen Taylor, Esq. Joshua Markovits, Esq. LEMBERG LAW, LLC 43 Danbury Road Wilton, CT 06897 Telephone: (203) 653-2250 Facsimile: (203) 653-3424 AMETROS FINANCIAL: Louisiana Seeks to Stay Class Cert Hearing ------------------------------------------------------------- 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-SD (M.D. La.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting its consent motion to stay hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and set the hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification for a later date. Ametros provides medicare set-aside post-settlement administration services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fJCKri at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: George B. Recile, Esq. Matthew A. Sherman, Esq. Adam M. Stumpf, Esq. Jeremy N. Gettes, 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 ANTHROPIC PBC: Seeks to Stay Proceeding Pending 9th Cir Appeal -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREA BARTZ, CHARLES GRAEBER, and KIRK WALLACE JOHNSON, v. ANTHROPIC PBC, Case No. 3:24-cv-05417-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant on Aug. 28, 2025, at 8:00 a.m., will move the Court for an order staying these proceedings pending the Ninth Circuit's resolution of Anthropic's forthcoming Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) petition for permission to appeal this Court's order granting class certification, to be filed with the Ninth Circuit by July 31, 2025, and any subsequent appeal; and, additionally, for an order staying these proceedings if the Court certifies the order denying in part Anthropic's motion for summary judgment for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. section 1292(b), which is set for hearing by the Court on Aug. 28, 2025. The Company contends the applicable factors all weigh strongly in favor of a stay: 1. Anthropic's Rule 23(f) petition has -- at a minimum -- the required fair prospect of success. 2. Anthropic will be irreparably injured absent a stay, as potentially millions of people and companies will receive class notice that may need to be retracted or modified substantially, creating confusion among potential plaintiffs and inflicting reputational harms on Anthropic that cannot be unwound. 3. A stay would not substantially injure Plaintiffs, who seek monetary damages and can continue to do so if they prevail on appeal. Finally, the public interest weighs in favor of a stay. In response, the Plaintiffs argue that Anthropic has shown no basis for a stay. They contend that the Court should deny Anthropic's request. The Plaintiffs remind the Court that weeks before summary judgment briefing began, Plaintiffs discovered that Anthropic torrented troves of books from two notorious criminal enterprises. The Court denied Anthropic's summary judgment motion on this basis and certified a class comprised of the owners of certain registered copyrights in the books Anthropic downloaded from LibGen and Pirate Library Mirror. Despite urgently requesting early summary judgment briefing, Anthropic now changes course and asks the Court to pause everything and deprive Plaintiffs -- and scores of copyright owners -- of their day in court. At the recent discovery hearing, the Court reminded all parties of the importance of sticking to the December 1 trial. The Plaintiffs point out that Anthropic identifies no substantial question likely to yield reversal in its not-yetfiled Rule 23(f) petition or its pending request for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1292(b). "Instead, Anthropic offers only speculative, self-serving, purported 'harms' that are indistinguishable from the ordinary burdens of litigation, while ignoring the harms suffered by Plaintiffs and class members whose pirated, copyrighted works remain in Anthropic's files to this day. Far from serving the public interest, a stay would reward Anthropic's strategy of hiding its conduct from the public and those harmed by its infringement," the Plaintiffs assert. Anthropic is an American artificial intelligence startup company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aLTpyW at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Kathleen R. Hartnett, Esq. Phraim Mcdowell, Esq. Alexander J. Kasner, Esq. COOLEY LLP 3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4004 Telephone: (415) 693-2000 Facsimile: (415) 693 2222 E-mail: khartnett@cooley.com emcdowell@cooley.com akasner@cooley.com - and - Daralyn J. Durie, Esq. Whitney R. O'Bryne, Esq. Ramsey W. Fisher, Esq. Jackson Lane, Esq. Fitz Beckwith Collings, Esq. Mary Prendergast, Esq. Aditya Vijay Kamdar, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 E-mail: Ddurie@mofo.com WOByrne@mofo.com RamseyFisher@mofo.com jlane@mofo.com fcollings@mofo.com MPrendergast@mofo.com AKamdar@mofo.com - and - Douglas A. Winthrop, Esq. Joseph Farris, Esq. Jessica L. Gillotte, Esq. Estayvaine Bragg, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP Three Embarcadero Center, 10th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4024 Telephone: (415) 471-3100 Facsimile: (415) 471-3400 E-mail: Douglas.Winthrop@arnoldporter.com Joseph.Farris@arnoldporter.com Jessica.Gillotte@arnoldporter.com Estayvaine.Bragg@arnoldporter.com - and - Mark Lemley, Esq. LEX LUMINA LLP 700 S. Flower Street, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 600-6063 E-mail: mlemley@lex-lumina.com APPLE INC: Court Dismisses Kapil Fraud Suit With Leave to Amend --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Sandeep Kapil, et al., Plaintiffs v. Apple, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 24-cv-09304-NW (N.D. Cal.), Judge Noel Wise of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss with leave to amend. The court noted that leave to amend should be freely granted when justice so requires, keeping in mind the underlying purpose of Rule 15 is to facilitate decision on the merits, rather than on the pleadings or technicalities. Plaintiffs were ordered to file an amended complaint within 21 days from this Order. The case represents a verified class action complaint. Plaintiffs bring claims on behalf of themselves, and all others similarly situated with a putative class made up of all persons who downloaded or otherwise used Digicoins, SolLuna or Forex5 from the Apple App Store within the relevant statutory period to the date notice is sent to the Class. Plaintiffs Sandeep Kapil, Kim Sallen, and Gabriela Gomez purchased Apple products and lost money in cryptocurrency scams. In August 2023, Plaintiff Kapil downloaded Digicoins, a cryptocurrency app, from Apple's App Store, and "began transferring money and buying cryptocurrency" via Digicoins, and eventually lost $1,236,000. In September and October 2023, Plaintiff Sallen downloaded Digicoins and Forex5, another cryptocurrency app, from the App Store, transferred money into the illegitimate apps, and eventually lost approximately $120,000. In October 2023, Plaintiff Gomez downloaded Digicoins and SolLuna, another cryptocurrency app, from the App Store, transferred funds into both apps, and eventually lost $72,000. Plaintiffs acknowledge that the illegitimate cryptocurrency apps perpetrated the scams and stole from them, not Apple. Plaintiffs sued Apple on December 20, 2024, bringing claims under California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), Civil Code Section 1750, et seq., and California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq. Apple moved to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint on March 7, 2025. The court addressed whether Plaintiffs have adequately alleged standing. To demonstrate Article III standing, a plaintiff must show an injury, trace that injury to the defendant's conduct, and prove that courts can provide adequate redress for the injury. "There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of—the injury has to be 'fairly . . . trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant. According to the Court, Plaintiffs allege that they were deceived as a result of their reliance on Defendant's material misrepresentations regarding "legitimacy, safety and security of App Store apps," which led them to invest money in scam apps and overpay for their Apple products. However, Plaintiffs fail to allege which specific statements by Apple materially impacted Plaintiffs' decision to download apps from the App Store and to purchase Apple products. Plaintiffs do not allege that Apple made any of the alleged misrepresentations before Plaintiffs purchased Apple products, downloaded the cryptocurrency apps that are at issue in this case, or made what they believed were legitimate cryptocurrency purchases on those apps. The court determined that Plaintiffs have therefore not traced their injury to Apple's conduct and have not adequately alleged standing. Defendant additionally moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief. A plaintiff who has been wronged is only entitled to injunctive relief if they can show that they face "real or immediate threat . . . that [they] will again be wronged in a similar way." According to the Court, Plaintiffs are not entitled to injunctive relief based on the allegations as currently pleaded in their complaint because those allegations relate solely to Apple's historic conduct and representations. Plaintiffs do not contend that they, nor the alleged class members, intend to download additional apps from Apple or purchase additional devices. Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged that they or the putative class members will be harmed in the future, and therefore have not established standing to bring claims for injunctive relief. Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims for restitution. Under the UCL and the CLRA, restitutionary relief is limited to money or property lost by the plaintiff and acquired by the defendant. Plaintiffs have not alleged that they paid Apple to download the cryptocurrency apps, nor that Apple acquired any of Plaintiffs' money that was stolen through the cryptocurrency scam. Further, as to Plaintiffs' allegations that they overpaid for their Apple products, Plaintiffs Sallen and Gomez assert they purchased Apple products through a third party and have not adequately alleged that Apple received the alleged overpayments. Therefore, Plaintiffs have not established standing to bring their claims for restitution. Plaintiffs allege that Apple failed to adequately vet predatory cryptocurrency scam apps and Apple's continuing misrepresentations that the apps in its App Store are vetted, safe and trustworthy induced Plaintiffs to download the apps and overpay for their Apple products. Plaintiffs' claims all sound in fraud. Claims sounding in fraud are subject to Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading standard, which requires that averments of fraud . . . be accompanied by "the who, what, when, where, and how" of the misconduct charged. Plaintiffs point to a variety of general statements and marketing messages from Apple, but do not sufficiently tie specific statements to each Plaintiff and to the claims and harm Plaintiffs allege in the complaint. Plaintiffs do not allege which particular statements from Apple they relied upon, when individual Plaintiffs reviewed the particular statements, and how Plaintiffs relied upon the specific statements when choosing to download the cryptocurrency apps or make purchases on those apps. Moreover, Plaintiffs must allege with specificity what was false or misleading about each of the alleged misrepresentations, or what information Apple omitted. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RoTePF APPLE INC: Court Dismisses Mirage Antitrust Suit Without Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as MIRAGE WINE + SPIRIT'S, INC., d/b/a MIRAGE WINE & SPIRITS, MARTLET MEADOWS FARM, LLC, d/b/a DOUBLE BUBBLE CAR WASH, PARCELLE LLC, d/b/a PARCELLE ORGANICS, FOGGY BOTTOM BOYS, LLC, and FAMILIA COFFEE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. APPLE INC., VISA INC., and MASTERCARD INCORPORATED, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-3942-DWD (S.D. Ill.), Judge David W. Dugan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action Complaint without prejudice. The court ordered that Plaintiffs shall file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint, if any, within 30 days. The court warned that failing to timely file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint will result in a dismissal of the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants Visa and Mastercard dominated the U.S. market for Point-of-Sale ('POS') Payment Card Network Services since the 1960s and long imposed inflated fees on Merchants for use of their POS Transaction Payment networks. According to the complaint, Defendant Apple with its iPhone and Apple Pay, allegedly could have disrupted that dominance and restored competition to the relevant market. The Plaintiffs claimed that instead of competing, Defendant Apple agreed with Defendants Visa and Mastercard to allocate the market. Specifically, they alleged Apple agreed "to not establish its own payment network, to prevent Apple Pay users from transferring funds from their bank accounts directly to merchants' bank accounts, and to protect Defendants Visa and Mastercard's payment networks by blocking competitors' access to Apple Wallet and its Near Field Communication ('NFC') technology. In exchange, Defendants allegedly agreed that Apple Pay transactions would run through Defendants Visa and Mastercard's payment networks and Defendant Apple would receive portions of the transaction fees, or 'cash bribes,' generated by the payment networks." The Plaintiffs described these payments as "15 basis points (i.e., 0.15%) on the value of all U.S. credit transactions and 0.5 cents ($0.005) on all U.S. debit transactions initiated with Apple Pay at the POS on their respective networks. The Plaintiffs alleged "per se violations of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Section 1) and the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. Sections 15 and 26)" claiming the agreements constituted horizontal market allocation agreements that were unlawful per se. They sought "monetary relief stemming from the inflated fees that were paid due to Defendants' 'unlawful agreement to restrain trade,' including treble damages, costs, and attorney fees" as well as injunctive relief. The Defendants argued that the allegations of per se unlawful horizontal market allocation agreements are belied by the PPAs (Payment Platform Agreements). They contended that those agreements, on which Plaintiffs' claim 'entirely relies,' set forth no unreasonable restraint of trade." Defendants emphasized that "contrary to Plaintiffs' allegations, the PPAs do not restrain Defendant Apple from creating or acquiring a competing payment network, using direct bank-to-bank transfers as a payment method in Apple Pay, or sharing its NFC technology with third--party application developers. Apple specifically argued that it never had a plan, intent, interest, or economic incentive to create its own payment network, stating that Apple Pay has always been premised on creating digital versions of consumers' existing payment cards for use on Apple's mobile devices in a private and secure way. The court conducted an independent review of the PPAs and found that "Defendants' arguments are confirmed by the PPAs' express terms." The court determined that the agreements showed "Defendants Visa and Mastercard merely bill and collect fees payable to Defendant Apple by payment-card issuers rather than merchant--bank acquirers like Plaintiffs" and that Defendant Apple reserved the unilateral right to change or suspend any aspect of Apple Pay at any time. Importantly, the court found that Defendant Apple retained the right to launch a competing payment network and Defendants Visa and Mastercard retained the right to suspend aspects of their relationships with Defendant Apple and that the PPAs are silent on bank-to-bank transfers and the access of competitors to Apple Wallet and the NFC technology. According to the court, Plaintiffs' allegations of per se horizontal market allocation agreements mischaracterize, and are actually contradicted by, the PPAs, which indicate Defendant Apple did not agree to refrain from creating a payment network, to restrict bank-to-bank transfers, or to bar the access of competitors to Apple Wallet and the NFC technology. The court stated that Plaintiffs' circumstantial allegations are too speculative and conclusory to adequately represent parallel conduct or plus factors that show Defendants violated Section 1 by entering per se horizontal market allocation agreements. The court was particularly critical of the speculative nature of the Plaintiffs' theory, noting that they premise those allegations, in part, on the dominance of Defendants in their respective markets while simultaneously alleging Defendant Apple is so dominant that it should have entered an entirely new market--the payment network market, which is admittedly dominated by, among few others, Defendants Visa and Mastercard. The court pointed out this was despite Plaintiffs' own allegation that the PPAs allow Defendant Apple to receive 'payments that initially amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars each year and are now worth billions of dollars each year.' The court found that Plaintiffs lack antitrust standing, such that they cannot bring this action. The court agreed "that Plaintiffs alleged injury is too indirect, remote, and speculative to support antitrust standing. The court explained that the injury is premised on the passing along of inflated fees, set by Defendants Visa and Mastercard and paid by merchant-bank acquirers to payment-card issuers, to merchants by the merchant-bank acquirers, and the sheer possibility that those fees would be lower if Defendant Apple was motivated to create a payment network that disintermediated Defendants Visa and Mastercard instead of building Apple Pay. A copy of the Court's Order and Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sZhhJA APRIA HEALTHCARE: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $6.375-MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Aljets of ClaimDepot reports that consumers who received actual or constructive notice from Apria Healthcare that their personal information may have been compromised due to illegal hacking events, may be eligible to claim up to $2,000 and a pro rata cash payment from a class action settlement. Apria Healthcare LLC has agreed to pay $6,375,000 to resolve a class action lawsuit alleging the company failed to adequately protect sensitive information from a data breach, and delayed notifying affected individuals after the cybersecurity incident occurred. Who is eligible for a data breach payout? Class members must meet the following criteria: -- Individuals who received constructive notice (such as a public announcement or indirect notification) that their information may have been impacted by the data breach -- Individuals who received a mailed notice from Apria Healthcare about the hacking events How much is the class action settlement payment? Class members may submit to receive one or both of the following benefits: -- Reimbursement for out-of-pocket losses or expenses: Class members can claim up to $2,000 per person, for documented monetary losses or expenses resulting from the illegal hacking event. Eligible expenses may include financial losses related to fraud or identity theft, professional fees, costs associated with credit monitoring or freezing/unfreezing credit and other miscellaneous fees or expenses. -- Pro rata cash payment: Class members can also submit a claim to receive an equal share of the remaining settlement fund after other claims, fees and costs are paid. Final payment amount will be determined by the total number of claims filed. How to claim a class action rebate To receive settlement payment, class members must submit a claim form by the deadline of Oct. 22, 2025. Individuals can submit the online claim form or print the PDF claim form to mail to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: In re Apria Data Breach Litigation, c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC, P.O. Box 225391, New York, NY 10150-5391 If you wish to receive your payment via electronic transfer (ACH), you must file your claim online and follow the instructions provided on the settlement website. Required proof and claim information -- Class Member ID from settlement notice required to submit a claim. -- Out-of-pocket losses or expenses claims require supporting documentation such as receipts, invoices for services, credit card and bank statements showing unreimbursed fees or fraudulent charges, police report and proof of fraudulent tax returns. Payout options -- Electronic payment (available only for online claimants) -- Check mailed to the address provided $6.38 Million data breach settlement fund The settlement fund of $6,375,000 will include: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $2,125,000 -- Litigation costs: Not to exceed $50,000 -- Service awards to class representatives: Up to $3,000 each -- Payments to approved claimants: Remaining settlement funds Important dates -- Opt-out (exclusion) deadline: Sept. 22, 2025 -- Objection deadline: Sept. 22, 2025 -- Deadline to file a claim: Oct. 22, 2025 -- Final approval hearing: Nov. 4, 2025 When is the Apria Healthcare settlement payout date? Payments will be issued to valid claimants after the court grants final approval of the settlement and any appeals are resolved. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit alleged that Apria Healthcare failed to properly protect the personal information of its customers and employees and did not have adequate data security measures in place in order to prevent the cybersecurity incident. Plaintiffs also claimed the organization delayed notifying affected individuals after the unauthorized access occurred. Apria denies the allegations but agreed to settle to avoid the expense and risk of continuing litigation. [GN] ARCIS GOLF: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $950,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Aljets of ClaimDepot reports that individuals who received a notification from Arcis Golf LLC stating that their personal information was or may have been compromised in a data incident around November 2023, may qualify to submit a claim for up to $5,000 in reimbursement for out-of-pocket losses and a cash payment of up to $300 from a class action settlement. Arcis Golf LLC agreed to pay $950,000 to resolve a class action lawsuit alleging it failed to implement and maintain reasonable security measures to protect personal identifying information, resulting in a data breach. Who is eligible for a data breach payout? Class members are individuals located in the United States who received a notification letter from Arcis Golf LLC informing them that their personal information was or may have been compromised in the November 2023 data incident. How much is the class action settlement payment? Eligible class members may claim one or both of the following benefits: -- Reimbursement for out-of-pocket losses: Claimants who experienced financial losses that can be traced to the data incident may submit a claim to receive up to $5,000 in unreimbursed expenses and losses. Qualifying expenses include: -- Unreimbursed monetary losses, fees and costs due to identity theft or fraud, falsified tax returns or other misuse of personal information -- Costs incurred on or after Nov. 13, 2023, for purchasing or extending credit monitoring and identity theft protection services or freezing/unfreezing credit reports -- Pro rata cash payment: All class members may claim an estimated cash payment of $50. The final payment amount may be adjusted due to the number of claims filed but will not exceed $300 per claimant. How to claim a data breach class action rebate To receive a settlement payment, class members must submit an online claim form or download and print the PDF claim form to mail or email to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Boles, et al. v. Arcis Golf LLC Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 301132, Los Angeles, CA 90030-1132 Settlement administrator's email address: info@arcisgolfsettlement.com All claim forms must be submitted online, postmarked or emailed by Oct. 21, 2025. Required proof and claim information -- To submit an online claim, class members must provide the claim ID and PIN from their settlement notice. -- To submit a claim for reimbursement of out-of-pocket losses, class members must supply supporting proof, such as receipts, bank or credit card statements showing unreimbursed losses or fees due to fraud or identity theft and proof of purchase for credit monitoring services or freezing/unfreezing accounts. Payout options Class members can choose to receive their payment by: -- Check mailed to the address provided -- Electronic payment $950,000 Arcis Golf settlement fund The settlement fund of $950,000 will include: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $313,500 -- Attorneys' expenses: Up to $20,000 -- Service awards to class representatives: $5,000 each ($10,000 total) -- Payments to approved claimants: Remaining settlement funds Important dates -- Deadline to opt out: Sept. 22, 2025 -- Deadline to file a claim: Oct. 21, 2025 -- Final approval hearing: Nov. 12, 2025 When is the Arcis Golf data breach settlement payout date? Payments will be issued to class members with valid claims after the court grants final approval of the settlement and claim processing is complete. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit alleged Arcis Golf LLC failed to implement reasonable security measures to protect personal information, which led to a data breach in November 2023. Arcis Golf denies these allegations but agreed to settle to avoid the risks and costs of ongoing litigation. [GN] ARISA HEALTH: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $1.9MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions Arisa Health has agreed to a $1.9 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims that it failed to prevent a 2024 data breach that compromised sensitive patient information. The settlement benefits individuals who were identified as being among those individuals impacted by the Incident, including all who were sent a notice of the Incident. In March 2024, Arisa Health announced that it had been the victim of a data breach that compromised sensitive patient information. According to the breach announcement, hackers gained access to names, Social Security numbers, medical information, health insurance data, driver's license numbers and other sensitive information. Plaintiffs in the data breach class action lawsuit claimed Arisa Health failed to implement basic protections such as multifactor authentication. Arisa Health is a behavioral health organization that provides services in Arkansas. Arisa Health has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to this payment to resolve the data breach class action allegations. Under the terms of the settlement, class members may receive up to $5,000 for documented losses and expenses related to the data breach. This compensation can cover unreimbursed fraud or identity theft losses, credit monitoring costs, bank fees, communication charges, travel expenses and more. Class members can also receive a smaller payment of $70 without documentation of losses. All class members are eligible for three years of free credit monitoring services. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Aug. 12, 2025. The final approval hearing for the Arisa Health data breach settlement is scheduled for Sept. 24, 2025. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Aug. 27, 2025. Who's Eligible Individuals who were identified by Arisa Health as being impacted by the data breach, including those who received a notice of the incident. Potential Award $70 cash pay out and up to $5,000 documented losses and expenses. Proof of Purchase Receipts or other documentation not "self-prepared" by the claimant that documents the costs incurred. "Self-prepared" documents such as handwritten receipts are, by themselves, insufficient to receive reimbursement, but can be considered to add clarity or support to other submitted documentation. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 08/27/2025 Case Name Rebecca Miller, et al. v. Arisa Health Inc., Case No. 36CV-24-177, in the Circuit Court of Johnson County, Arkansas Final Hearing 09/24/2025 Settlement Website ArisaHealthDataIncident.com Claims Administrator Kroll Settlement Administration LLC P.O. Box 225391 New York, NY 10150-5391 Exclusions@ArisaHealthDataIncident.com (833) 420-3948 Class Counsel J. Gerard Stranch IV STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY PLLC Gary M. Klinger MILBERG COLEMAN BRYAN PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC Jeff Ostrow KOPELWITZ OSTROW PA James A. Streett THE STREETT LAW FIRM PA Defense Counsel Michael J. McGlynn MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP [GN] AUDI CANADA: CAD$240,000 Settlement in Breach Suit Gets Court OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo Finance reports that on May 20, 2025, the Superior Court of Quebec approved the settlement of a class action lawsuit commenced against Audi Canada Inc. ("Audi") bearing Superior Court of Quebec Court File No.: 500-06 001152-210. The lawsuit alleged that Audi is liable for a data incident which may have compromised the personal information belonging to its clients and/or potential clients (the "Data Incident"). Audi denies any wrongdoing, and none of the allegations of the lawsuit have been proven. The Class Members are the Quebec residents whose personal Information held by Audi was compromised in a data breach which occurred on or before March 10, 2021, or who received an email or letter from Audi dated on or about June 11, 2021, informing them of such data breach. Audi has agreed to provide a fund of CAD $240,000 to settle the lawsuit. Class members who have suffered damages, losses, costs and/or unreimbursed expenses caused by the Data Incident would be eligible for the reimbursement of such damages up to a maximum of CAD $5,000. Class members who do not have documentation or proof of out-of-pocket damages and who submit a claim would be entitled to up to a maximum of CAD $200 to indemnify them for lost time or other damages suffered. If the total amount of valid claims by Settlement Class Members exceeds the total amount allocated for either the Documented Claims or the Undocumented Claims, the individual payments to Settlement Class Members may be reduced on a pro rata basis (proportionally). The period for submitting a claim begins on July 28, 2025, and runs until October 27, 2025, at 11:59 PM EST. [GN] AW DISTRIBUTING: Class Cert Bid Filing in Whiten Due Sept. 1, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Diane Whiten, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Decedent Michael Robins, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AW Distributing, Inc., AW Product Sales & Marketing, Inc., Falcon Safety Products, Inc., Norazza, Inc., and Technical Chemical Company, Case No. 4:23-cv-00209-WMR (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge William Ray II entered an amended scheduling order as follows: Event Proposed Deadline Substantial Completion of Document Production for All Defendants: Dec. 19, 2025 Completion non-expert discovery: Feb. 20, 2026 Completion of all expert discovery: July 3, 2026 Deadline for Post-Discovery Settlement Conference: July 17, 2026 Summary judgment, Daubert, and class certification motion deadline: Sept. 1, 2026 Summary judgment, Daubert, and class certification motion response deadline: Oct. 21, 2026 Summary judgment, Daubert, and class certification motion reply deadline : Nov. 11, 2026 AW is a global distributor of consumer products. A copy of the Court's order dated July 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NxmnBc at no extra charge.[CC] BAYER AG: $38MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 30 ------------------------------------------------------- SHEET METAL WORKERS' NATIONAL PENSION FUND and CLASS ACTION INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS LOCAL NO. 710 PENSION FUND, individually and as Lead Plaintiffs on behalf of all others similarly situated, and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS PENSION FUND OF EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA AND DELAWARE, individually and as Named Plaintiff, on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, WERNER BAUMANN, WERNER WENNING, LIAM CONDON, JOHANNES DIETSCH, and WOLFGANG NICKL, Defendants. Case No.: 3:20-cv-04737-RS SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES Judge: Richard Seeborg Courtroom: 3 -- 17th Floor TO: All persons who purchased or acquired Bayer Aktiengesellschaft ("Bayer") American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") from May 23, 2016 to July 6, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby (the "Class"). PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY; YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, that Court-appointed Class Representatives Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund and International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local No. 710 Pension Fund (collectively, "Lead Plaintiffs"), and additional named plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers Pension Fund of Eastern Pennsylvania and Delaware (collectively with Lead Plaintiffs, "Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and the other members of the certified Class; and Defendants Bayer Aktiengesellschaft ("Bayer" or the "Company"), Werner Baumann, Werner Wenning, Liam Condon, Johannes Dietsch, and Wolfgang Nickl (collectively with Bayer, "Defendants"), have reached a proposed settlement of the class action (the "Action") and related claims in the amount of $38,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement") that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action. A hearing will be held on October 30, 2025 at 1:30 p.m., before the Honorable Richard Seeborg either in person at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Courthouse, Courtroom 3 -- 17th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, or by telephone or videoconference, to determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated April 23, 2025 (and in the Notice), should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable, and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and Litigation Expenses should be approved. The Court may change the date of the Settlement Hearing, or hold it remotely, without providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund. If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by the proposed Settlement, and you may be entitled to a monetary payment from the Settlement. If you have not yet received the Notice and Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at Bayer Securities Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173084, Milwaukee, WI 53217; calling toll-free (800) 524-0614; or emailing info@BayerADRSecuritiesLitigation.com. Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the Settlement website, www.BayerADRSecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a member of the Class, to be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form to the Claims Administrator postmarked (or submitted online) no later than October 16, 2025. If you are a Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you previously submitted a request for exclusion from the Class in connection with the Class Notice mailed in 2023 and want to opt back into the Class and be eligible to receive a payment, you must request to opt back into the Class by submitting a written request in accordance with the instructions in the Settlement Notice such that the request is received no later than October 9, 2025. If you previously excluded yourself from the Class in connection with the Class Notice and do not opt back into the Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court related to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and Litigation Expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than October 9, 2025, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's Office, Defendants, or their counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Claims Administrator or Lead Counsel. Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to: Bayer ADR Securities Litigation c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 173084 Milwaukee, WI 53217 Tel.: (800) 524-0614 info@BayerADRSecuritiesLitigation.com www.BayerADRSecuritiesLitigation.com Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form or for information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Lead Counsel: Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC Attn: Carol V. Gilden 200 S. Wacker Drive Suite 2375 Chicago, IL 60606 Tel.: (312) 357-0370 Email: cgilden@cohenmilstein.com Dated: July 21, 2025 By Order of the Court BEENVERIFIED LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 29, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FREDERICK B. COLLINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BEENVERIFIED, LLC and THE LIFETIME VALUE CO. LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02577-AT (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Analisa Torres entered a civil case management plan and scheduling order: Any motion to amend or to join additional parties shall be on or before Jan. 30, 2026. All fact discovery shall be completed no later than Nov. 30, 2026. Depositions for expert witnesses to be completed by April 23, 2027. All expert discovery shall be completed no later than May 7, 2027. The deadline to file a motion for class certification shall be Jan. 29, 2027. The deadline for Plaintiff to disclose experts with respect to class certification shall be Jan. 29, 2027. The deadline for Defendants to file an opposition to the motion for class certification shall be March 19, 2027. The deadline for Plaintiff to file a reply in support of the motion for class certification shall be May 7, 2027. The deadline to file a summary judgment motion shall be Dec. 22, 2026. The deadline to file a Daubert motion shall be May 7, 2027. BeenVerified is a background check company that provides consumer initiated criminal background and people search services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EGDLKu at no extra charge.[CC] BEST BUY: Faces Locicero Class Suit Over Civil Rights Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANGELO LOCICERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BEST BUY STORES, L.P., a foreign limited partnership, et al., Case No. 25-2-21551-2 SEA (Wash. Super, King Cty., July 24, 2025) is a class action lawsuit to remedy Defendants' ongoing violation of Plaintiff and Class members' civil rights. Effective Jan. 1, 2023, employers with 15 or more employees must disclose, in each posting for each job opening, the wage scale or salary range and a general description of all of the benefits and other compensation being offered to the hired applicant. The Washington Legislature finds that "despite existing equal pay laws, there continues to be a gap in wages and advancement opportunities among workers in Washington." The Legislature further finds that "lower starting salaries translate into lower pay, less family income, and more children and families in poverty." The lawsuit follows important, recent research which revealed pervasive pay disparity in Washington with respect to both women and other protected classes. In particular, the study found that women are paid 78 cents for every dollar paid to men -- a decline from 80 cents to the dollar a decade ago. See Alison Saldanha, Seattle's pay gap between women and men just won't stop growing (Mar. 8, 2024), https://www.seattletimes.com/business/seattle-hits-rock-bottom-in-terms-of-the-pay-gap-between-women-and-men/. The Defendants include BBC PROPERTY CO., a foreign profit corporation; BBY HOLDINGS INTERNATIONAL, INC., a foreign profit corporation; BBY SERVICES, INC., a foreign profit corporation; BBY TECHNOLOGY SERVICES, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; BEST BUY HEALTH, INC., a foreign profit corporation; BEST BUY PRODUCT PROTECTION, INC., a foreign profit corporation; BEST BUY PURCHASING LLC, a foreign limited liability company; BEST BUY WAREHOUSING LOGISTICS, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Paul Cipriani, Esq. Hannah M. Hamley, Esq. EMERY | REDDY, PLLC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 442-9106 Facsimile: (206) 441-9711 E-mail: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com paul@emeryreddy.com hannah@emeryreddy.com BLIBAUM AND ASSOCIATES: Phased Discovery Ordered in Dixon Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Danielle Dixon and Shaul Dixon v. Blibaum and Associates, P.C., et al., Civil Action No. JRR-24-0029 (D. Md.), Magistrate Judge Chelsea J. Crawford of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland ordered discovery to proceed in phases in this putative class action concerning unlicensed rental properties. Plaintiffs Danielle and Shaul Dixon are residents of The Bluffs at Hawthorne, an apartment community in Howard County, Maryland. Defendant Henderson-Webb, Inc. serves as the property manager and general partner of The Bluffs. Plaintiffs allege that between July 7, 2022, and July 6, 2023, Henderson-Webb operated The Bluffs without a valid rental license. Plaintiffs entered a lease to reside at The Bluffs on September 14, 2022, and fell behind on rent payments thereafter. Henderson-Webb attempted to collect on the unpaid rent through a web payment portal system. Defendant Blibaum and Associates, P.A., a law firm that performed debt collection services on behalf of Henderson-Webb, filed two actions against Plaintiffs in the District Court for Howard County for Plaintiffs' failure to pay rent. In both actions, Blibaum sought unpaid rent from Plaintiffs for a period during which The Bluffs was allegedly unlicensed. The Complaint includes two class definitions: CLASS 1 - Defendant Blibaum and Associates, P.A.: "All tenants of any Unlicensed Property who were sued in a failure-to-pay rent case or otherwise had collection efforts directed towards them with respect to Unlicensed Rent by Defendant Blibaum and Associates, P.A. within one year of the filing of this lawsuit." CLASS 2 - Defendant Henderson-Webb, Inc.: "All tenants of any Unlicensed Property who, within three years of the filing of this lawsuit: (a) Made rental payments through a payment portal set up by Defendant Henderson-Webb, Inc. or its agents that provided purported rental balances during any Unlicensed Period, and/or; (b) Who did not timely make one or more rental payments for Unlicensed Rent and had other collection activities directed towards them by Defendant Henderson-Webb, Inc. or its agents regarding the Unlicensed Rent. The dispute pertained to a disagreement between the parties about the appropriate scope of discovery in this putative class action case. Plaintiffs argued that they are entitled to broad discovery as to the putative class members, whereas Defendants contended that the factual allegations in the Complaint narrowly relate to the two named Plaintiffs and, therefore, discovery should be tailored accordingly. The Court found that Defendants established good cause to excuse their delay in providing written objections, and their written objections are not waived. The Court declined to bind Defendants to the scope of discovery as set out in an Initial Joint Status Report prepared by Defendants' prior counsel at the outset of this case. Regarding the substantive discovery issue, the Court noted that Plaintiffs have brought a putative class action on behalf of themselves and other Maryland tenants who were subject to debt collection activities for unpaid rent in properties that lacked a rental license. While the Complaint only provides specific allegations relating to the named Plaintiffs at The Bluffs, the class definitions encompass a much larger group, to which Plaintiffs are entitled to discovery for class certification purposes. The Court acknowledged that Defendants stated there are more than 40 Henderson-Webb properties across Maryland with tenants totaling in the thousands, plus an additional unidentified number of properties for which Blibaum performed debt collection activities. The Court ordered that discovery beyond the named Plaintiffs be limited to only the rental licensure status of Henderson-Webb's other Maryland properties and any failure-to-pay rent actions filed by Blibaum within the timeframes set out in the class definitions. Specifically, with respect to Class 1, Plaintiffs may obtain information regarding any failure-to-pay rent actions filed by Blibaum in Maryland within one year of the filing of the instant lawsuit, ruled Mag. Judge Crawford. With respect to Class 2, Plaintiffs may obtain information regarding the rental licensure status of Henderson-Webb's other Maryland properties within three years of the filing of the instant lawsuit, she added. The Court may order further discovery of debt collection activities, rental ledgers, etc., if the aforementioned discovery reveals evidence that other properties lacked valid rental licenses. The parties should jointly advise the Court whether such discovery is appropriate upon completion of this initial phase of discovery and indicate whether an extension of discovery is warranted in light of this Order. A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DBIgRp BNSF RAILWAY: Donnelly Appeals Summary Judgment Order to D.D.C. --------------------------------------------------------------- DONNELLY COMMODITIES INCORPORATED, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendants' motions for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled In re: Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation - MDL No. 1869, Case No. 1:07-mc-00489-BAH, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. This antitrust litigation challenges fuel surcharges imposed by the four largest freight railroad companies in the United States as they responded to volatile oil prices in the early 2000s. The Plaintiffs, hundreds of customers shipping freight on these railroads, brought antitrust claims against BNSF Railway Co., CSX Transportation, Inc., Norfolk Southern Railway Co., and Union Pacific Railroad Co., alleging that they conspired to impose coordinated, aggressive, and universal fuel surcharges (FSCs), in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act. The Defendants filed motions for summary judgment, which Judge Beryl A. Howell granted on June 24, 2025. The evidentiary motions of both the Plaintiffs and Defendants are denied as moot. The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs' inferences are not sustainable. Upon close inquiry, their evidence lacks the crucial thrust of a conspiracy claim: facts that tend to exclude the possibility that the Defendants acted unilaterally and made their decisions independently, even if they acted in a way that was consciously parallel to one another in a tight oligopoly. Without such evidence, the Plaintiffs cannot survive summary judgment. The appellate case is entitled In re: Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, et al. v. BNSF Railway Company, et al., Case No. 25-7103, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, filed on July 25, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants DONNELLY COMMODITIES INCORPORATED, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1200 17th Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 - and - Sami H. Rashid, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP 295 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 849-7000 Defendants-Appellees BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, et al. are represented by: Benjamin J. Horwich, Esq. MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 560 Mission Street, 27th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 512-4066 Intervenors-Appellees SOUTHERN COMPANY, et al. are represented by: Gabriela Richeimer, Esq. WERNER AHARI MANGEL LLP 2112 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (202) 599-1092 - and - Nathan P. Eimer, Esq. EIMER STAHL LLP 224 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1100 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 660-7600 - and - William J. Blechman, Esq. SPERLING KENNY NACHWALTER, LLC 1441 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1100 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 373-1000 BONE & JOINT: Agrees to Settle Ransomware Class Suit for $575,000 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Alder of HIPAA Journal reports that Bone & Joint Clinic S.C. has agreed to pay $575,000 to settle a class action lawsuit stemming from a January 2023 security incident that affected 105,094 current and former patients and employees. Bone & Joint is an orthopedic and pain management clinical practice in Northcentral Wisconsin. On January 16, 2025, a security incident was identified that caused network disruption. An unauthorized third party accessed its network, used ransomware to encrypt files, and may have obtained protected health information such as names, contact information, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, health insurance information, diagnoses, treatment information, and other sensitive data. Lawsuits were filed by four Bone & Joint Clinic patients, which were consolidated into a single complaint -- Keith Tesky, et al. vs. Bone & Joint Clinic, S.C., -- in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. The lawsuits claimed that the practice failed to implement reasonable and appropriate safeguards to protect sensitive employee and patient data. The consolidated lawsuit asserted claims of negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, unfair and deceptive business practices, and a violation of Wisconsin law, which prohibits the unauthorized release of healthcare information. Bone & Joint Clinic denies any wrongdoing and maintains there is no liability; however, a settlement was agreed to avoid the burden and expense of litigation. Under the terms of the settlement, class members may submit a claim for reimbursement of documented, unreimbursed out-of-pocket losses fairly traceable to the data breach up to a maximum of $5,000 per class member. Class members may also submit a claim for a pro rata cash payment, which is expected to be $75, but may be higher or lower depending on the number of valid claims received. The cash payments will be paid from the remainder of the settlement after attorneys' fees (up to $191,475), attorneys' expenses (up to $20,000), service awards (up to $2,000 for each of the four named plaintiffs), and settlement administration costs have been deducted. The deadline for exclusion from and objection to the settlement is September 15, 2025. Claims must be submitted by October 15, 2025, and the final fairness hearing has been scheduled for January 7, 2025. [GN] BREEZE HOLDINGS: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With YD Biopharma ------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Breeze Holdings Acquisition Corp. (OTC: BRZH), relating to its proposed merger with YD Biopharma Limited. Under the terms of the agreement, all Breeze Holdings ordinary shares will be converted into the right to receive one ordinary share of the surviving company. Is it a fair deal? ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for August 14, 2025. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/breeze-holdings-acquisition-corp-2/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] BTL INDUSTRIES: King Sues Over Deceptive Marketing Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ NICOLE KING, an individual; COSMO CONTOUR & SPA LLC, a California limited liability company; JENNIFER TABIZA, an individual; and JENNIFER TABIZA OPTOMETRIST, APC, a California professional corporation, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BTL Industries, Inc et al, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-06658 (C.D. Cal., July 21, 2025), arises from Defendants' fraudulent, deceptive and exploitative marketing and sales practices in the medical aesthetics industry. The Plaintiffs bring this action individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated purchasers of cosmetic medical devices produced, sold, and financed by Defendants, who were induced through Defendants' false pretenses to enter fraudulent, misleading and deceptive sales and financing agreements with the Defendants to purchase cosmetic medical devices. Allegedly, Defendant BTL Industries, Inc. facilitated financing through third party lenders, inducing Plaintiffs through false pretenses to enter high-interest financing agreements amassing hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt. Among other things, BTL Industries, Inc. failed to provide post-purchase marketing support to drive sales to Plaintiffs' businesses. Plaintiffs now bring this action pursuant to the Unfair Competition Law, the False Advertising Law, the Cartwright Act, and common law claims. Headquartered in Marlborough, MA, BTL Industries, Inc. is a privately-owned global manufacturer of medical and aesthetic equipment, namely Emsculpt Neo, Emface, Emsella, EmTone, Exion, and ExoMind devices. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Helen I. Zeldes, Esq. Amy Johnsgard, Esq. SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS HOFFMAN & ZELDES, LLP 501 W. Broadway, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 400-4990 E-mail: hzeldes@sshhzlaw.com ajohnsgard@sshhzlaw.com - and - Joshua A. Fields, Esq. SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS HOFFMAN & ZELDES, LLP 9415 Culver Blvd., #115 Culver City, CA 90232-2616 Telephone: (619) 400-4990 E-mail: jfields@sshhzlaw.com CALIFORNIA CEMETERY: Quevedo Loses Bid to Move Suit to Super. Court ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Oscar Quevedo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. California Cemetery and Funeral Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. CV 24-10509 FMO (MARx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Fernando M. Olguin of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denies the Plaintiff's motion to remand the case to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. On October 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed a putative wage-and-hour class action in state court against California Cemetery and Funeral Services, LLC, asserting claims for violations of the California Labor Code and California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq. The Plaintiff alleged that "Defendants maintained a systematic, company-wide policy and practice of" unpaid minimum wage, overtime, and commissions, meal-and-rest period violations, failure to timely pay final wages at termination, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failure to indemnify employees for expenditures. The Plaintiff sought to represent a class comprised of "all other persons who have been employed by any Defendant in California as an hourly-paid or non-exempt employee during the statute of limitations period applicable to the claims pleaded here." On December 6, 2024, the Defendant removed the action pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). Judge Olguin noted that CAFA provides expanded original diversity jurisdiction for class actions meeting the amount in controversy and minimal diversity and numerosity requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2). Under CAFA, "district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action in which the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is a class action in which any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any defendant." Judge Olguin emphasized that "no antiremoval presumption attends cases invoking CAFA, which Congress enacted to facilitate adjudication of certain class actions in federal court" and that "Congress intended CAFA to be interpreted expansively." The Plaintiff contended that diversity jurisdiction does not exist because the Defendant has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount-in-controversy exceeds the $5 million CAFA threshold. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant's calculations are unreasonable, based on speculative assumptions, and lack evidentiary support. The Plaintiff challenged the Defendant's assumption of a weekly or 20% violation rate for its calculations, contending that the Defendant's violation rate assumption is effectively 100% because the Defendant assumes all employees experienced a violation in every week they worked." The Plaintiff also noted the lack of evidence regarding: (1) the hourly wage rate; (2) The average length of shifts worked by class members; (3) Whether the class members were part-time or full-time employees; (4) Whether every single shift worked was long enough to warrant meal and/or rest breaks; (5) The meal and rest period violations experienced by class members; and (6) The number of days they worked per week. In the Notice of Removal, the Defendant explained that while the class size is likely to exceed 2,000, it assumed a "class size of 780" in order to be conservative in its calculations. The Defendant assumed a weekly violation rate for the failure to pay minimum wage and overtime, and the failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks. Based on these estimates, coupled with calculations for waiting time penalties, failure to provide wage statements, and 33% for attorney's fees, the Defendant initially estimated the amount-in-controversy to be nearly $16 million. In response to the Plaintiff's Motion, the Defendant submitted additional evidence including a declaration from an individual responsible for payroll services. According to this declaration, "at least 780 employees worked as either non-exempt or hourly-paid employees and were paid a commission during the relevant time period," "the average hourly wage for the proposed class is $15.25," and the average number of workweeks is 147.59. Based on these figures, the Defendant re-calculated the claims and assumed 25% for attorney's fees, bringing the total estimated amount-in-controversy to just over $12 million. Judge Olguin applied the established legal standard that "a defendant's amount in controversy allegation is normally accepted when invoking CAFA jurisdiction, unless it is contested by the plaintiff or questioned by the court." When a plaintiff mounts a factual attack, the burden is on the defendant to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds the $5 million jurisdictional threshold. The court noted that the amount-in-controversy "does not mean likely or probable liability; rather, it refers to possible liability" and "reflects the maximum recovery the plaintiff could reasonably recover." The court emphasized that "when the defendant relies on a chain of reasoning that includes assumptions to satisfy its burden of proof, the chain of reasoning and its underlying assumptions must be reasonable ones" and that the underlying assumptions cannot be pulled from thin air. The court rejected the Plaintiff's challenges to the Defendant's supporting declaration, finding that "the declarations, coupled with the allegations in the Complaint, are sufficient to support defendant's amount-in-controversy calculations." Judge Olguin noted that a declaration from a knowledgeable employee along with allegations in the complaint can satisfy the defendant's burden, even without other evidence such as payroll or timekeeping records. Applying the standard that "CAFA's requirements are to be tested by consideration of real evidence and the reality of what is at stake in the litigation, using reasonable assumptions underlying the defendant's theory of damages exposure," the court found that the Defendant's evidence and calculations were sufficient. Based on the declarations from counsel and the payroll representative, coupled with the allegations in the complaint, the court concluded that the Defendant had met its burden of demonstrating that the amount in controversy exceeds CAFA's $5 million threshold with reasonable assumptions supported by real evidence. Therefore, the court denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. The case will proceed in federal court under CAFA jurisdiction. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=N3ahKf CALIFORNIA WASTE: Pina Sues Over Unlawful Wage and Hour Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- MANUEL PINA, on behalf of himself and current and former aggrieved employees, Plaintiff v. CALIFORNIA WASTE SERVICES LLC and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV21458 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 21, 2025) arises from Defendants' illegal wage and hour practices or policies that violate the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the California Labor Code and/or any provision of the Industrial Welfare Commission's wage orders regulating hours and days of work. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to authorize or permit legally required and compliant meal periods to Plaintiff and other current and former aggrieved California-based hourly non-exempt employees. Instead, Defendants often interrupted Plaintiff and similarly situated employees' unpaid meal periods and required them to perform work tasks, while off-the-clock, without paying them for such work time. California Waste Services LLC provides waste management services in Los Angeles, CA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq. Daniel C. Keller, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com vgranberry@lelawfirm.com jklein@lelawfirm.com dkeller@lelawfirm.com CANVAS ENERGY: Fails to Pay Late Payments' Interest, Wake Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wake Energy, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Canvas Energy LLC, formerly known as Chaparral Energy, L.L.C., Case No. 6:25-cv-00249-JAR (E.D. Okla., July 23, 2025) concerns the Defendant's willful and ongoing violations of Oklahoma law related to the interest owed on untimely payments of proceeds derived from the sale of oil and gas production to those legally entitled thereto pursuant to the Oklahoma's Production Revenue Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant knows it is bound by statute to pay interest on late payments, but has consistently ignored these obligations and deliberately violated Oklahoma law. The Defendant does not automatically pay the interest it owes on untimely payments of oil and gas proceeds. Instead, it has a policy of only paying statutory interest when those legally entitled thereto demand it, despite the fact that no such demand requirement exists. The Plaintiff brings this class action to recover damages for itself and all similarly situated owners who received untimely payments from Defendant for which it did not pay the interest required by the PRSA. The Plaintiff owns an oil and gas interest for which Defendant owed a duty under Oklahoma law to timely remit proceeds to Plaintiff. The Defendant is in the business of producing oil and gas and constituent products from the oil and gas properties in which the class members hold interests.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randy C. Smith, Esq. RANDY C. SMITH AND ASSOCIATES One Leadership Square, Suite 1310 211 N. Robinson Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 641-8662 E-mail: randy@rcsmithlaw.com CAPE COD: Goulart Appeals ECPA Suit Dismissal to 1st Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------ DEBRA GOULART, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Debra Goulart, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Cape Cod Healthcare, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10445-RGS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiffs Debra Goulart and Michael Garbitt filed this putative class action claiming that Defendant Cape Cod Healthcare, Inc. (CCHC), through internet-tracking technologies, unlawfully disclosed their private health-related information and personally identifiable information to Facebook and Google, in violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510 (ECPA). On Mar. 17, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. On May 23, 2025, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On June 24, 2025, Judge Richard G. Stearns entered an Order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Court found that the complaint fails for a basic reason. It fails to plausibly allege that CCHC's "primary motivation" or "determinative factor" in disclosing the Plaintiffs' personal health information through the software-tracking technology to Facebook and Google was for the purpose of committing a criminal violation or tort, as opposed to commercial gain or convenience. The Court granted CCHC's motion to dismiss the ECPA claim because there are no factual allegations in the complaint from which the Court could conclude that CCHC, a non-profit hospital system, installed Meta Pixel and software-tracking technology with the "primary motivation" of knowingly committing a violation of HIPAA or perpetrating a tort. Consistent with the guidance of the First Circuit, the Court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims and directed the Clerk to remand these claims to the Suffolk County Superior Court. The appellate case is captioned Goulart, et al. v. Cape Cod Healthcare, Inc., Case No. 25-1672, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on July 23, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants DEBRA GOULART, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Nathan Campbell, Esq. Foster Calhoun Johnson, Esq. David Warden, Esq. AHMAD ZAVITSANOS & MENSING PLLC 1221 McKinney St., Ste. 2500 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 655-1101 - and - Brett R. Corson, Esq. Ryan M. Hawkins, Esq. Erin Elizabeth McHugh, Esq. Jonathan Tucker Merrigan, Esq. SWEENEY MERRIGAN LAW LLP 268 Summer St. Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 391-9001 - and - Alex Dravillas, Esq. Seth Meyer, Esq. KELLER POSTMAN LLC 150 N. Riverside Plz. Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 741-5220 Defendant-Appellee CAPE COD HEALTHCARE, INC. is represented by: Adam J. Bookbinder, Esq. April C. DeLuca, Esq. Mark W. McPherson, Esq. Samuel Newland Rudman, Esq. CHOATE HALL & STEWART LLP 2 International Pl. Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 248-5000 CAREDX INC: $20.25MM Settlement Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS LOCAL UNION No. 295 PENSION FUND, et al., v. CAREDX, INC., et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-03023-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Trina Thompson entered an order granting the parties' motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The Court modifies deadlines set in its prior order. The summary of key dates are: Class data to be provided to Settlement Aug. 1, 2025 Administrator: Class Notice to be sent by: Aug. 14, 2025 Motion for Final Approval to be filed by: Sept. 30, 2025 Class Counsel to file their motion for fees Sept. 30, 2025 and costs and Class Representative awards: Class counsel and settlement administrator Oct. 28, 2025 to submit supplemental statements regarding status of notice: Fairness and Final Approval Hearing: Dec. 2, 2025, On April 18, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their motion to certify class, appoint class representatives, and appoint class counsel. On May 16, 2025, the parties stipulated to vacate the class certification motion, notifying the Court that they had reached a settlement in principle. On May 23, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The Settlement Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit 1, defines the class as: "All persons or entities who purchased CareDx, Inc. common stock between May 1, 2020 and Nov. 3, 2022, inclusive, and were damaged thereby." Excluded from the Class are the Defendants, the officers and directors of the Company, at all relevant times, members of their immediate families, and their legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, and any entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest. Also excluded from the Class are those persons and entities who timely and validly request exclusion from the Class pursuant to the Notice. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, without admitting liability, Defendants will pay $20,250,000 into the Escrow Account, which amount, plus any interest accrued thereon, comprises the Settlement Fund. This amount includes attorneys’ fees and costs, the cost of class notice and settlement administration, and the class representatives’ service award. Under the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs’ counsel agreed to seek up to $6,075,000 in attorneys’ fees (30% of the settlement fund)1 and no more than $450,000 in litigation costs. The common settlement fund also includes a provision for up to $7,500 each to be paid to each Lead Plaintiff as an incentive award, totaling $15,000. The class administrator estimates that that total notice and administration costs will be approximately $285,000. ECF 177-3, ¶ 27. CareDx develops, markets, and delivers a diagnostic surveillance solution for heart transplant recipients. A copy of the Court's order dated July 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7oKpcf at no extra charge.[CC] CERNER CORP: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Evans Says -------------------------------------------------------------- JASON EVANS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CERNER CORPORATION, D/B/A ORACLE HEALTH, INC. and MOSAIC LIFE CARE, Case No. 4:25-cv-00575-BCW (W.D. Mo., July 24, 2025) arises out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against the Defendants, which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and other current and former patients of Defendants, the putative class members. The Data Breach occurred on or about January 22, 2025. On June 27, 2025, the Defendants mailed Plaintiff a letter advising him that the Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included certain personal or protected health information of his. This Private Information included but is not limited to his Social Security number, driver's license number, date of birth, treating physician, dates of service, medication information, insurance information and treatment and/or diagnostic information. Accordingly, the Private Information was acquired by cyber-criminals who perpetrated the attack and remains in the hands of those cyber-criminals. The Data Breach resulted from Defendants' failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' Private Information with which they were entrusted for treatment. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former patients of Defendants. Mosaic is a healthcare provider -- and Defendant Oracle is a third-party vendor that provides data migration services to Mosaic.s [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John F. Garvey, Esq. Colleen Garvey, Esq. J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 701 Market Street, Suite 1510 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 390-6750 E-mail: jgarvey@stranchlaw.com cgarvey@stranchlaw.com gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com CHARLES BARATTA: Court Refuses to Dismiss VanderSloot TCPA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Matthew VanderSloot, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Charles Baratta LLC, doing business as Prime Marketing, Defendant, Case No. 24-cv-07096 (E.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint with prejudice. The Court also vacated the stay of discovery ordered on February 7, 2025, and the parties were directed to meet and confer to prepare and file on July 23, 2025. The stay of discovery ordered on February 7, 2025, is vacated, and the parties are directed to meet and confer to prepare and file on. A proposed scheduling order that addresses: end date for fact discovery; dates for expert reports and disclosures in chief and rebuttal; and end date of expert discovery. The Court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiff Matthew VanderSloot commenced this action on October 8, 2024, pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), Section 227 et seq., asserting that Charles Baratta d/b/a Prime Marketing Source allegedly called Plaintiff's residential phone number repeatedly despite Plaintiff's registration on the National Do Not Call Registry. Plaintiff contends that through use of fictitiously named individuals who allegedly worked for various non-existent companies and entities, Defendant initiated calls to Plaintiff over one hundred times without Plaintiff's consent in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff filing a potential Camp Lejeune claim." Beginning on August 30, 2023, Plaintiff maintained that he received over approximately one hundred calls from supposedly fictitious individuals named "Tiffany," "DeAndre," and "Christopher," working for allegedly non-existent companies, including "Legal Helpers" and "Medical Health Department," seeking to solicit Plaintiff for legal representation in a Camp Lejeune claim. On August 30, 2023, the first call supposedly came from "DeAndre," a purported employee of Legal Helpers using a "spoofed" phone number, (208) 681-7762, during which time Plaintiff allegedly provided "unique information" to "DeAndre," such as his email address and name. From September 4, 2023 through January 10, 2024, "DeAndre" from "Legal Helpers," in addition to "Tiffany" from the Medical Health Department, made at least 69 calls to Plaintiff. The Court found significant that on September 20, 2023, and September 27, 2023, Defendant allegedly sent a text message from the (210) 405-8263 telephone number, a number that Plaintiff maintains "is a direct telephone number owned and operated by the Defendant in the Defendant's name," to Plaintiff identifying itself as DeAndre with Legal Helpers. On January 10, 2024, Plaintiff called a number provided by "Tiffany" and spoke with "Christopher Garcia" who provided "cgarcia@primemarketingsource.com" as his email address and a callback number of (954) 799-8058. "Christopher Garcia" followed this call with an email regarding a Camp Lejeune claim which "also originated from the Defendant's email. As Plaintiff contends, the two "954" numbers are direct telephone numbers owned and operated by the Defendant in the Defendant's name. Defendant argued that the allegations contained in the Amended Complaint directly contradict facts asserted in Plaintiff's original Complaint and that the conflicting complaints are prejudicial. Defendant also contended that no claim for direct liability exists as the Amended Complaint fails to plausibly allege that Prime made any calls. The Court rejected Defendant's argument about contradictory pleadings, finding that the allegations of the Amended Complaint do not directly contradict the facts pled in the original Complaint. The Court explained that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint provides additional factual support for his conclusions generated in his Original Complaint." The Court applied the standard that "for a claim of direct liability to survive at the motion to dismiss stage, a plaintiff need not come forward with allegations or evidence conclusively negating the possibility that none of the parties initiated the call." Instead, a plaintiff need only plead "factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." The Court found that "Plaintiff effectively connects the dots between the phone numbers and 'fictitious' individuals and how they trace back to Defendant Prime." The Court noted that "upon Plaintiff calling back the number 'Tiffany' provided to him, he was put in touch with 'Christopher G,' the individual possessing Prime's email address who also later identified himself as being from 'Legal Helpers.'" According to the Court, it is equally plausible for Plaintiff to allege, and for a reasonable factfinder to infer, that 'Legal Helpers' is interchangeable with Prime such that actions taken by 'Legal Helpers' are actions by Defendant." Judge James M. Wicks cited Martin v. Bottom Line Concepts, LLC, where a direct liability claim withstood a motion to dismiss because the plaintiff pled sufficient facts to infer that a fictitious entity was a pseudonym of the defendant. The Court found similar circumstances here, noting that "Christopher G sent messages to Plaintiff using Prime's email address on several occasions and even utilized the same '201' number 'DeAndre' from 'Legal Helpers' used to contact Plaintiff." The Court concluded that at this nascent stage of a motion to dismiss, it is not the Court's function to resolve factual issues, nor is it Plaintiff's burden to come forward with allegations or evidence conclusively negating the possibility that Defendant did not initiate the calls or messages at issue. This case proceeds as a class action on behalf of Plaintiff and the National Do-Not-Call ("DNC") Class, as evidenced by the Amended Class Action Complaint filing. A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BpPJEf Andrew Roman Perrong -- a@perronglaw.com -- Perrong Law LLC, in Glenside, PA 19038, Attorney for the Plaintiff. Laura Kogan -- lkogan@beneschlaw.com -- David Krueger -- dkrueger@beneschlaw.com -- Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff, in Cleveland, OH 44114, Attorneys for the Defendants. CHILDREN'S PLACE: Dalton Seeks Blind Users' Equal Website Access ---------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Children's Place, Inc., Case No. 0:25-cv-02991-DSD-DJF (D. Minn., July 24, 2025) arises because the Defendant's Website, www.childrensplace.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 offers children's clothing and accessories for sale, including but not limited to, tops, bottoms, dresses, jackets, shoes, swimwear, and pajamas.[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 CHRISTIAN DIOR: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Toikach Says ----------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL TOIKACH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CHRISTIAN DIOR, INC. and CHRISTIAN DIOR COUTURE SAS, Case No. 1:25-cv-06058 (S.D.N.Y., July 23, 2025) arises out of the recent data breach involving the Defendants. The Plaintiff brings this Complaint against the Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices, including Plaintiff's and Class Members' first and last name, contact information, address, date of birth, and other information provided to Dior, such as a passport or government ID number (Private Information). Accordingly, the Plaintiff and Class Members were required to entrust Defendants with sensitive, non-public Private Information as a condition of purchasing goods. The Defendants retain this information for at least many years and even after the company relationship has ended. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendants assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion, asserts the suit. The present and continuing risk of identity theft and fraud to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes. In breaching its duties to properly safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information and give them timely, adequate notice of the Data Breach's occurrence, Defendants' conduct amounts to negligence and/or recklessness and violates federal and state statutes. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose Private Information was compromised as a result of Defendants' failure to adequately protect the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current or former customers of Defendants. Christian Dior is the American subsidiary company of Christian Dior Couture SAS, a luxury brand that sells products, including fashion, accessories, fragrances, and beauty products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: maccarone@kolawyers.com ostrow@kolawyers.com CLARIS VISION: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Glidden Says ---------------------------------------------------------- BETH GLIDDEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CLARIS VISION HOLDINGS LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-12093-IT (D. Mass., July 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personally identifiable information1 . By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. On Jan. 1, 2025, the Defendant identified unusual network activity (the Data Breach). In response, the Defendant launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the Data Breach. On June 6, 2025, Defendant's investigation determined that an unauthorized individual acquired and may have accessed certain information contained in Defendant's IT Network. On 3, 2025, the Defendant issued a notice of public disclosure and began sending notice letters to impacted individuals. The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information -- and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information, says the suit. The Defendant is a healthcare organization specializing in vision care services, primarily operating in New England. The Defendant collects and maintains the sensitive, non-public Private Information of individuals, including Plaintiff and Class Members, as part of its regular business activities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Reardon, Esq. REARDON SCANLON LLP 45 South Main Street, 3rd Floor West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 955-9455 E-mail: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon, Suite 205, No. 10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com COVE HOUSE: Park Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------- SUJUNG PARK, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. COVE HOUSE, LLC, SUSHI TIMES LLC, KSJ LLC, KPM VENTURES LLC, KOB LLC, JOMARU LV LLC, HJH LLC, BOBAE LLC, 4049 LLC, EVERYDAY HENDERSON LLC, BAN CHAN LLC, RAMEN AKU LLC, JIHYUK HWANG and XYZ Corporations I to XX, name fictitious true name of number of entities being unknown, Case No. 2:25-cv-01350 (D. Nev., July 24, 2025) alleges that the Defendants are liable for the e Fair Labor Standards Act violations by having the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees regularly perform 40 or more hours of work per week without the payment of overtime for all hours they worked in excess of 40 hours per week as required by the FLSA. The Plaintiff is a former employee of the Defendants. The Defendants operate restaurant businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leon Greenberg, Esq. Ruthann Devereaux-Gonzalez, Esq. LEON GREENBERG PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1811 South Rainbow Blvd., Suite 210 Las Vegas, NE 89146 Telephone: (702) 383-6085 Facsimile: (702) 385-1827 E-mail: leongreenberg@overtimelaw.com DIAMOND ADULT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, White Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- LINDA WHITE, Plaintiff v. DIAMOND ADULT & SENIOR CONCIERGE INC.; DIAMOND ADULT & SENIOR CONCIERGE LLC; EILEEN ROBERTS; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 25STCV21416 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 21, 2025) is a class action seeking to recover attorney's fees, costs, and civil penalties pursuant to the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff started working for Defendants as an hourly, non-exempt caregiver employee in August 2024. Her employment ended in November 2024. Allegedly, the Defendants did not provide Plaintiff and aggrieved employees with compensation for all hours worked and did not pay Plaintiff and aggrieved employees the minimum wages to which they were entitled for work performed "off the clock" pursuant to the California Labor Code. In addition, the incentive and bonus payments were also not factored into Plaintiff's and other employees' regular rate for purposes of receiving meal and rest break premiums, says the suit. Diamond Adult & Senior Concierge Inc. provides home care care in Los Angeles County, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harout Messrelian, Esq. MESSRELIAN LAW INC. 101 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 1450 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 484-6531 Facsimile: (818) 956-1983 E-mail: hm@messrelianlaw.com DOORDASH INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Subscription Charges --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Kristine Divney filed a class action lawsuit against DoorDash Inc., doing business as Caviar, and Apple Payments Services LLC. Why: Divney claims DoorDash and Apple Pay charged users for DashPass subscriptions without their consent. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in New York state court. AA new class action lawsuit alleges that DoorDash and Apple Pay charged users for DashPass subscriptions without their consent and made the subscription difficult to cancel. Plaintiff Kristine Divney filed the class action complaint against DoorDash and Apple Payments Services on June 6 in New York state court, alleging violations of New York's Consumer Protection Act and General Business Law. According to the lawsuit, Divney created a Caviar account to use the Caviar app for food delivery but never subscribed to the DashPass monthly subscription offered by Caviar. She says she selected Apple Pay as her payment method because it requires Face ID verification for each payment, which Apple Pay advertises as a secure feature. Despite not subscribing to DashPass or authorizing a payment, Divney says her credit card was charged $9.99 for a DashPass subscription from DoorDash on May 29, 2025. When she contacted DoorDash customer support, Divney claims she was told there was no record of her purchasing a DashPass subscription or having an active subscription in her account. DoorDash subscription charges violate state law, class action alleges Divney claims DoorDash has charged users without their consent for subscriptions that are difficult to cancel, while Apple Pay has allowed charges without Face ID verification despite advertising otherwise. The lawsuit alleges that these actions constitute deceptive practices under New York's Consumer Protection Act and General Business Law. The lawsuit seeks to represent a class of consumers who received unauthorized charges for a DashPass subscription via Apple Pay during the applicable statutes of limitations through the date a class is certified. Divney is suing for violations of New York's Consumer Protection Act and General Business Law, violations of the New York City Administrative Code, negligence, fraud and unjust enrichment. She is seeking certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. In related news, the FTC has filed a lawsuit alleging Amazon.com used "dark patterns" to deceive consumers into auto-renewing their Amazon Prime subscriptions that were also difficult to cancel. [GN] ENDURANCE WARRANTY: Faces Class Suit Over Car Repair Contracts -------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Stevens, writing for WAVE, reports that a class action lawsuit accuses car warranty company Endurance Warranty of not living up to its promises. In it, the lawyers claim the company does not live up to its promises in its car repair contracts. The lawsuit mirrors complaints from a Kentucky customer who contacted the WAVE News Troubleshooters. When an Elizabethtown mechanic raised an SUV on the lift this spring, its owner knew something was wrong. "I had 259,000 miles, it was high mileage," said owner Richard Leal. The car's transmission wore out. But Leal didn't worry. "It's just peace, that's the whole thing, peace of mind, you don't have to worry about your car at all," said Leal. That's what he said Endurance Warranty promised him when he bought one of their service contracts. But Leal said Endurance broke its promise. "Here I am with money out of my pocket, I fixed my car myself, there's no peace of mind, and I'm still battling this thing," said Leal. He had his car towed to the shop on April 1. The mechanic quoted 7,200 for a new transmission. He filed the claim for repairs to Endurance. A week later Endurance asked Leal for proof the car had its scheduled 150,000 mile transmission service. "I know the car, I do all my own maintenance, I know exactly how the car ran, runs, all the maintenance has been done on it," said Leal. He got the handwritten receipt from the car's glovebox and emailed it in. Endurance denied the claim. "We're going to deny the claim because the receipt you have is hand printed, it's not a computer generated receipt," said Leal. At this point his car had been sitting for two weeks. He got a new receipt typed up from the prior transmission mechanic and sent it in. Endurance accepted it, but still wouldn't cover the full bill, even after Leal bought a used transmission at half the original price. He was left short about $500. "I want to get all the money for this used transmission, money for my time, I've wasted, this is multiple two months," said Leal. He turned to the internet and found all kinds of unhappy customers, including some who hired a Chicago law firm. "They do all they can to delay and deny coverage," said FeganScott Attorney Jonathan Lindenfeld. He filed a class action lawsuit against Endurance. His clients ran into many of the same roadblocks Leal had. "Endurance companies will try to avoid liability for a variety of reasons," said Lindenfeld. His clients said it took months for Endurance to make claims decisions. Some were told to have their mechanics conduct even more tests, paid out of their own pockets. Lindenfeld said Endurance makes money by denying claims. "They're paying thousands of dollars for extended coverage, so the more claims Endurance denies, the more money it makes," said Lindenfeld. Endurance has denied the claims in court and has asked the judge to toss the case, saying its contracts require these customers to go through arbitration. The judge has not made a decision yet. WAVE asked Endurance multiple times for an interview. Endurance never responded. Leal accepted the $2,900 check Endurance sent him, even though it didn't cover all his expenses. He cancelled his service contracts on both his cars and plans to sue for the rest of the money he paid out of pocket for Endurance's promise of peace of mind. "They're making as much money as they can, when it comes time for you to put a claim in, find one way or another to deny you," said Leal. He said their promises were just meant to get a piece of his wallet. Oregon consumer protection authorities settled a telephone advertising case with Endurance in 2022. Endurance paid $550,000 and agreed not to cold call people in the state to sell its vehicle service contracts. That agreement lasts until 2027. [GN] ENZO BIOCHEM: M&A Investigates Sale to Battery Ventures ------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Enzo Biochem, Inc. (OTCMKTS: ENZB) related to its sale to Battery Ventures for $0.70 per share in cash without interest to Enzo shareholders. Is it a fair deal? ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for August 19, 2025. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/enzo-biochem-inc-2/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] EXOS HUMAN: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration; Stone Wage Suit Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Phillip Stone, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EXOS Human Capital, LLC, and MediFit Community Services LLC, Defendants, Case No. 24 Civ. 3548 (JPC) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge John P. Cronan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration and stays the case pending the outcome of arbitration proceedings. The court ordered the parties to commence arbitration within 60 days of the filing of this Opinion and Order. The parties must submit a joint status letter within two weeks following the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings. The court's opinion confirms that Plaintiff Phillip Stone filed this action seeking to represent a class of EXOS Human Capital, LLC (EXOS) and MediFit Community Services LLC (MediFit) employees in New York, alleging violations of the New York Labor Law (NYLL) for untimely wage payments. However, the court did not certify the class, as the primary issue addressed was the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration. The case retains its class action status as alleged in the First Amended Complaint, but the court's ruling focused solely on the arbitration issue, leaving class certification unresolved pending arbitration. According to the court, "Between roughly 2016 and May 2023, Phillip Stone allegedly worked as a 'health fitness specialist' in New York City for EXOS Human Capital, LLC ('EXOS') and its wholly owned subsidiary, MediFit Community Services LLC ('MediFit')." The Plaintiff alleged that "despite regularly spending more than twenty-five percent of his daily job duties performing ... physical tasks, [he] was always compensated by [EXOS and MediFit] on a bi-monthly basis." The court noted that "as a result of his employers' 'untimely wage payments,' Stone alleges that he was 'underpaid for ... each bi-monthly pay period,' including the period beginning December 1, 2022, and ending December 7, 2022, as well as for the period from December 8, 2022, to December 14, 2022. Stone claimed these late payments denied him 'the time value of his money' and rendered him 'unable to invest, save, or purchase utilizing the wages he earned and was owed that were not delivered on a timely basis.'" The court further stated that when Stone began his employment, he signed an employment agreement dated March 2017. This agreement, governed by New Jersey law, included an arbitration clause stating, "Any controversy, dispute or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement, or any breach thereof, shall be settled by binding arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association [('AAA')] then in effect and judgment upon such award rendered by the arbitrator may [be] entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof, and the parties hereto consent to the jurisdiction of the federal and state courts located in Arizona for this purpose. The arbitration shall be held by a single arbitrator in the Phoenix, Arizona area." The court summarized the Plaintiff's claims: "Stone filed this civil action against EXOS and MediFit on May 8, 2024, seeking to represent a class of EXOS and MediFit's New York employees. Through a First Amended Complaint filed on October 1, 2024, Stone asserts a single cause of action for failure to timely pay wages against both companies under Section 191(1)(a) of the NYLL. The Plaintiff sought "an award of monetary damages representing the amount of underpayments caused by EXOS and MediFit's alleged untimely wage payments to their New York employees." The Defendants moved to compel arbitration, arguing that the arbitration clause in Stone's employment agreement required his NYLL claim to be resolved through arbitration. Judge John P. Cronan noted, "On December 5, 2024, EXOS and MediFit filed a motion to compel arbitration of Stone's NYLL claim, with the arbitrator to resolve any questions of arbitrability, or, in the alternative, to dismiss Stone's claim against EXOS on the ground that the First Amended Complaint fails to plausibly allege that EXOS was Stone's employer." Stone opposed the motion, asserting that the arbitration clause in the Agreement is invalid and unenforceable under New Jersey law, that his statutory NYLL claim is otherwise beyond the scope of the provision, and that the First Amended Complaint adequately alleges that EXOS was his employer. Specifically, Stone argued that the arbitration clause violated New Jersey's Atalese v. U.S. Legal Services Group, L.P., which requires an "explanatory comment" clarifying that arbitration waives the right to litigate in court. Additionally, he contended that the arbitration clause's venue provision, which requires the parties to arbitrate in Phoenix, Arizona, renders the arbitration agreement substantively unconscionable." In response, EXOS and MediFit countered that the principles of New Jersey law relied upon by Stone to challenge the validity of the Agreement's arbitration clause are preempted by Section 2 of the FAA. Upon careful examination, the court found that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts New Jersey's Atalese rule. The court stated, "The Court holds that Atalese is preempted by the FAA to the extent that it purports to invalidate the parties' arbitration agreement in this case, and that the arbitration agreement is not substantively unconscionable." The court explained, "Atalese's explanatory comment rule discriminates against arbitration by imposing an arbitration-specific exception to New Jersey's general approach to the formation and interpretation of employment contracts, requiring courts to presumptively disregard that the accepted meaning of arbitration entails a waiver of the right to litigate in court." Furthermore, "by requiring arbitration agreements to meet a heightened level of clarity based on the fact that such an agreement entails a waiver of statutory or constitutional rights, Atalese relegates arbitration agreements to second-class status based on one of their fundamental characteristics, thereby interfering with arbitration. The court also addressed Stone's unconscionability argument, finding that Stone's unconscionability challenge fails out of the gate because he provides virtually no information regarding the additional expense to him, if any, that will result from the arbitration taking place in Phoenix or whether that expense will prove cost-prohibitive." The court noted, "On this paper-thin record, 'the "risk" that Stone will be saddled with prohibitive costs' as a result of the arbitration taking place in Phoenix 'is too speculative to justify the invalidation of the parties' arbitration agreement.' According to the Court the question of whether Stone's NYLL claim falls within the arbitration agreement's scope should be decided by an arbitrator. The court stated, "Because the parties delegated gateway questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator, the Court compels arbitration without resolving whether the scope of the parties' agreement extends to Stone's NYLL claim." The court found clear evidence of delegation, noting, "The parties' express incorporation of [AAA] procedural rules into an arbitration agreement ... coupled with incorporation of rules that expressly empower an arbitrator to decide issues of arbitrability--constitutes clear and unmistakable evidence of the parties' intent to delegate the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator." The court granted the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration, stating, "Because Stone initiated this litigation instead of commencing arbitration as he was required to do under Section 13 of the Agreement, the Court grants EXOS and MediFit's motion to compel arbitration." The court also denied without prejudice EXOS's motion to dismiss, explaining, "The Court therefore denies without prejudice EXOS's request to dismiss the claim against it under Rule 12(b)(6)." Additionally, the court stayed the case pending arbitration, noting, "Stone requests that the Court stay this action pending the outcome of arbitration should the Court grant the motion to compel. The Second Circuit has held that under Section 3 of the FAA, 9 U.S.C. Section 3, 'a stay of proceedings [is] necessary after all claims have been referred to arbitration and a stay requested.'" Therefore, the Court stays this action pending the outcome of the arbitration proceedings. The court's opinion and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vmj5wV FAMILY HEALTH: Settles Data Breach Class Action Suit for $850,000 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that an $850,000 class action settlement will resolve litigation against Family Health Center, a healthcare provider in Kalamazoo, Michigan, over a 2024 data breach that potentially exposed patients' sensitive information to unauthorized third parties. The Family Health Center class action settlement received preliminary court approval on June 10, 2025 and covers anyone in the U.S. whose private information—such as names, medical information, addresses and Social Security numbers—was potentially accessed as a result of the data breach, including those who were sent notice of the incident. The court-approved website for the Family Health Center settlement can be found at FHCDataSettlement.com. Family Health Center settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form may receive one of two types of cash compensation. Those who submit proof of documented losses related to the data breach may file a claim for up to $5,000 of reimbursement for their losses, including the following: -- Losses related to identity theft; -- Bank, credit card and debit card fees; -- Costs related to replacing a driver's license, Social Security number or other form of identification; -- Overdraft, declined payment and returned check fees; and -- Fees for credit reports or credit monitoring. Claimants cannot receive reimbursement from the settlement for a documented loss that has already been reimbursed by some other source. Alternatively, class members may select a flat payment of $50, which requires no documentation. All class members may also elect to receive two years of one-bureau credit monitoring that will provide: -- Fully managed identity recovery services; -- Credit monitoring; -- Identity theft insurance covering up to $1,000,000; and -- Dark web monitoring. To submit a claim form online, class members can visit this page on the settlement website and log in with the unique ID and PIN provided in their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, a PDF claim form is available to print, fill out and mail back to the address listed on the second page of the form. All claims must be submitted online or postmarked by October 8, 2025. According to court documents, Family Health Center has implemented changes and improvements to further secure its systems and protect patients' private information. A hearing is set for October 17, 2025 to determine whether the settlement will receive final court approval. Compensation will begin to be dispensed to claimants only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The settlement will resolve two Family Health Center class action lawsuits that claimed a data breach that occurred on or about January 25, 2024 exposed patients' sensitive personal and medical information to unauthorized third parties, including names, Social Security numbers, addresses and medical information. [GN] FANATICS INC: Faces Nachman Suit Over Sports Cards Market Monopoly ------------------------------------------------------------------ JUSTIN NACHMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FANATICS, INC., et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-06097 (S.D.N.Y., July 24, 2025) seeks to recover injunctive, monetary, and other appropriate relief resulting from Defendants' violations of federal antitrust laws and state antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment laws. According to the complaint, from August 2021 to the present, Fanatics -- acting in concert with the other Defendants -- has schemed to monopolize the Sports Cards market. Fanatics has engaged in a multitude of predatory conduct, including acquiring The Topps Company, Inc., the dominant supplier of baseball cards since the mid-twentieth century, and convincing the Defendant sports leagues and players associations to enter into long-term exclusive licensing agreements in exchange for shared monopoly profits. Those licenses give Fanatics the exclusive right to use the leagues' team names, logos, uniforms, and other trademarks, as well as the name, image, and likeness of every player on those teams. With the licenses in place, Fanatics has leveraged its market power -- before the licenses even took effect—to eliminate its only rival, Panini from the market for NBA and NFL cards, thereby restricting consumer choice, diminishing product quality, and inflating prices for Sports Cards. The Plaintiff is an indirect purchaser of newly-issued MLB, NFL, and NBA trading cards (Sports Cards) from retailers such as big-box stores (e.g., Target and Walmart), hobby shops, or e-tail sites (e.g., Amazon and eBay) other than Fanatics' or its subsidiaries' sites, for personal use and not for resale. The Defendants include FANATICS, LLC; FANATICS COLLECTIBLES INTERMEDIATE HOLDCO, INC.; FANATICS SPV, LLC; FANATICS HOLDINGS, INC.; MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL; MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PROPERTIES, INC.; MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYERS ASSOCIATION; MLB PLAYERS, INC.; NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE; NFL PROPERTIES LLC; NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS ASSOCIATION; NFL PLAYERS, INC.; NATIONAL BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION; NBA PROPERTIES, INC.; and NATIONAL BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION PLAYERS ASSOCIATION; ONETEAM PARTNERS LLC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq. Alexander E. Barnett, Esq. Jonathan S. Crevier, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 933-1000 E-mail: gasciolla@dicellolevitt.com abarnett@dicellolevitt.com jcrevier@dicellolevitt.com - and - Michael J. Boni, Esq. Benjamin J. Eichel, Esq. BONI, ZACK & SNYDER LLC 15 Saint Asaphs Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (610) 822-0200 E-mail: mboni@bonizack.com beichel@bonizack.com - and - Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq. Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, PC Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street, Suite 3420 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-0300 E-mail: jcorrigan@srkattorneys.com jspector@srkattorneys.com - and - Kenneth A. Jacobsen, Esq. JACOBSEN LAW OFFICES LLC 210 West Rittenhouse Square No. 1404 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (610) 220-0131 E-mail: Jacobsenlaw@aol.com FAST RESPONDER: Fails to Pay Drivers Salary Rate, Mariscal Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ MARQUIS MARISCAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FAST RESPONDER TOWING LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-01916 (N.D. Tex., July 24, 2025) is a collective action brought by Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, seeking declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, costs, and a reasonable attorneys' fee, as a result of the Defendant's policy and practice of failing to pay Plaintiff and others similarly situated sufficient wages under the FLSA within the applicable statutory limitations period. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant within the three years preceding the filing of this lawsuit. Specifically, the Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Driver from May 2024 until September of 2024. The Defendant also employed other Drivers within the three years preceding the filing of this lawsuit. The Defendant directly hired Plaintiff and other Drivers to work on its behalf, controlled their work schedules, duties, protocols, applications, assignments and employment conditions, and kept at least some records regarding their employment. The Defendant classified Plaintiff and other Drivers as exempt from the provisions of the FLSA. The Defendant did not pay Plaintiff an hourly or salary rate. The Defendant did not pay other Drivers an hourly or salary rate, asserts the suit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew R. McCarley, Esq. Colby Qualls, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 11300 N Central Expy, Suite 550 Dallas, TX 75243 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 E-mail: mccarley@foresterhaynie.com cqualls@foresterhaynie.com GENESCO INC: Faces Class Suit Over Promotional SMS Messages ----------------------------------------------------------- Eric J. Troutman of Troutman Amin, LLP, writing for National Law Review, reports that Dr. Evil and the folks at LawHQ have filed a class action against Genesco, Inc. alleging it continued to send SMS messages promoting Journeys after a consumer texted stop. Per the complaint the following messages were sent: -- November 22, 2024 at 7:29 PM UTC from 20101 Journeys: 50% off 'Tis The Season Savings! Save on Sneakers, Boots, Casuals & MORE (!!) Start shopping now: https://bit.ly/4eHXEPC Help:1-888-324-6356 -- November 27, 2024 at 6:14 PM UTC from 20101 Journeys: The BIGGEST Converse sale of the year! Save 25-30% off ALL Converse! (yes, ALL) Shop now: https://bit.ly/4i6EaXY Help:1-888-324-6356 -- December 2, 2024 at 4:11 PM UTC from 20101 Journeys: Cyber Monday Deals Are Here! Get, gift & give up to 50% off (!!) Adult: https://bit.ly/41dr9py Kidz: https://bit.ly/49iV0Pk Help:1-888-324-6356 -- December 5, 2024 at 1:06 PM UTC from 469-338-7448 to 20101 STOP -- December 9, 2024 at 7:16 PM UTC from 20101 Journeys: Monday Markdowns right this way! 450+ styles to choose from (!!) Ready, set, GIFT: https://bit.ly/49KWvGp Help:1-888-324-6356 -- December 13, 2024 at 7:34 PM UTC from 20101 Journeys: Merry GIFTmas! Save up to 55% off select styles (!!) Claus a scene & shop: https://bit.ly/41wQCu2 Help:1-888-324-6356 -- December 26, 2024 at 7:13 PM UTC from 20101 Journeys: Start the New Year off with SAVINGS! Shop & save up to 50% off (!!) Shop: https://bit.ly/41SdaFU Help:1-888-324-6356 -- January 10, 2025 at 7:17 PM UTC from 20101 Journeys: Bundle up with Winter savings starting at $19.98 (!!) Adults: https://bit.ly/4h9QW6z Kidz: https://bit.ly/4agOjOm Help:1-888-324-6356 -- January 25, 2025 at 4:09 PM UTC from 20101 Journeys: Save on sneakers for every season! Up to 55% off select sneakers happening NOW! Shop Now: https://bit.ly/3CnTAH9 Help:1-888-324-6356 Notice the stop notification on December 5, 2024. Interestingly the messages were sent to a shortcode so the stop should have been picked up automatically -- this is especially true as the complaint alleges Salesforce and Twilio were involved in sending the messages. Specifically, the complaint alleges: -- Genesco used SF Marketing Cloud to send SMS from 20101 to 469-338-7448. -- Genesco used SF Service Cloud to send SMS from 20101 to 469-338-7448. -- Genesco used SF MobileConnect to send SMS from 20101 to 469-338-7448. -- Genesco used Twilio for Salesforce to send SMS from 20101 to 469-338-7448 A stop bug in the SF marketing cloud and Twilio integration would be big news and might impact thousands of companies. Then again maybe this was just a set up problem with Journeys. Or maybe the plaintiff is just lying. Who knows. For now, we know Plaintiff hopes to represent a class as follows: The Internal Do Not Call Class: All persons in the United States, (1) to whom Genesco initiated, or caused to be initiated, (2) more than one text message promoting goods or services within any 12-month period, (3) after receiving a do not call request, (4) within the last four years prior to the filing of this action through the date class notice is sent. Will keep an eye on this. [GN] GIGACLOUD TECHNOLOGY: $2.75MM Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 9 -------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. announced that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of Class A ordinary shares of GigaCloud Technology Inc (NASDAQ: GCT): SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES To: All persons and entities who or that purchased or otherwise acquired Class A ordinary shares of GigaCloud Technology Inc ("GigaCloud") during the period from August 18, 2022 to May 22, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were allegedly damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class"). YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, that Court-appointed Co-Lead Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all members of the proposed Settlement Class, and GigaCloud, Larry Lei Wu, Xin Wan, Kwok Hei David Lau, Zhiwu Chen, Thomas Liu, and Aegis Capital Corp (collectively, the "Settling Defendants"), have reached a proposed settlement of the claims in the class action (the "Action") in the amount of $2,750,000 (the "Settlement"). A hearing will be held remotely on October 9, 2025, at 3:30 p.m. before the Honorable Jesse M. Furman of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, (the "Settlement Hearing") to determine whether the Court should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice as provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated June 16, 2025; (iii) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the proceeds of the Settlement (the "Net Settlement Fund") to Settlement Class Members; and (iv) approve Co-Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application. The Court may change the date of the Settlement Hearing or change it to an in-person hearing without providing another written notice. Information about the hearing, including instructions for remote access, will be posted at www.gigacloudsecuritiessettlement.com. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a full Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by visiting www.gigacloudsecuritiessettlement.com or by contacting the Claims Administrator at: In re GigaCloud Technology Inc Securities Settlement Strategic Claims Services P.O. Box 230 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205 Media, PA 19063 (866) 274-4004 info@strategicclaims.net Inquiries, other than requests for information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Co-Lead Counsel: POMERANTZ LLP Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Jonathan D. Park, Esq. 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 www.pomlaw.com (212) 661-1100 THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. Brian B. Alexander, Esq. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 www.rosenlegal.com (212) 686-1060 If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later than October 6, 2025. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice so that it is received no later than September 18, 2025. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Co-Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation must be filed with the Court, either by mail or in person or, for users of the Court's Electronic Case Filing system, by that system, and be mailed to counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the Notice, such that they are received no later than September 18, 2025. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. DATED: JUNE 20, 2025 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK GOOGLE LLC: Agrees to Settle Biometric Data Suit for $8.75-Mil. --------------------------------------------------------------- IDTech reports that Google has agreed to pay $8.75 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging that the company violated Illinois' biometric privacy law through its education-focused services. The case centered on claims that Google collected and stored biometric data from students in Illinois without obtaining the notice and written consent required by the state's Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). Settlement Covers Google Workspace for Education in Illinois Schools The settlement applies to students who used Google Workspace for Education accounts while attending school in Illinois. Eligible class members may receive payments estimated between $30 and $100, depending on the number of valid claims filed. The lawsuit, first filed in 2020, was brought by an Illinois father on behalf of his children, identified as H.K. and J.C. in court documents. Under the terms of the agreement, Google will establish an $8.75 million fund. Class counsel may seek attorney's fees up to 40 percent of the fund, which would amount to approximately $3.5 million. The two class representatives may receive service awards of up to $5,000 each. After deducting administrative costs and legal fees, the remaining funds will be distributed among eligible claimants on a pro-rata basis. The plaintiffs alleged that Google's education platforms collected facial and voice data from students, creating biometric templates without following BIPA's strict consent requirements. While Google denies any wrongdoing, the company opted to settle the case rather than continue with litigation. Key Deadlines and Broader Implications Class members have until September 1, 2025, to opt out of the settlement. A final approval hearing is scheduled for October 14, 2025, and claims must be filed by October 16, 2025. Approved payments are expected to be issued within 90 days of final court approval and the resolution of any appeals. The case highlights growing legal and public scrutiny surrounding the use of biometric technologies in educational settings. Illinois' BIPA law is considered one of the strongest biometric privacy statutes in the United States, requiring explicit written consent for the collection or storage of data such as facial scans, fingerprints, and voiceprints. The settlement adds to a growing list of BIPA-related legal actions involving major technology companies. [GN] HARPER WOODS, MI: Wayne Cty. Wins Bid to Dismiss Carlock Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as James Carlock, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. City of Harper Woods, et al., Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-11122 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Robert J. White of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan grants Defendant Wayne County's motion to partially dismiss the complaint. The Court ordered that Wayne County be terminated from the docket as a party defendant to this action. The Court concluded that because Carlock's injuries are neither imminent nor traceable to Wayne County's policies, practices or customs, he lacks the necessary standing to obtain prospective injunctive relief against the County. The lawsuit is a putative 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 class action. James Carlock commenced this putative class action against Wayne County after the county sheriff detained him before trial pursuant to a state district court order imposing unlawful bond conditions. The classwide claims are asserted against Wayne County and 32A District Court. Carlock contends that Chief Judge Coleman's bail orders violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, as well as substantive and procedural due process guarantees. Harper Woods detectives arrested Carlock in July 2021 after he allegedly doused his then-girlfriend with gasoline and lit her arm on fire. The Wayne County Prosecutor's Office charged him with assault with intent to murder. Carlock pleaded not guilty at his arraignment. 32A District Court Chief Judge Rebekah Coleman set a secured cash bond condition in the amount of $150,000. Chief Judge Coleman retained the secured cash bond conditions after binding Carlock over to the Wayne County Circuit Court. The state circuit court maintained those bond conditions pending trial. A jury acquitted Carlock of all the charged offenses on September 28, 2023 after a four-day trial. By that time, he had spent over two years in pretrial detention at the Wayne County Jail because he could not afford to post bond. Carlock maintains that Wayne County violated constitutional rights when Sheriff Rafael Washington detained him and other similarly situated pretrial detainees pursuant to Chief Judge Coleman's unlawful bail orders. Wayne County moved to dismiss these classwide claims on the grounds that: (1) the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution bars Carlock from recovering money damages against the County; and (2) Carlock lacks Article III standing to obtain any form of prospective injunctive relief. According to the Court, Wayne County is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. The Court found that Sheriff Washington acted as an arm of the State when he detained Carlock pursuant to Chief Judge Coleman's bail order. According to the Court, because county sheriffs lack any discretion in this setting, they function as an arm of the State when incarcerating pretrial detainees who fail to meet their court-imposed bond conditions." The Court explained that Michigan law compels county sheriffs to enforce judicial orders without discretion. Michigan law requires sheriffs to obey "any process of the court, or any lawful order of the court, or any lawful order of a judge of the court" under Michigan Compiled Laws Section 600.1701(c). The Court noted that "The complaint is devoid of any plausible allegations that Sheriff Washington may decide, on his own, whether to adhere to Chief Judge Coleman's bail orders - and with good reason. Michigan law bars him from exercising that type of discretion." The Court ruled that Wayne County cannot be subject to municipal liability based upon Sheriff Washington's conduct. The Court stated, "Since the Court has already concluded that Sheriff Washington acted as an 'arm of the State' when he detained Carlock pursuant to Chief Judge Coleman's bail order, Wayne County cannot be subject to municipal liability (whether for money damages or prospective injunctive relief) based upon that same conduct. The Court found that Carlock lacks Article III standing to obtain prospective injunctive relief against Wayne County. The Court determined that Carlock's purported injuries are neither imminent nor traceable to the County's policies, custom, or practices. Regarding imminence, the Court explained that Carlock's injuries are too speculative to be "certainly impending." The Court stated, "He would have to show a compelling likelihood that (1) He will be arrested for an unlawful act sometime in the future; (2) The unlawful act will occur within the 32A District Court's territorial jurisdiction; (3) He will be arraigned again before Chief Judge Coleman; (4) Her (Chief Judge Coleman's) bail determination will suffer from the same substantive and procedural defects alleged in this litigation; and (5) Carlock will be unable to meet the imposed bond conditions. The Court found that the complaint does not identify any Wayne County policies, practices or customs that could harm Carlock in the future. The Court noted that Carlock's injuries are not discernably traceable to Wayne County" because Sheriff Washington's obligation to enforce bail orders stems from Michigan's legislature, not Wayne County's policies, practices, or customs. The Court rejected Carlock's argument that his continuing emotional injuries from past incarceration establish standing. The Court cited City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, stating that emotional consequences of a prior act simply are not a sufficient basis for an injunction absent a real and immediate threat of future injury by the defendant. The Court also rejected Carlock's reliance on the "inherently transitory" exception to mootness doctrine, explaining that this exception "presupposes that Article III standing existed at the inception of the litigation - something Carlock never possessed. The Court granted Wayne County's motion to partially dismiss the complaint. A copy of the Court's Judgment is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hYAl5L HEALTHPRO HERITAGE: Smith Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------ VIRGIL SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HEALTHPRO HERITAGE, LLC, Case No. 2:25-at-00955 (E.D. Cal., July 23, 2025) is a collective action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals who have worked for HealthPro as non-exempt employees involved with occupational therapy and related patient care services. The Plaintiff and similarly situated Collective members have been denied payment for hours worked, including overtime, asserts the suit. The case implicates the longstanding de facto policies and practices of Defendant, across all of its facilities, which fails to properly compensate non-exempt employees for hours worked. Accordingly, while hourly-paid patient care employees are off the clock on their unpaid meal break, the Defendant requires them to continue working on patient documentation and to attend mandatory staff meetings, says the suit. Under these policies and practices, non-exempt patient care workers care are subject to work throughout their entire shift, including during unpaid meal periods, and are thus entitled to compensation. The Defendant's policies and practices result in non-exempt workers being denied wages due under the FLSA, the suit further alleges. The Defendant offers therapy, consulting & wellness services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq. Ori Edelstein, Esq. Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KIM LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com rmorelli@schneiderwallace.com HOGAN PERSONNEL: Bid to Remand Hill Suit to Superior Court Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Luther Hill v. Hogan Personnel, LLC, et al., Case No. EDCV 25-0564 JGB (SHKx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Jesus G. Bernal of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denies the Plaintiff's motion to remand. On Jan. 29, 2025, Plaintiff Luther Hill, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, filed a putative class action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino against Defendants Hogan Personnel, LLC ("Hogan Personnel"), Hogan Truck Leasing, Inc. ("Hogan Truck"). Plaintiff Luther Hill filed a motion to remand, arguing that remand is warranted because Defendants failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy for the putative class exceeds the $5,000,000 CAFA jurisdictional minimum. The Court determined the matter appropriate for resolution without a hearing. The Court applied the Class Action Fairness Act standard, noting that CAFA gives federal district courts original jurisdiction over class actions in which the class members number at least 100, at least one plaintiff is diverse in citizenship from any defendant, and the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, exclusive of interests and costs. According to the Court "when a plaintiff mounts a factual attack, the burden is on the defendant to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds the $5 million jurisdictional threshold." The Court further noted that under the preponderance of the evidence standard, if the evidence submitted by both sides is balanced, in equipoise, the scales tip against federal-court jurisdiction. Plaintiff argued that Defendant relies on unsubstantiated assumptions in a single declaration that fails to put forth any competent evidence regarding the class." Specifically, Plaintiff asserted that: (1) the assumption of one unpaid hour of work per week for each employee is unreasonable; (2) Plaintiff's Complaint does not seek liquidated damages; (3) the assumption of one meal and one rest break violation is unsupported; (4) the assumption of a 100% violation rate and the application of the maximum penalty of $4,000 per class member for wage statement penalties is unreasonable; (5) Plaintiff's Complaint does not allege that every class member was required to use their personal cell phone; (6) The assumption of a 100% violation rate for waiting time penalties is unreasonable; and (7) The attorney fee calculation is unreliable. Defendants asserted that the amount in controversy requirement under CAFA is satisfied because "Plaintiff's claims lead to an aggregate AIC of $6,050,303.66." The Court noted that because the Complaint does not state the amount of damages sought, Defendants must prove that the AIC exceeds $5 million." The Court systematically analyzed each category of damages and found Defendants met their burden. The Court stated that "Defendants have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy here exceeds $5,000,000." Regarding the foundational evidence, the Court found that "the Krueger Declaration and its supplement are sufficient to establish employee headcount, termination data, full-time status, and compensation data for the Relevant Class Period." For the wage violations, the Court determined that "it is reasonable for Defendants to assume that this conduct would amount to an hour of unpaid time each week" based on Plaintiff's allegations of "uniform policies and practices." On liquidated damages, the Court rejected Plaintiff's argument that he does not seek such damages, explaining that "the amount in controversy is determined by the complaint operative at the time of removal and encompasses all relief a court may grant on that complaint if the plaintiff is victorious." For meal and rest period violations, the Court found that Defendants' "assumption of only 20%, with one meal and one rest break violation a week" was reasonable given Plaintiff's allegations of "uniform policy and practice." Regarding wage statement penalties, the Court concluded that the assumption of a 100% violation rate reasonable because Plaintiff alleged that Defendants "systematically failed to issue accurate itemized wage statements." A copy of the Court's opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ysWKoS HOME DEPOT: Faces Class Action Suit Over Use of Non-Compete Law --------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that certain Washington Home Depot locations have illegally restricted the ability of low-wage employees to work secondary jobs to earn additional income. According to the 10-page lawsuit, Washington's non-compete law prohibits an employer from restricting or restraining an employee who earns less than twice the applicable state hourly minimum wage from having an additional job, whether that entails working for another employer, as an independent contractor, or being self-employed. The state law, which applies to both written and oral agreements, was put in place in recognition of the fact that multiple sources of income are often necessary for low-wage workers to earn an overall livable wage, the filing explains. According to the case, the statute stipulates that if an employer truly does not wish to allow an employee to hold an additional job, they must pay that worker at least twice the applicable state minimum hourly wage. In spite of this, the lawsuit alleges that Home Depot and many of its subsidiary brands that operate in Washington have subjected employees to various written and oral non-compete agreements despite failing to pay them at least twice the state minimum wage, in violation of Washington civil rights law. The Home Depot class action lawsuit seeks to represent all current and former employees who worked in Washington and earned less than twice the state minimum hourly wage starting on June 17, 2022 for one or more of the following Home Depot businesses: -- Home Depot, Inc.; -- Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.; -- Home Depot Store Support, Inc.; -- Home Depot Product Authority, LLC; -- Home Depot Management Company, LLC; and -- Home Depot Incentives, Inc. [GN] HORMEL FOODS: Workers File Class Action Suit Over Unpaid Leaves --------------------------------------------------------------- Union members of United Food and Commercial Workers Local 663 who work at Hormel Foods are announcing a class action lawsuit against Hormel in Austin. The lawsuit alleges that Hormel failed and refused to provide Local 663 members with paid leave benefits required by the Minnesota Earned Sick and Safe Time laws. A press conference will be held at the Austin Labor Center to announce the lawsuit. [GN] IMA-SUNSET ASSOCIATES: Property Violates ADA, Pardo Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO v. IMA-SUNSET ASSOCIATES, LLC and SIAM KOI LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-23302 (S.D. Fla., July 23, 2025) is a class action seeking injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant owns, operates and/or oversees the commercial property; to include its general parking lot, parking spots, and entrance access and path of travel specific to the tenant business therein and all other common areas open to the public located within the commercial property. The Plaintiff contends that the he found the commercial property and commercial mini mart business located within the commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. He encountered architectural barriers at the commercial property and commercial mini mart business located within the commercial property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises, says the Plaintiff. The Defendant owned and/or operated a commercial property at 9999 SW 72nd St., Miami, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 553-3464 E-mail: aquezada@lawgmp.com jacosta@lawgmp.com. - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Telephone: (305) 350-3103 E-mail: rdiego@lawgmp.com ramon@rjdiegolaw.com INFINITE SERVICES: May Face Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Infinite Services data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who received a notice stating they were impacted. Infinite Services Security Incident: What Happened? Infinite Services Inc., a New York-based healthcare provider offering a range of therapy and caregiver services, recently experienced a data breach when an unauthorized user accessed its network on May 5, 2025. The Infinite Services data breach came to light when employees experienced login issues, and further investigation revealed that a server had been compromised, exposing personal information belonging to employees and patients. Despite communications with the attackers, no ransom was paid, according to a letter sent by outside counsel to the New Hampshire Attorney General. The letter further stated that the exposed information may have included names, addresses, Social Security numbers, member identification numbers, dates of birth and health insurance information. A report to the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation indicates that medical records, financial information and driver's licenses may have also been compromised. Letters informing potentially affected individuals were scheduled to be mailed by July 25, 2025. The Infinite Services data breach reportedly affected 31,742 people. What You Can Do After the Infinite Services Data Breach If your information was exposed in the data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Infinite Services to ensure it takes proper steps to protect the information it was entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] INNOVAGE HOLDING: $27MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 26 --------------------------------------------------------------- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC announced that the United District Court for the District of Colorado has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of InnovAge Holding Corp. publicly traded common stock (NASDAQ: INNV): IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No.: 21-cv-02770-WJM-SBP EL PASO FIREMEN & POLICEMEN'S PENSION FUND, SAN ANTONIO FIRE & POLICE PENSION FUND, AND INDIANA PUBLIC RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. INNOVAGE HOLDING CORP., MAUREEN HEWITT, BARBARA GUTIERREZ, JOHN ELLIS BUSH, ANDREW CAVANNA, CAROLINE DECHERT, EDWARD KENNEDY, JR., PAVITHRA MAHESH, THOMAS SCULLY, MARILYN TAVENNER, SEAN TRAYNOR, RICHARD ZORETIC, WCAS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, WCAS MANAGEMENT, L.P., WCAS MANAGEMENT, LLC, APAX PARTNERS US LLC, TCO GROUP HOLDINGS, L.P., J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., ROBERT W. BAIRD & CO. INCORPORATED, WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY, L.L.C., PIPER SANDLER & CO., CAPITAL ONE SECURITIES, INC., LOOP CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, SIEBERT WILLIAMS SHANK & CO., LLC, and ROBERTS & RYAN INVESTMENTS, INC., Defendants. SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: All persons or entities who (i) purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of InnovAge Holding Corp. ("InnovAge") between May 11, 2021, and December 22, 2021, inclusive; and/or (ii) purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded InnovAge common stock either in or traceable to InnovAge's March 4, 2021 initial public offering ("IPO") and were damaged thereby (the "Class"). PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (the "Court"), that the securities class action (the "Action") is pending in the Court. YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiffs in the Action have reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $27,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action. A hearing will be held on November 26, 2025 at 10:30 a.m., before the Honorable William J. Martínez either in person at the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, Alfred A. Arraj U.S. Courthouse, Courtroom A801, 901 19th Street, Denver, CO 80294, or by telephone or videoconference, to determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated June 2, 2025 (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's request for attorneys' fees, plus actual expenses for litigating the case, which may include an application for reimbursement of the reasonable costs and expenses incurred by Lead Plaintiffs directly related to their representation of the Class, should be approved. If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to a payment from the Settlement. If you have not yet received the Postcard Notice directing you to the location of the Notice and Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at InnovAge Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205, Media, PA 19063; calling toll-free (866) 274-4004; or emailing info@strategicclaims.net. Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the Settlement website, www.strategicclaims.net/InnovAge/. If you are a member of the Class, in order to be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form to the Claims Administrator postmarked (or submitted online) no later than November 5, 2025. If you are a Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a member of the Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion to the Claims Administrator such that it is received no later than November 5, 2025, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement. Excluding yourself is the only option that may allow you to be part of any other current or future lawsuit against Defendants or any of the other released parties concerning the claims being resolved by the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's request for attorneys' fees, plus actual expenses for litigating the case, which may include an application for reimbursement of the reasonable costs and expenses incurred by Lead Plaintiffs directly related to their representation of the Class, must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than November 5, 2025, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Defendants, or their counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Claims Administrator or Lead Counsel. Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to: InnovAge Securities Litigation c/o Strategic Claims Services 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205 Media, PA 19063 Tel: (866) 274-4004 Email: info@strategicclaims.net www.strategicclaims.net/InnovAge/ Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, should be made to Lead Counsel: Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC Attn: Molly Bowen 1100 New York Avenue NW, 8th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Tel.: (202) 408-4600 Email: mbowen@cohenmilstein.com By Order of the Court INSPIRA MEDICAL: Class Cert. Bids in Oatman Due July 17, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINA OATMAN, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. INSPIRA MEDICAL CENTERS, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-01695-ESK-EAP (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Pascal entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. No later than Aug. 8, 2025, the Plaintiff shall file a motion for preliminary certification of the collective. 2. By Aug. 1, 2025, the parties shall serve the Court with an agreed-upon Discovery Confidentiality Order. 3. The time within which to file a motion to amend the pleadings or to join new parties will expire on Nov. 14, 2025. 4. Pretrial factual discovery will expire on Feb. 27, 2026. 5. All expert reports and expert disclosures pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(2) on behalf of Plaintiffs shall be served upon counsel for Defendant no later than March 27, 2026. All expert reports and expert disclosures pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(2) on behalf of Defendant shall be served upon counsel for Plaintiff no later than May 1, 2026. 6. Class certification motions shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court no later than July 17, 2026. Opposition to the motion(s) shall be filed no later than Aug. 21, 2026. Any reply brief shall be filed on later than Oct. 2, 2026. 7. The Court will conduct a telephone status conference on Oct. 27, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. Inspira provides general medical and surgical hospital services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=adXN8M at no extra charge.[CC] JAMES ALPHA: Fulford Sues Over Fund's Net Asset Value Drop ---------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD FULFORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JAMES ALPHA FUNDS TRUST (d/b/a EASTERLY FUNDS TRUST), et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-06102 (S.D.N.Y., July 24, 2025) is a class action on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the Fund during the period July 29, 2022, through June 12, 2025, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933. The Fund is an open-end management investment company, commonly known as a "mutual fund," registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940. The investment objective of the Fund is to provide current income exempt from regular federal income tax, and offers Class A (ticker: RMJAX), Investor Class (ticker: RMHVX) and Class I shares (ticker: RMHIX), and formerly offered Class A (ticker: GSTFX), Investor Class (ticker: GSTEX), and Institutional Class shares (ticker: GSTAX). Shares of the Fund were offered on a continuous basis. The class of shares differ in terms of minimum purchase requirements and fees. Accordingly, because open-end funds hold themselves out at all times as being prepared to meet these redemption requirements, they have a responsibility to manage the liquidity of their investment portfolios in a manner consistent with those obligations. The Offering Materials in connection with the offer and sale of the Fund represented that the Fund maintained a 15% limitation on illiquid investments and defined "illiquid investments" to mean any investment that the Fund reasonably expects cannot be sold or disposed of in current market conditions in seven calendar days or less without the sale or disposition significantly changing the market value of the investment. Unknown to investors, the Offering Materials were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose that a substantial percentage of the Fund's net asset value (NAV) was concentrated in illiquid assets, says the suit. On June 13, 2025, the undisclosed negative facts and risks concealed from investors came to a catastrophic head. Investors were shocked when the Fund dumped large portions of its portfolio of illiquid securities, triggering a collapse in the Fund’s NAV in a matter of days, wiping out hundreds of millions of dollars in NAV. On June 12, 2025, the reported NAV of the Fund was $6.15 per share. On June 13, 2025, the Fund's NAV collapsed to $4.33 per share, a decline of over 30%. The Plaintiff purchased shares of the Fund during the Class Period. The Defendants include MANAGED PORTFOLIO SERIES TRUST, EASTERLY INVESTMENT PARTNERS LLC, PRINCIPAL STREET PARTNERS, LLC (n/k/a CALYDON CAPITAL, LLC), TROY E. WILLIS, CHARLIE S. PULIRE, BENJAMIN J. EIRICH, BRIAN R. WIEDMEYER, ROBERT J. KERN, DAVID A. MASSART, DAVID M. SWANSON, LEONARD M. RUSH, DARRELL CRATE, MICHAEL J. MONTAGUE, NEIL MEDUGNO, CLAYTON SPENCER, QUASAR DISTRIBUTORS, LLC, and EASTERLY SECURITIES LLC -- Trust Defendants Defendant MPS Trust offered and sold shares of the Fund through the Offering Materials, including the Dec. 28, 2022, and Dec. 28, 2023, Registration Statements. The MPS Trust was organized as a Delaware statutory trust on Jan, 27, 2011, and is registered under the 1940 Act as an open-end management investment company. -- Investment Advisor Defendants Defendant Principal Street Partners was the former investment advisor for the Fund. Principal Street Partners registered with the SEC as an investment adviser on or about Sep. 30, 2016. -- Portfolio Manager Defendants Defendant Willis was at all relevant times the PM for the Fund and is a resident of Boca Raton, Florida. The Defendant Willis was the Chief Investment Officer of Municipal Bond Strategies and a Senior Portfolio Manager for Defendant Principal Street Partners and Defendant Easterly Investment Partners.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq. Brandon Fox, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 800 Third Avenue, 38th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687-1980 Facsimile: (212) 687-7714 E-mail: jcampisi@kaplanfox.com bfox@kaplanfox.com JOHNSON CONTROLS: Faces Suit Over Data Privacy Violations --------------------------------------------------------- C.M., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01057-BHL (E.D. Wis., July 21, 2025) arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated Defendant employees' and clients' sensitive information. The Defendant's investigation determined that an unauthorized actor accessed certain Johnson Controls' systems from February 1, 2023 to September 30, 2023 and took information from those systems. However, it took until June 30, 2025 for the Defendant to begin issuing public disclosures about the data breach. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose personally identifiable information was compromised as a result of Defendant's failure to: (i) adequately protect the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members; (ii) warn Plaintiff and Class Members of Defendant's inadequate information security practices; and (iii) effectively secure hardware containing protected PII using reasonable and effective security procedures free of vulnerabilities and incidents. Defendant's conduct amounts at least to negligence and violates federal and state statutes. Headquartered in Milwaukee, WI, Johnson Controls, Inc. offers building technology, software and services for industries such as healthcare, schools, data centers, airports, stadiums, and hotels. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Maureen M. Brady, Esq. Lucy McShane, Esq. MCSHANE & BRADY LLC 4006 Central Street Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 888-8010 Facsimile: (816) 332-6295 E-mail: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com lmcshane@mcshanebradylaw.com KRCX WRI: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Pardo Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, Plaintiff v. KRCX WRI HOLDINGS, LLC; NORDSTROM, INC.; MOD SUPER FAST PIZZA, LLC; OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE OF FLORIDA, LLC; CHERUS CALEIA LLC, and PISCO Y NAZCA KENDALL, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-23254-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 21, 2025) is a class action seeking for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the Defendant KRCX WRI Holdings' commercial property and commercial businesses located within the commercial property. The barriers to access at the commercial property, and businesses within, have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. KRCX WRI Holdings, LLC owns and operates a commercial property at 8505 Mills Dr., Miami, FL 33183 and 8268 Mills Dr., Miami, FL 33183. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 553-3464 E-mail: aquezada@lawgmp.com jacosta@lawgmp.com. - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Telephone: (305) 350-3103 E-mail: rdiego@lawgmp.com ramon@rjdiegolaw.com LOCKHEED MARTIN: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sept. 26 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers or acquirers of Lockheed Martin Corporation (NYSE: LMT) securities between January 23, 2024 and July 21, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"), have until September 26, 2025 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the Lockheed Martin class action lawsuit. Captioned Khan v. Lockheed Martin Corporation, No. 25-cv-06197 (S.D.N.Y.), the Lockheed Martin class action lawsuit charges Lockheed Martin and certain of Lockheed Martin's top current and former executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Lockheed Martin class action lawsuit, please provide your information here: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-lockheed-martin-corporation-class-action-lawsuit-lmt.html You can also contact attorneys J.C. Sanchez or Jennifer N. Caringal of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at info@rgrdlaw.com. CASE ALLEGATIONS: Lockheed Martin is an aerospace and defense company that engages in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration, and sustainment of technology systems, products, and services. The Lockheed Martin class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Lockheed Martin lacked effective internal controls regarding its purportedly risk adjusted contracts including the reporting of its risk adjusted profit booking rate; (ii) Lockheed Martin lacked effective procedures to perform reasonably accurate comprehensive reviews of program requirements, technical complexities, schedule, and risks; (iii) Lockheed Martin overstated its ability to deliver on its contract commitments in terms of cost, quality, and schedule; and (iv) as a result, Lockheed Martin was reasonably likely to report significant losses. The Lockheed Martin class action lawsuit further alleges that on October 22, 2024, Lockheed Martin announced it was forced to recognize losses of $80 million on a classified program at Lockheed Martin's Aeronautics business segment "due to higher than anticipated costs to achieve program objectives." Lockheed Martin also announced it had recognized a reach-forward loss in its Rotary and Mission Systems segment "as a result of additional quantity ordering risk identified on fixed-price options," the complaint alleges. On this news, the price of Lockheed Martin stock fell more than 6%, according to the Lockheed Martin class action lawsuit. Then, on January 28, 2025, the Lockheed Martin class action lawsuit alleges that Lockheed Martin announced it was forced to record pre-tax losses of $1.7 billion associated with classified programs at its Aeronautics and Missiles and Fire Control business, explaining that "[a]s a result of performance trends" and "in contemplation of near-term program milestones," Lockheed Martin had "performed a comprehensive review of the program requirements, technical complexities, schedule, and risks" based on which it recognized $555 million of losses in its Aeronautics program. On this news, the price of Lockheed Martin stock fell more than 9%, according to the complaint. Finally, on July 22, 2025, Lockheed Martin disclosed it was forced to record an additional $1.6 billion in pre-tax losses on classified programs, including $950 million in losses related to its Aeronautics Classified program due to "design, integration, and test challenges, as well as other performance issues," the complaint further alleges. According to the Lockheed Martin class action lawsuit, Lockheed Martin also recorded $570 million in losses on its Canadian Maritime Helicopter Program due in part to providing "additional mission capabilities, enhanced logistical support, fleet life extension, and revised expectations regarding flight hours." On this news, the price of Lockheed Martin stock fell nearly 11%, according to the complaint. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired Lockheed Martin securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Lockheed Martin class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Lockheed Martin class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Lockheed Martin class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the Lockheed Martin class action lawsuit. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities fraud and shareholder litigation. Our Firm has been ranked #1 in the ISS Securities Class Action Services rankings for four out of the last five years for securing the most monetary relief for investors. In 2024, we recovered over $2.5 billion for investors in securities-related class action cases -- more than the next five law firms combined, according to ISS. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world, and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest ever -- $7.2 billion -- in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for more information: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. Contact: J.C. Sanchez, Esq. Jennifer N. Caringal, Esq. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 (800) 449-4900 info@rgrdlaw.com [GN] LUCKY OPCO: Faces Rose Suit Over Deceptive Ads & Sales Campaigns ---------------------------------------------------------------- SEAN ROSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LUCKY OPCO LLC dba LUCKY BRAND, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-06748 (C.D. Cal., July 23, 2025) alleges that Lucky Brand has created, implemented, and maintained online advertising and sales campaigns that are false, misleading, and deceptive to consumers pursuant to the California's False Advertising Law and California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Specifically, Lucky Brand deceives consumers throughout the United States who are browsing online via its e-commerce website, www.luckybrand.com, as well as consumers who receive its marketing advertisements via email and targeted marketing advertisements on various social media platforms, containing false statements regarding its purported discounts and "sales." Advertised "sale" prices are important to consumers. Consumers are more likely to purchase an item if they know that they are getting a good deal, asserts the suit. Further, if consumers think that a sale will end soon, they are likely to buy now, rather than wait, comparison shop, and buy something else. While there is nothing wrong with a legitimate sale, a fake one -- that is, one with made-up regular prices and made-up discounts -- is deceptive and illegal, the suit adds. LUCKY BRAND is a clothing retailer that sells clothing items and accessories in retail locations across North America, in certain department stores, and on its e-commerce website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Mikael H. Stahle, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 2101 E. El Segundo Blvd., Suite 403 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com mstahle@maternlawgroup.com LUMINAR TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Robbins LLP reminds stockholders that a class action was filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Luminar Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: LAZR) securities between March 20, 2025 and May 14, 2025. Luminar purports to be a technology company specializing in advanced LiDAR hardware and software solutions for vehicles. For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas, Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003. The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that Luminar Technologies, Inc. (LAZR) Failed to Disclose that its President and CEO was Engaged in Misconduct According to the complaint, during the class period defendants failed to disclose that: (1) defendant Russell was engaged in undisclosed conduct that would make him the subject of an inquiry by the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors; (2) this conduct created material risk that defendant Russell would be released from his positions at the Company; (3) Luminar's loss of Russell as an employee would then create material risk of adversely affecting the Company's business by making it more difficult to compete with other market participants, manage R&D activities, and retain existing customers or cultivate new ones. Further, negative public perception and negative news related to defendant Russell could also adversely affect Luminar's brand, relationships with customers, or standing in the industry; (4) accordingly, Luminar had no reasonable basis to provide and/or maintain the Company's financial guidance; and (5) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. Plaintiff alleges that on May 14, 2025, the Company announced that defendant Russell had resigned as President and CEO of the Company and Chairman of the Board "effective immediately, following a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics inquiry by the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors." On this news, Luminar's stock price fell $0.80 per share, or 16.80%, to close at $3.96 per share on May 15, 2025. What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against Luminar Technologies, Inc. Shareholders who want to serve as lead plaintiff for the class should contact Robbins LLP. The lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. [GN] LUMINAR TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Yskollari Suit Over Stock Price Drop ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARIGLEN YSKOLLARI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LUMINAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC., AUSTIN RUSSELL, and TOM FENNIMORE, Case No. 6:25-cv-01384 (M.D. Fla., July 23, 2025) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Luminar securities between March 20, 2025, and May 14, 2025, inclusive, pursuing claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that Defendant Russell was engaged in undisclosed conduct that would make him the subject of an inquiry by the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors; and this conduct created material risk that Defendant Russell would be released from his positions at the Company. On May 14, 2025, after the market close, and approximately 30 minutes after Luminar issued the 1Q25 Press Release, the Company issued a second press release announcing that Defendant Russell had resigned as President and CEO of the Company and as the Chairman of the Board, "effective immediately, following a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics inquiry by the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors." On this news, Luminar's stock price fell $0.80 per share, or 16.80%, to close at $3.96 per share on May 15, 2025. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company’s securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. The Plaintiff acquired Luminar securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and suffered damages as a result of the federal securities law violations and alleged false and/or misleading statements and/or material omissions, says the suit. Luminar Technologies, Inc. operates as an automotive technology company. The Company offers seat belts, air bags, and other technology solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Facsimile: (786) 623-0915 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. Gabriel Mandler, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (786) 289-9471 Facsimile: (786) 623-0915 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com gabriel@edelsberglaw.com LYNCHBURG SOAP: Pittman Sues Over Website Inaccessibility --------------------------------------------------------- DEBBIE PITTMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lynchburg Soap Company, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08294 (N.D. Ill., July 21, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. In addition, Plaintiff also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Based in Lynchburg, TN, Lynchburg Soap Company, LLC owns and operates the website, https://lynchburgsoapcompany.com, which offers goat milk-based bath and body products, including soaps, shampoos, bath bombs, body butters, creams, lotions, sugar scrubs, soy candles, and accessories for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: achan@ealg.law MARRIOTT INT'L: Judge Trims Claims in Westin Seattle Workers' Case ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Mardillo Arnold, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Marriott International, a foreign profit corporation; and Jason Tyler, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00221-RAJ, Judge Richard A. Jones of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration, denied Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, and granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss with leave to amend in this class action employment law dispute. The Court initially granted Plaintiff's Motion to Remand on October 3, 2024, and denied as moot Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. However, upon reconsideration, the Court determined it erred in applying a complete diversity requirement for jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act and reversed its earlier decision. Plaintiff filed this action in King County Superior Court before Marriott removed it to federal court on February 16, 2024. Plaintiff is an employee of Marriott at its Westin Seattle location who alleges that Marriott "failed to provide Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals with compliant rest breaks, meal breaks, wages for 'off-the-clock' work, sick leave, and reimbursement for cellphone usage." The complaint asserts four causes of action: (1) Failure to accrue and allow the use of paid sick leave in violation of the Washington Minimum Wage Act; (2) Failure to pay wages owed in violation of Washington law; (3) Unlawful failure to reimburse employee expenses; (4) Willful withholding of wages in violation of the Washington Wage Rebate Act. Plaintiff proposes a class of all hourly-paid or non-exempt employees of Defendants in Washington State and a subclass who worked in Seattle, for a class period from November 1, 2020 through resolution of the case. Regarding meal and rest breaks, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants at times failed to provide compliant breaks and created and maintained work schedules and a working environment that discouraged compliant rest and meal breaks. The Court applied the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) standards, which require more than 100 members, the parties are minimally diverse, and the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. Plaintiff did not challenge that the class size exceeded 100 members or that minimal diversity existed, making the amount in controversy the "sole dispute." Marriott calculated the total amount in controversy as $16,597,521.87, including $2,695,335.10 for meal period violations and $431,253.62 for rest period violations. When doubled pursuant to Plaintiff's willful withholding claim, these two categories alone totaled $6,253,177.44, exceeding the $5 million threshold for establishing federal jurisdiction under CAFA. The Court found Marriott's assumed 20% violation rate reasonable, stating that "Courts in the Ninth Circuit have repeatedly approved of an assumed 20% violation rate for meal and rest period claims where, as here, the plaintiff alleges a 'policy and practice' of violations." The Court rejected Plaintiff's argument that violations occurring "at times" precluded this assumption, noting that "Plaintiff cannot avoid federal jurisdiction by merely adding the words 'at times' to his pleadings." The Court further explained that "violations occurring 'at times' is consistent with an assumed once per week rate," which forms the basis for the 20% violation calculation for a five-day workweek. Applying the pleading standard from Landers v. Quality Communications Inc., the Court found the Amended Complaint insufficient. Under Landers, wage and hour plaintiffs must provide more than generalized allegations and should be able to allege facts demonstrating there was at least one workweek in which they worked in excess of forty hours and were not paid overtime wages. The Court determined that the Amended Complaint does not identify any specific instance, period or frequency where Plaintiff missed meal breaks, rest breaks, performed work off-the-clock, did not accrue sick leave, was denied sick leave, or was not reimbursed for cell phone expenses. The complaint merely alleges that some of these violations occurred "at times" without providing details about the nature of violations. Regarding Jason Tyler, the Convention Services Manager, the Court found the allegations insufficient. The complaint contained only a single paragraph alleging Tyler "engaged in the managing of all events at the Westin Seattle" but provided no factually specific allegations about the ways in which Mr. Tyler exercised control over Plaintiff's wages, or how Mr. Tyler was personally involved in the various alleged violations. The Court granted Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration, explaining that it "agrees with Defendants that it erred in applying a complete diversity requirement for CAFA jurisdiction." Consequently, the Court denied Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, finding federal jurisdiction proper under CAFA. The Court granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, concluding that "the Amended Complaint does not contain enough details to plausibly support an inference that Plaintiff experienced the various alleged violations." However, the Court granted leave to amend because the deficiencies in the Amended Complaint may be cured with additional allegations. Judge Jones ordered that Plaintiff must address deficiencies in any subsequent amended complaint, including that a portion of his proposed class period fall outside the applicable statute of limitations. A copy of the court's order is available as https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fyiKix * * * Arnold filed a Second Amended Complaint with Jury Demand on July 23, 2025. On Aug. 1, the Court set these deadlines: FRCP 26(f) Conference Deadline 8/11/2025 Initial Disclosure Deadline 8/18/2025 Joint Status Report 8/25/2025 MASAYA TRADING: Faces Evans Suit Over Website's ADA Non-Compliance ------------------------------------------------------------------ JAMES EVANS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Masaya Trading Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08295 (N.D. Ill., July 21, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. Headquartered in Nashville, TN, Masaya Trading Company owns and maintains the website, https://www.masayacompany.com, which offers handcrafted furniture for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: achan@ealg.law MDL 3040: Arbitration Bid Denial in Chrysler Defect Case Overturned ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Andrew Berzanskis, Margaret Wilensky, Veronica Bryan, Michael Alexander Christie, Christopher Dorn, Meagan Poole Findeiss, James Callan Findeiss, Chad Rei Ming Fong, Ruth Isabella Hoffman, James H. Kappes, Alicia L. Kappes, Michael Patrick Keeth, Diahann H. Messeguer, Scott Alfred Olsen, Alexander Shusta, John C. Spruance, Andrew Joseph Ventura, and Spence S. Voss, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. FCA US, LLC, Defendant-Appellant, No. 24-1137 (6th Cir.), Circuit Judge Alice M. Batchelder of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of FCA's motion to compel arbitration. In early 2022, FCA recalled certain Chrysler Pacifica minivans after it discovered that the batteries in these minivans could spontaneously explode. Following the recall, plaintiffs -- who own these minivans -- filed seven putative class action suits across the county. Because these suits all related to the same alleged defect, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the cases in the Eastern District of Michigan in August 2022 styled as IN RE: CHRYSLER PACIFICA FIRE RECALL PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 3040. Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Master Complaint in November. With the cases now consolidated, FCA spent the next several weeks participating in preliminary case proceedings. Then, in December, it moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' entire complaint for failure to state a claim. While that motion was pending, the parties began to conduct discovery, at which point FCA subpoenaed the third-party dealerships that had sold the minivans to Plaintiffs. In doing so, FCA obtained the relevant purchase agreements and learned that 18 of those 69 agreements contained arbitration clauses that may apply here. FCA, hence, moved to compel those 18 plaintiffs to arbitration on May 1, 2023 -- less than five months after discovery began and seven months before the district court ruled on FCA's motion to dismiss. However, the district court denied FCA's motion to compel arbitration in January 2024 because it found that FCA waived its right to arbitrate -- even though Plaintiffs never argued waiver -- because FCA had acted "entirely inconsistent[ly] with its arbitration rights by moving to dismiss all 69 plaintiffs' claims." At the hearing, the district court never warned FCA about a potential waiver problem, and it asked only one obscure question about the timing of FCA's motion to compel arbitration. FCA now challenges the district court's decision in this interlocutory appeal. FCA raises three main arguments on appeal: (1) that an arbitrator -- and not the district court -- should have decided whether FCA had waived its right to arbitrate; (2) that FCA could not have waived its arbitration rights when it moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint because it did not know those rights existed at the time; and (3) that in any event, the district court could not sua sponte raise and find waiver. Circuit Judge Alice M. Batchelder notes that "As a threshold matter, we presume that courts -- and not arbitrators -- decide whether a party has waived its right to compel arbitration through litigation conduct inconsistent with that right. And that presumption applies with equal force even when the parties have agreed to a broad arbitration clause." The Court points out that contracting parties likely would not expect arbitrators to resolve these issues because such issues rarely touch on a dispute's merits. It further emphasized that "under ordinary waiver rules, a party cannot waive a right unless he first knows that right exists." Judge Batchelder held that FCA could not have intentionally relinquished its arbitration rights by taking actions inconsistent with those rights if it never knew that they existed. She added that, "[H]ad FCA been forced to move to compel arbitration before it received the relevant sales agreements through discovery, it would not have known which plaintiffs it could compel to arbitration." The Court of Appeals notes that the district court did suggest that even if FCA's knowledge was relevant, it still "taxe[d] credulity to posit that FCA was not aware of the standard sales documents its dealers were using." However, Judge Batchelder points out that the district court had no evidence that allowed it to make that purported factual finding. When FCA argued it did not have access to the relevant purchase agreements before engaging in discovery, the district court responded based on its anecdotal experience with car dealerships rather than evidence in the record. "[N]either the district court's anecdotal experience with car dealerships nor its belief that arbitration agreements are ubiquitous throughout the industry is sufficient evidence to support a factual finding about FCA's knowledge, and that makes the district court's decision clearly erroneous," according to the Court of Appeals. Most significantly, the Appeals Court notes that the district court -- not the plaintiffs -- raised waiver as a defense to FCA's motion to compel arbitration. The Court explained that "in our adversarial system, we follow the principle of party presentation," which means that we "rely on the parties to frame the issues for decision and assign to courts the role of neutral arbiter of matters the parties present." Circuit Judge Batchelder stated that the principle of party presentation sets a very high bar for addressing an issue that neither party raised and that bar is cleared only in exceptional cases or particular circumstances or when the rule would produce a plain miscarriage of justice. "This is no exceptional case, however, that forced the district court to choose between respecting a core principle of our adversarial system and preventing some miscarriage of justice," the Appeals Court held. "The 18 plaintiffs potentially subject to arbitration had every incentive and opportunity to raise waiver as a defense to the motion to compel arbitration but chose not to do so and holding them to that strategic choice here will not result in a miscarriage of justice. At worst, these plaintiffs will merely be required to abide by the terms of the contracts that hey voluntarily signed and agreed to and to pursue their claims before an arbitrator". The Court of Appeals concluded that the district court's decision not only violates the principle of party presentation basic to the adversarial system but also contravenes the Court's well-established waiver rules, and therefore reversed the decision of the district court and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. A copy of the court's opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=17LwVw MID-FLORIDA PRIMARY: May Face Class Action Suit Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Mid-Florida Primary Care data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who received a notice stating they were impacted. Mid-Florida Primary Care Security Incident: What Happened? On July 29, 2025, Mid-Florida Primary Care, PA, an internal medicine practice with locations in Leesburg and Summerfield, Florida, announced a data breach affecting its network environment. Detected around January 23, 2025, the Mid-Florida Primary Care data breach involved unauthorized access and copying of data between November 29, 2024 and December 11, 2024. In mid-June 2025, Mid-Florida Primary Care finished its review of potentially affected information and to whom it belonged. The compromised data may include names, addresses, birth dates, email addresses, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, health insurance details, and medical information (e.g., diagnoses, treatment information, test results, prescription details, etc.). Notice letters are now being sent to those affected by the Mid-Florida Primary Care data breach. What You Can Do After the Mid-Florida Primary Care Data Breach If your information was exposed in the data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Mid-Florida Primary Care to ensure it takes proper steps to protect the information it was entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] MIDDLEBURG-LEGACY PLACE: Green Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ ARTISHA GREEN, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated v. MIDDLEBURG-LEGACY PLACE, LLC d/b/a PARKSIDE VILLA, Case No. 1:25-cv-01526 (N.D. Ohio, July 22, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees for all hours worked, including meal periods during which they performed work and were not completely relieved from duty and overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant employed Plaintiff as a STNA from October 2024 through January 2025. Other similarly situated employees were employed by Defendant as full-time, non-exempt employees, including but not limited to STNAs. The Defendant operates a nursing home at 7040 Hepburn Road, Middleburg Heights, Ohio 44130 under the name Parkside Villa.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lori M. Griffin, Esq. Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC The Heritage Building, Suite 250 34555 Chagrin Boulevard Moreland Hills, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 696-5000 Facsimile: (216) 696-7005 E-mail: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com MISS TOYA'S: Discovery Bid in Johnson Suit Gets Partial Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Candice Johnson, Plaintiff, v. Miss Toya's Creole House, LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil No. 1:23-2821-GLR (D. Md.), United States Magistrate Judge Charles D. Austin of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendants to produce a complete list of all putative collective members. Defendants were ordered to produce information for putative class members employed by the named Defendants through the present. However, the Court denied Plaintiff's request to expand the production to include employees from other restaurant locations not specifically named in the conditional certification order. Plaintiff Candice Johnson filed her class action complaint individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, on October 18, 2023, against Miss Toya's Creole House, LLC and Miskiri Hospitality Group, LLC alleging that Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and analogous Maryland statutes while she was employed by Defendants as a bartender from November 2022 through February 2023. On February 4, 2025, the Court granted in part Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification and conditionally certified a FLSA collective action consisting of "all bartenders and servers employed by Defendants Miss Toyas Creole House, LLC and Miskiri Hospitality Group, LLC within the three years prior to the filing of this lawsuit." The Court ordered Defendants to produce to Johnson's counsel a class list in electronic format containing the FLSA Collective members' names, positions, dates of employment, addresses, email addresses, and telephone numbers within 14 business days. On February 27, 2025, nine days after the deadline, Defendants produced a class list of all bartenders and servers employed by Miss Toya's Creole House, LLC from August 2022 to October 2023. That same day, Plaintiff's counsel contacted Defendants' counsel via email, requesting confirmation that the list included all members of the conditionally certified collective. Plaintiff's counsel identified potential deficiencies, including that the list contained only 19 individuals, four of whom were former employees. Defendants did not respond. On March 18, 2025, after Plaintiff's counsel "independently confirmed that the list was significantly deficient," Plaintiff's counsel e-mailed Defendants' counsel again to address Defendants' alleged noncompliance and requested a supplemented production of the complete class list. Defendants again did not respond. Plaintiff asserted that her efforts to provide notice of the collective action were prejudiced by Defendants' failure to produce (1) any information for bartenders or servers employed at any of Defendants' restaurant concepts other than Miss Toyas; and (2) a complete list of all individuals employed at Miss Toyas since October 18, 2020. She sought an order compelling production of "a complete list consisting of 'all bartenders and servers employed by Defendants Miss Toyas Creole House, LLC and Miskiri Hospitality Group, LLC since October 18, 2020." Defendants opposed further production, asserting that they provided a list of all bartenders and servers employed at Miss Toya's Creole House from August 2022 to October 2023. Defendants limited their production to that period because Miss Toya's Creole House opened in August 2022, so there could not be any employees before that time. In their written submission, Defendants claimed that Defendant Mr. Miskiri did not employ any other bartenders or servers. Based on the restaurant's opening date, the Defendants do not believe additional information is required and insisted that Plaintiff's request is a fishing expedition. Defendants asked the court to deny Plaintiff's request and award them their attorney's fees for having to respond. According to the Court, the Conditional Certification Order found that the putative class includes bartenders and servers employed by Defendants within three years of this lawsuit, based on the three-year statute of limitations that applies for willful violations of FLSA. While the Conditional Certification Order is silent on the end date, Judge Austin noted that several courts in this circuit and elsewhere have defined conditional certification classes as running through the date of the conditional order, if not conclusion of the lawsuit. "Defendants have only produced a class list of all bartenders and servers employed by Miss Toya's Creole House, LLC from August 2022 to October 2023. Their production should account for the time after Plaintiff filed suit. Therefore, being correct about the relevant duration, Plaintiff is entitled to a supplement to include individuals employed by the named Defendants through the present," ruled Judge Austin. Moreover, the language of the Conditional Certification Order does not appear to extend the putative class to other restaurants controlled by non-party persons or entities, the Court opined. Judge Austin explained that "the description refers to bartenders and servers employed by only the two named Defendants in this case. It does not mention or refer to Mr. Miskiri individually or any other restaurant referenced in Plaintiff's declaration in support of conditional certification or advertised alongside Miss Toya's Creole House on the Miskiri Hospitality Group website." The Court noted that defense counsel represented to the Court that Miskiri Hospitality Group, LLC is not legally attached to those other restaurants and has no employees of its own, and Plaintiff provides no evidence suggesting that Miskiri does, in fact, control those other restaurants or otherwise employ other bartenders and servers. With regards the Defendants' request for attorney's fees, Judge Austin denied the request saying "the Court does not find any award of expenses or fees appropriate here where Defendants' failure to respond to Plaintiff's follow-up requests necessitated the filing of the Motion." The Court further noted that Plaintiff succeeded on at least one argument and her unsuccessful argument was not so unfounded or unjustified that an award to Defendants is warranted. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6RZlvH MOHAWK GAMING: Wins Cross-Bid to Confirm Class Determination Award ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Light & Wonder, Inc. and LNW GAMING, INC., Petitioners v. Mohawk Gaming Enterprises LLC, Respondent, Index No. 650148/2025, Judge Margaret A. Chan of the Supreme Court of New York County denies the Petitioners' motion and petition to vacate the Class Determination Award and confirms the Respondent's cross-motion to confirm the Class Determination Award. This case involves a confirmed class arbitration proceeding. Mohawk Gaming Enterprises LLC commenced an arbitration proceeding against LNW before the AAA on November 9, 2020, alleging that Light & Wonder violated the Sherman Act by unlawfully monopolizing an antitrust market of automatic shufflers through anticompetitive conduct. Mohawk's action was brought on its own behalf and as a class arbitration pursuant to Rule 4 of the AAA Supplementary Rules for Class Arbitration. The arbitrator certified a proposed opt-out class that substantially adopted Mohawk's proposed class definition, which consisted of All persons and entities that directly purchased or leased automatic card shufflers within the United States, its territories and the District of Columbia from any Respondent or any predecessor, subsidiary or affiliate thereof, at any time between April 1, 2009 and December 31, 2022, and that agreed in writing to arbitrate disputes arising from such purchases or leases under the rules of the AAA. The dispute arose from the Mohawk Agreement executed in early 2015 between Mohawk and Bally Gaming, Inc., a predecessor of Light & Wonder. The agreement provided that "any and all controversies, disputes or claims of any nature arising directly or indirectly out of or in connection with this Agreement shall be submitted to binding arbitration for final resolution. The arbitration shall follow the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the AAA." The arbitrator first addressed whether Mohawk could bring its antitrust action as a class arbitration. By an award dated February 8, 2022, the arbitrator determined that Section 6.6(c) of the Mohawk Agreement permitted the arbitration to proceed on behalf of a class or classes. The arbitrator concluded that although Section 6.6(c) did not include language concerning class arbitration, the "strikingly broad language must be given significance and meaning," which meant that the "sweeping language" of the clause "encompassed class arbitrations." Light & Wonder moved to vacate this award in New York state court, but the trial court rejected LNW's challenge to the Clause Construction Award and instead confirmed the award upon Mohawk's cross-motion. The trial court's decision was subsequently affirmed on appeal by the First Department. Two years later, Mohawk moved for class certification. Light & Wonder filed its opposition, arguing that it had not agreed to resolve the claims of absent putative class members through class arbitration and invoked the standard articulated in Lamps Plus to support its position. The company also argued that many of the absent class members' arbitration clauses did not include the same strikingly broad language included in the Mohawk Agreement. On December 9, 2024, the arbitrator issued the Class Determination Award certifying the proposed opt-out class that substantially adopted Mohawk's proposed class definition. The arbitrator first analyzed Mohawk's motion pursuant to the factors set forth in Rules 4(a) and (b) of the AAA's Supplementary Rules for Class Certification. The arbitrator determined that Mohawk had established numerosity, common questions of law or fact, typicality of claims, adequacy of class representation and counsel, and superiority of class arbitration. Regarding the requirement that each class member entered into an agreement containing a substantially similar arbitration clause, the arbitrator concluded that Mohawk met this requirement because: (1) each class member had agreed to adopt the AAA Arbitration Rules; (2) the arbitration clauses signed by all proposed class members encompassed claims in Mohawk's arbitration demand and covered the same period of time; and (3) There had been nothing brought to the Arbitrator's attention suggesting that anything in any of the class clauses directly precluded class arbitration. Light & Wonder sought to vacate the Class Determination Award on three grounds. First, the company argued that the Arbitrator exceeded his contractual authority by imposing his own policy justifications for class-wide arbitration instead of interpreting the relevant absent class members' agreements. Second, it contended that by failing to follow Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v AnimalFeeds Intl. Corp. (559 US 662 [2010]) and Lamps Plus Inc. v Varela (587 US 176 [2019]), the Arbitrator disregarded well-established law governing class arbitration. Third, the petitioners asserted that the Arbitrator was required, but failed, to consider the absent class members' contracts in order to determine whether class certification was appropriate under the AAA Rule 4 Factors. The court applied Federal Arbitration Act standards, noting that "the scope of judicial review of an arbitration proceeding is 'extremely limited,'" and courts must give deference to arbitrator decisions when the arbitrator offers "even a barely colorable justification for the outcome reached." Under Section 10(a)(4) of the FAA, a court may vacate an award where the arbitrators exceeded their powers. The court also addressed the manifest disregard of law doctrine, explaining that this is a "severely limited" doctrine requiring both that (1) the arbitrators knew of a governing legal principle yet refused to apply it or ignored it altogether, and (2) the law ignored by the arbitrators was well defined, explicit, and clearly applicable to the case. Judge Chan concluded that Light & Wonder failed to establish any grounds to vacate the Class Determination Award." Regarding the manifest disregard argument, the court found no basis to conclude from the record that the Arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law. The court noted that even if LNW's reasoning is persuasive, it is not so clear that Stolt-Nielsen and Lamps Plus applied to the Arbitrator's class certification analysis. The court emphasized that neither Stolt-Nielsen nor Lamps Plus addressed or otherwise extended the issue of consent to class arbitration in the context of certifying a class for arbitration. The arbitrator clearly laid out his reasoning for why they did not, including a review of the central holdings in Lamps Plus, policy arguments, and an analysis of analogous case law and arbitration awards. The court determined that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority, noting that he addressed each of the AAA Rule 4 Factors and proffered a colorable justification for the outcome reached. Regarding the contracts analysis, the court found that the arbitrator did, in fact, consider the relevant contracts that were before him as part of his assessment. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zEfpaN MONTGOMERY COUNTY: Union Sue Over Payment Platform for Educators ---------------------------------------------------------------- The MOCOSHOW reports that The Montgomery County Education Association has voiced profound concern over disruptions to educator pay, stemming from issues with Montgomery County Public Schools' (MCPS) new payment platform, MCPS Hub+. The union has filed a class action grievance against the school system in response to ongoing problems, the latest of which has left some employees without timely compensation. Moderately MoCo was first to report on the delayed payments earlier this month. "Like all workers, our members rely on getting paid on time and in full," stated MCEA Vice President Danillya Wilson. "These disruptions are unacceptable. These payment problems interrupt the ability of our members to pay bills on time and meet their families' financial obligations." MCEA President David Stein highlighted that issues with the Hub+ platform are not new, having persisted since its rollout last school year. "Although MCPS has assured MCEA that the paychecks will go out on Wednesday, these issues have been going on since MCPS rolled out the platform last school year, and we have flagged this problem for MCPS time and time again," Stein asserted. "The most recent issue is the most egregious: no one should be subjected to not getting paid on time or in full." In response to these persistent payment challenges, MCEA has formally escalated the matter. "In response to these ongoing payment challenges, MCEA has filed a class action grievance against MCPS under our collective bargaining agreement," President Stein confirmed. "We're prepared to take any and all actions necessary to make sure our members and their families are made whole." MCPS Public Information Officer Liliana Lopez acknowledged the difficulties in a statement provided to us, recognizing that "unfortunately, issues with our new payroll and HR system caused pay disruptions for some team members on summer assignments this past pay period." Lopez clarified the scope of the latest delay: "A small number of summer employees who started work after July 11 or whose time cards were entered into our system after July 11 will now be paid by July 30. All other employees received their pay as scheduled on July 25." MCPS expressed regret for the impact of these issues. "MCPS sincerely regrets any financial and personal strain this delay may have caused," Lopez said. "MCPS is committed to working with our associations to ensure our team members are confident they will be compensated correctly and in a timely manner going forward." [GN] MW SERVICES: Faces Wiseman Over Alleged Illegal Online Casino ------------------------------------------------------------- MARLENA WIESEMAN, individually, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. MW SERVICES LTD., d/b/a WOW VEGAS, Case No. 3:25-cv-03216-CRL-DJQ (C.D. Ill., July 23, 2025) arises out of the Defendant's operation of an illegal online casino in violation of Illinois law. The Defendant owns and operates WOW Vegas (https://www.wowvegas.com), one of the most popular and profitable casino and sweepstakes gaming website on the planet. Through WOW Vegas, users can access and play thousands of popular casino games, including, inter alia, jackpots, slots, roulette, baccarat, and Megaways titles (the Chance Games). Some of these games are even hosted by live dealers in real-time, further mimicking the experience of a physical casino. The Chance Games offered on WOW Vegas are unequivocally games of chance. Their outcomes are determined primarily, if not exclusively, by randomization -- rendering them indistinguishable from the games found in traditional, brick-and-mortar casinos. To evade regulatory scrutiny and mislead consumers, WOW Vegas markets itself as a "social casino." This designation is purely cosmetic, designed to create the false impression that the platform provides benign, entertainment-only gameplay, when in reality it facilitates and profits from illegal gambling. In practice, WOW Vegas operates in a manner virtually indistinguishable from a traditional online casino. Players can purchase in-game currency, use that currency to wager on games of chance, and subsequently redeem their winnings for cash or gift cards. WOW Vegas's rapid growth and popularity are directly attributable to its realistic casino-like experience, which includes authentic gameplay, partnerships with well-known gaming studios, robust bonus programs, and fast, reliable payout systems. WOW Vegas derives its revenue primarily through the sale of in-game currency -- specifically, virtual coins --which function as a de facto substitute for real money and are necessary for users to participate in games on the platform.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. Gabriel Mandler, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com gabriel@edelsberglaw.com - and - Andrew Shamis, Esq. Edwin Elliot, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com edwine@shamisgentile.com MYTEE AUTOMATIVE: Faces Dorman Suit Over Wage & Hour Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- DANNY DORMAN, On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MYTEE AUTOMATIVE, INC. dba MYTEE AUTOMOTIVE, Case No. 3:25-cv-01543-JJH (N.D. Ohio, July 24, 2025) challenges the Defendant's wage-and-hour practices by which it willfully violated its employees' rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Dorman worked for Defendant as a mechanic from June 2020 through July 18, 2025. Mytee owned and operated its business, an automobile repair shop, at three locations, all in Lucas or Wood County, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott D. Perlmuter, Esq. Kathleen R. Harris, Esq. TITTLE & PERLMUTER 4106 Bridge Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 222-2222 Facsimile: (888) 604-9299 E-mail: scott@tittlelawfirm.com katie@tittlelawfirm.com NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Judge Certifies Tennis Antitrust Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- According to Reuters, Chief U.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles of the Middle District of North Carolina certified a class of approximately 12,000 current and former student-athletes who have competed in NCAA Division I tennis since March 2020. The certification means the case will now move forward on behalf of a significantly larger group than the original two plaintiffs. The lawsuit, filed by tennis players Reese Brantmeier and Maya Joint, accuses the NCAA of violating federal antitrust laws by limiting how much prize money student-athletes can accept for off-campus competition. The plaintiffs argue that these restrictions unlawfully stifle competition in the market for Division I tennis talent. Per Reuters, Judge Eagles noted that Joint is no longer eligible to compete in college tennis because she accepted more prize money than the NCAA allows under current rules. Despite this, both Joint and Brantmeier will continue to serve as lead plaintiffs in the suit, which is now positioned as a nationwide class action. The NCAA, for its part, opposed class certification, arguing that individual differences between players -- including potential consequences for team composition -- made a class action inappropriate. The organization expressed concern that elite athletes who earn money on the professional circuit could jeopardize roster spots for other college players if allowed to also compete at the collegiate level. The case adds to a growing legal pushback against the NCAA's long-standing limits on student-athlete compensation. As Reuters reports, Brantmeier's lawsuit joins a broader wave of antitrust litigation targeting the association's control over benefits and pay for college athletes. In a separate legal development, the NCAA recently agreed to a $2.8 billion settlement in California to resolve other antitrust claims and will begin permitting schools to compensate athletes for the use of their names, images, and likenesses (NIL). NEW AMERICAN: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Marton Says -------------------------------------------------------- RYAN MARTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NEW AMERICAN FUNDING, LLC and MOBILE NOTARY ZONE, LLC, Case No. 8:25-cv-01616-MRA-JDE (C.D. Cal., July 24, 2025) arises from the Defendants failure to secure the personally identifiable information (PII) of Plaintiff and the members of the proposed Class, following cyber incident that Defendants disclosed in July 2025 (the Data Breach). On June 6, 2025, NAF announced that it learned of suspicious activity on MNZ's IT Network. In response, NAF launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the incident. NAF's investigation determined that an unauthorized actor accessed MNZ systems, which contained NAF clients Private Information. The following types of Private Information were compromised in the Data Breach: name, address. Social Security number, date of birth, financial account information, and other personal financial information. On July 11, 2025, NAF began sending notice letters to its clients whose Private Information were contained in MNZ's systems at the time of the Data Breach. 8. Defendants failed to prevent the Private Information of individuals including Plaintiff and Class Members from being stolen. Instead, the Defendants disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently failing to implement reasonable measures to safeguard Private Information and by failing to take necessary steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of that information. Defendants woefully inadequate data security measures made the Data Breach a foreseeable, and even likely, consequence of its negligence, says the suit. NAF is a mortgage lender and servicer that has been operating for over 20 years. MNZ is a nationwide mobile notary company, and vendor of Defendant NAF. In the course of its regular business operations, NAF utilizes MNZ's services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive, Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com NEWTON, MA: Judge Dismisses Parents' Second Attempt to Sue Teachers ------------------------------------------------------------------- Molly Farrar, writing The Gavel, reports that a judge dismissed the second class action lawsuit brought by parents of Newton students who missed classes during an 11-day educator strike last year. Lital Asher-Dotan, Dmitriy Sokolovskiy, Dan Eshet, Barbara Cipriani, and Ronit Inbar all sued for $25 million on behalf of their children, who are Newton Public School students. The parents argued that the strike caused harm to students and families, driving parents "to a point of desperation." Newton teachers ended the then-historic strike after 11 days in February of 2024, winning improved parental leave, family leave, and minimum wages. Teachers in Brookline, Andover, Haverhill, Malden, and on the North Shore have also taken to the picket line in recent years to win contracts. All public employees in Massachusetts are barred from striking by state law, including teachers, under Section 9A. The parents argued that the union leaders of the Newton Teachers Association, the Massachusetts Teachers Association, the National Education Association, and the UAW, the United Auto Workers union, who were named as defendants, all knew the strike was illegal and supported it publicly. "When someone breaks the law, and causes damage to others, is it not right and just for the law-breakers to make whole the victims of their misconduct?" the parents write in their complaint. Judge Christopher Barry-Smith ruled earlier this month that the union didn't threaten, intimidate, or coerce as part of the labor strike and that students aren't third-party beneficiaries to the educators' collective bargaining agreement. "Recent history, including in Newton, demonstrates that collective bargaining between a municipality and its public employees can be complex and very difficult. The interests of parents and students necessarily must be represented by their elected and appointed officials in public bargaining," Barry-Smith wrote. "To insert those parental and student interests into the already difficult process by way of a direct cause of action to enforce Section 9A, through damages, would wholly undermine the public employer-employee relations," the judge continued. Parents already filed similar class action suit immediately after strike The same parents were behind a separate class action lawsuit request within the state's case against the union immediately after the strike. The request was dismissed because "the case is over, and this motion to intervene is denied as moot," the judge said. The parents, represented by Boston-based Ilya Feoktistov and Chicago-based Daniel Suhr, then refiled as a separate lawsuit. Barry-Smith also noted that the Commonwealth Employee Relations Board, which enforces the prohibition of strikes, "contain no reference to parents or any other third parties that may be entitled to enforcement" of the law. Feoktistov and Suhr are also the attorneys behind a lawsuit filed in June against the Beverly Teachers Association after a 12-day strike last fall. Suhr, who did not return a request for comment for this story, also unsuccessfully sued the Chicago Teachers Union for their 2022 strike. "When teachers go on an illegal strike, they are placing their own demands ahead of their students' needs," Suhr said previously. "The unions' unlawful behavior here sets a terrible example for young, impressionable students who admire and respect their teachers." [GN] NEWYORK-PRESBYTERIAN: Faces Class Suit Over Health Plan Insurance ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Scarcella of Reuters reports that a union health plan has sued NewYork-Presbyterian, one of the largest U.S. hospital systems, for allegedly restricting commercial health plans and insurers from steering members to rival providers that might offer more affordable care. The proposed class action, opens new tab was filed on Friday, July 25, in federal court in Manhattan by the Cement and Concrete Workers DC Benefit Fund, which provides health benefits to more than 1,700 members. The complaint alleged NewYork-Presbyterian (NYP) is violating federal antitrust law by imposing contract terms on health plans and insurers that forbid them from offering financial incentives and other motivations for members to receive care from competitors. The union health plan said it has paid more for hospital services than it would have in a competitive market. "NYP has engaged in some of the most flagrantly anticompetitive contracting and negotiating tactics of any hospital system in America," the lawsuit said. NewYork-Presbyterian and attorneys for the labor union health plan did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Nonprofit NewYork-Presbyterian's affiliates include Columbia University Irving Medical Center and Weill Cornell Medical Center. NewYork-Presbyterian says it sees more than 2 million visits annually. The lawsuit said the hospital system's 2023 operating revenue was $12.5 billion. The U.S. Justice Department in 2018 settled an antitrust lawsuit against a hospital in North Carolina that was accused of discouraging patients from using lower-cost alternatives. The hospital agreed to end anti-steering provisions from its insurer contracts. Data from one of New York's largest unions showed NewYork-Presbyterian charged about $41,000 for cesarean-section deliveries, according to the lawsuit, compared with $30,000 at rival Mount Sinai Health System. The union health plan said it is seeking unspecified monetary damages and a court order prohibiting any continued anticompetitive conduct. The plaintiff said it had paid millions of dollars at "supercompetitive price levels" to NewYork-Presbyterian. The lawsuit estimated a class of at least thousands of members. The case is Cement and Concrete Workers DC Benefit Fund v. The New York and Presbyterian Hospital, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 1:25-cv-06140. For plaintiff: Jamie Crooks and Yinka Onayemi of Fair mark Partners, and Frank Schirripa and Scott Jacobsen of Hach Rose Schirripa & Cheverie For defendant: No appearance yet [GN] NICKY'S FOOD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rodriguez Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- CESAR PALMERIN RODRIGUEZ, an individual, on behalf of himself and all plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. NICKY'S FOOD, INC., an Illinois corporation, d/b/a NICKY'S GYROS LOCKPORT, GENIE THEODOSSOPOULOS, an individual, and SOPHIE PLAKIAS, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-08300 (N.D. Ill., July 21, 2025) arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law for Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff, and other similarly situated employees, overtime compensation for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees are current and former cooks, food preparers and kitchen staff employees at Defendants' restaurant. Allegedly, the Defendants did not compensate Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees at one and one-half times their regular hourly rates of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 in individual work weeks. Instead, the Defendants paid Plaintiff's overtime compensable hours at his straight-time hourly rate of pay. Nicky's Food, Inc. is an Illinois corporation that operates the Nicky's Gyros Lockport restaurant located on East 9th Street in Lockport, IL. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy M. Nolan, Esq. NOLAN LAW OFFICE 53 W. Jackson Blvd., Ste. 1137 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 322-1100 E-mail: tnolan@nolanwagelaw.com NIKITA BAKER: Parties Must Follow Class Cert Hearing Procedure -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as D.N.N., et al., v. NIKITA BAKER, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01613-JRR (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Julie R. Rubin entered an order addressing how the parties shall proceed to present argument and evidence at the preliminary injunction/class certification hearing on July 29, 2025. The court will not hear opening statements. Closing arguments shall proceed as follows: Plaintiffs and the Government shall each have 20 minutes to present closing argument. Plaintiffs shall then have 10 minutes to use as rebuttal closing argument following the Government’s arguments. The parties are entitled to present witness testimony as follows: Direct examination shall be limited to 30 minutes per witness; cross-examination shall be limited to 30 minutes per witness; re-direct examination shall be limited to whatever portion of time has been reserved by the party calling the witness on direct. There shall be no re-cross examination. Except in the case of rebuttal witnesses, no witness shall be called to testify more than once. In the event the Plaintiffs and the Government plan to call the same witness, they shall coordinate before the hearing as to the timing of that witness as a courtesy among counsel and to the court; the court may allow cross-examination beyond the scope of direct accordingly, and will consider additional examination time if the court finds it necessary and appropriate. A copy of the Court's order dated July 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dqkrtq at no extra charge.[CC] NORDSTROM INC: McWashington Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- CURTIS MCWASHINGTON, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Curtis McWashington, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Nordstrom, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-01230-TSZ, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs brought this suit as representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries of the Nordstrom 401(k) Plan against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. On Nov. 1, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim on Dec. 6, 2024. On June 23, 2025, Judge Thomas S. Zilly entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Plaintiffs' amended complaint is dismissed without prejudice as to the first, second, third, and fourth claims, and with prejudice as to the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth claims. The appellate case is entitled McWashington, et al. v. Nordstrom, Inc., et al., Case No. 25-4613, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 24, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on July 29, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on September 3, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on October 3, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants CURTIS MCWASHINGTON, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Todd M. Schneider, Esq. James Bloom, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY, LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 - and - Paul M. Secunda, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Defendants-Appellees NORDSTROM, INC., et al. are represented by: Nancy G. Ross, Esq. MAYER BROWN, LLP 71 S. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 PANDADOC INC: Senior Sues Over Blind Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- FRANK SENIOR, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PANDADOC, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05942 (S.D.N.Y., July 21, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to make its website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, depriving blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services -- all benefits it affords non-disabled individuals. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. Based in San Francisco, CA, PandaDoc, Inc. owns and operates the website, https://www.pandadoc.com/, which offers agreement management solution software for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal PAPA MERCHANT: Esckilsen Seeks Minimum Wages for Delivery Drivers ----------------------------------------------------------------- JEFFREY ESCKILSEN, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. PAPA MERCHANT VENTURES, LLC and SALIM MERCHANT, individually, Case No. 5:25-cv-00875 (W.D. Tex., July 24, 2025) alleges that the Defendants employ delivery drivers who use their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their customers. According to the complaint, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles, the Defendants use a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks. The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours owed to himself and similarly situated delivery drivers employed by Defendants at their pizza delivery Stores. The Plaintiff is an individual who was employed by Defendants within the meaning of the FLSA within the three-year period preceding the filing of this Complaint. The Defendants operate several pizza franchise stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew R. McCarley, Esq. Colby Qualls, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 11300 N Central Expy, Suite 550 Dallas, TX 75243 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 Facsimile: (469) 399-1070 E-mail: mccarley@foresterhaynie.com cqualls@foresterhaynie.com PERION NETWORK: Menora Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- MENORA MIVTACHIM INSURANCE LTD., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled In Re: Perion Network Ltd. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:24-cv-2860, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On April 16, 2024, Craig Beisner, a purported shareholder of Perion Network Ltd., filed a putative class action complaint, alleging violations of U.S. federal securities laws against Perion Network and certain of its former and current directors and officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and the putative class action. The class action asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and alleges that the Defendants materially misrepresented and/or omitted facts in various public disclosures concerning Perion Network's search advertising business and its partnership with Microsoft Bing. On August 5, 2024, the Court appointed Menora Mivtachim Insurance Ltd., Menora Mivtachim Pensions and Gemel Ltd., Menora Mivtachim Vehistadrut Hamehandesim Nihul Kupot Gemel LTD, Clal Insurance Company Ltd., Clal Pension and Provident Ltd., and Atudot Pension Fund for Employees & Independent Workers Ltd. as joint lead Plaintiffs ("Lead Plaintiffs"). On September 20, 2024, Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against the aforementioned Defendants and one additional Defendant, one of the founders of Content IQ (the "Amended Complaint"). On November 4, 2024, Perion Network filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Compliant, which Judge Valerie E. Caproni granted on June 27, 2025. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs failed to allege a primary violation of the Exchange Act, and thus they have failed to state a claim under Section 20(a). The appellate case is entitled In Re: Perion Network Ltd. Securities Litigation, Case No. 25-1831, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on July 28, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants MENORA MIVTACHIM INSURANCE LTD., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Michael Grunfeld, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Defendants-Appellees PERION NETWORK LTD., et al. are represented by: Dana M. Seshens, Esq. DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 PREMIUM MERCHANT: Class Cert Bid Filing in Weingrad Due Dec. 6 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEON WEINGRAD v. PREMIUM MERCHANT FUNDING ONE, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-06247-JP (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge John R. Padova entered a pretrial scheduling order as follows: 1. All discovery shall proceed forthwith and continue in such manner as will assure that all requests for and responses to discovery will be served, noticed and completed by Nov. 28, 2025. 2. Motion for class certification shall be filed no later than Dec. 6, 2025. Responses are due no later than Jan. 5, 2026. 3. A final pretrial conference for this matter will be held on March 3, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. in chambers (Room 17613). 4. The parties shall file a complete and comprehensive stipulation of uncontested facts on or before Feb. 11, 2026. Premium provides merchant cash advances, business loans, and real estate financing to small business owners. A copy of the Court's order dated July 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=x8BM1C at no extra charge.[CC] PRIME ASCOT: Filing of Bid for Class Cert. Due Sept. 24 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICHA LEASER, ATCHARA WONGSAROJ, KATINA MAGEE, and JOYCE EISMAN, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. PRIME ASCOT, L.P., a California limited partnership; PRIME ASCOT ACQUISITION, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; PRIME/PARK LABREA TITLEHOLDER, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (originally sued as Doe 1); PRIME ADMINISTRATION, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and Does 31 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-02502-DJC-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Daniel J. Calabretta entered an amended stipulation and modified scheduling order 1. The dates and deadlines in the Scheduling Order shall be modified as follows: Fact Discovery Cutoff Date: Sept. 30, 2025; Expert Disclosure Deadline: Dec. 1. 2025; Expert Discovery Cutoff Date: Mar. 20, 2026; Motion for Class Certification Deadline: Sept. 24, 2025; Class Certification Motion Hearing: Nov. 6, 2025 at 1:30 PM; Final Pretrial Conference: Sept. 24, 2026 at 1:30 PM 2. All other terms and deadlines not expressly addressed in this Stipulation remain in effect. 3. Notwithstanding the extension of the fact discovery cut-off date, the parties agree that they shall not propound additional written discovery and shall not seek the depositions of any witnesses other than the Parties' Deponents referenced herein absent a showing of good cause. A copy of the Court's order dated July 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MkJhkw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alex Tomasevic, Esq. NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP 225 Broadway UNIT 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 325-0492 The Defendants are represented by: Richard R. Patch, Esq. Mark L. Hejinian, Esq. Daniel M. Bruggebrew, Esq. Evan Campbell, Esq. COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS LLP One Montgomery Street, Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94104-5500 Telephone: (415) 391-4800 Facsimile: (415) 989-1663 E-mail: ef-rrp@cpdb.com ef-mlh@cpdb.com ef-dmb@cpdb.com ef-egc@cpdb.com PROTECTIVE LIFE: Settlement Fairness Hearing Scheduled for Oct. 24 ------------------------------------------------------------------ United States District Court for the Southern District of California Keir Milan, et al., v. Protective Life Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-01861-W-AHG Protective Life Insurance Company ("Protective") and West Coast Life Insurance Company (together "Defendants"), terminated life insurance policies for non-payment of premium according to the terms of the original contracts, but for a period of time were not attempting to comply with California Insurance Code Sections 10113.71 and 10113.72 (the "Statutes"), which relate to termination of life insurance policies. The Settlement is not a finding or admission of liability by Defendants, which deny all allegations of wrongful conduct. Protective Life administers certain policies issued by West Coast Life Insurance Company, Protective Life and Annuity Company, Athene Annuity & Life Assurance Company, Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company, Standard Insurance Company, Voya Life Insurance Company, Aetna Life Insurance Company, Anthem Life Insurance Company, American General Life Insurance Company, Jefferson National Life Insurance Company, John Hancock Life Insurance Company, MONY Life Insurance Company, MONY Life Insurance Company of America, MONY Life Insurance Company of Boston, Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Company, Commonwealth Annuity and Life Insurance Company, Everence Association Inc., Equitable Financial Life Insurance Company of America, First Variable Life Insurance Company, Humana Dental Insurance Company, Nationwide Life Insurance Company, Optum Insurance of Ohio, Inc., Sunset Life Insurance Company of America, Unum Life Insurance Company of America, Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, and Zurich American Life Insurance Company. Visit the Settlement Website, www.lifeinsurancelapsesettlement.com, to confirm whether a policy issued by one of these companies is included in the Settlement. Am I a Class Member? Class Members are Policy Owners of individual life insurance policies issued or delivered in California by Protective (or administered by Protective), that were not affirmatively canceled in writing by the policy owner and that: (i) terminated for non-payment of amounts due on or after January 1, 2013, without Protective first providing all the protections required by the Statutes; and (ii) have a Maturity Date that did not expire prior to the insured's death, or if the insured is still living, prior to the date the Preliminary Approval Order is entered ("Class Policies"). If the named insured under the Class Policy is deceased as of the date of the Preliminary Approval Order, the beneficiary(s) of the Class Policy may also be Class Members. What Can I Get? If approved by the Court, the Settlement offers the following settlement relief to Class Members: (1) if the named insured under the Class Policy is alive as of the date of the Preliminary Approval Order, the Policy Owner, upon timely payment of the Discounted Reinstatement Amount, can reinstate the Class Policy without underwriting and without triggering a new contestability period under the Class Policy; (2) if the named insured under the Class Policy is deceased as of the date of the Preliminary Approval Order, the beneficiary(s) of the Class Policy may be entitled to a monetary payment, which will be determined based on the Plan of Allocation, as described in the Settlement Agreement. How Do I Get Settlement Relief? Class Members must submit a timely and properly completed Claim or Reinstatement Request Form no later than September 19, 2025. Claim and Reinstatement Request Forms are available online at www.lifeinsurancelapsesettlement.com or by contacting the Settlement Administrator at 1-844-901-4092. COMPLETING A CLAIM OR REINSTATEMENT REQUEST FORM DOES NOT GUARANTEE THAT YOU WILL RECEIVE RELIEF. What are My Other Options? If you are a Class Member associated with a Class Policy where the named insured is deceased as of the date of the Preliminary Approval Order and you do not want to be legally bound by the Settlement, you must exclude yourself from the Settlement Class by September 19, 2025. If you timely and validly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you cannot get settlement relief, but you will keep any rights you may have to sue the Defendants over the legal issues in the lawsuit. If you stay in the Settlement Class, you may object to the Settlement in writing by September 19, 2025. The Detailed Notice available at the Settlement Website explains how to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class and how to object to the Settlement. The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing on October 24, 2025 to consider whether to approve the Settlement; whether to approve Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees (up to $20,000,000.00) and litigation costs (up to $240,000.00); and whether to award the Class Representatives $10,000 each for their services in helping to bring and settle this case. You may appear at the hearing, but you are not required to attend. You may also hire your own attorney, at your own expense, to appear or speak for you at the hearing. For more information, call or visit the Settlement Website. This Notice is a summary only. For more information, please visit www.lifeinsurancelapsesettlement.com or call 1-844-901-4092. RADIATION ONCOLOGY: Salgado Sues Over Private Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------- MAVIS SALGADO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RADIATION ONCOLOGY NETWORK OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA D/B/A IMPERIAL VALLEY RADIATION ONCOLOGY, LLC, and INTEGRATED ONCOLOGY NETWORK LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00819 (M.D. Tenn., July 21, 2025) arises from a recent cyberattack resulting in a data breach of sensitive information in the possession and custody and/or control of Defendants. The data breach occurred between December 13, 2024, and December 16, 2024, but was not discovered by Defendants until several months later. Defendants finally posted a notice of the Breach on the Integrated Oncology Network's website on or around July 8, 2025. Moreover, the Defendants failed to promptly inform Class Members even though Plaintiff and thousands of Class Members had their most sensitive personal information accessed, exfiltrated, and stolen, causing them to suffer ascertainable losses in the form of the loss of the benefit of their bargain and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack. Headquartered in Nashville, TN, Integrated Oncology Network LLC provides physician practice management services throughout the US. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Dargan Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- OSCAR W. DARGAN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES OF RICHMOND, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00570-DJN (E.D. Va., July 24, 2025) alleges that RAR failed to properly secure and safeguard Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected health information and personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's information network, including, without limitation, full names, date of birth, medical information, and health insurance information. The Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it caused and will continue to cause Representative Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons in the massive and preventable cyberattack purportedly discovered by Defendant on May 2, 2025, in which cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected network servers and accessed highly sensitive PHI/PII between April 2, 2024, and April 6, 2024, that was being kept unprotected (Data Breach). The Plaintiff further seeks to hold Defendant responsible for not ensuring that PHI/PII was maintained in a manner consistent with industry, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 Privacy Rule (45 CFR, Part 160 and Parts A and E of Part 164), the HIPAA Security Rule (45 CFR Part 160 and Subparts A and C of Part 164), and other relevant standards. While the Defendant claims to have discovered the breach as early as May 2, 2025, Defendant did not inform victims of the Data Breach until approximately July 1, 2025. Indeed, Representative Plaintiff and Class Members were wholly unaware of the Data Breach until they received letters from Defendant informing them of it. 5. Defendant acquired, collected, and stored Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI/PII. The Plaintiff is a patient of Defendant. As a condition of receiving health care services from RAR, the Plaintiff was required to provide his Private Information to Defendant, including his name, social security number, and full health and financial information. RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES OF RICHMOND, INC. provides diagnostic imaging and interventional radiology services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee A. Floyd, Esq. Justin M. Sheldon, Esq. BREIT BINIAZAN, PC 2100 East Cary Street, Suite 310 Richmond, VA 23223 Telephone: (804) 351-9040 Facsimile: (804) 351-9170 E-mail: Lee@bbtrial.com Justin@bbtrial.com - and - Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 468 N. Camden Drive Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 E-mail: daniel@slfla.com - and - M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. CLAYEO C. ARNOLD A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 777-7777 Facsimile: (916) 924-1829 E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com gharoutunian@justice4you.com RALPH LAUREN: Class Cert. Discovery Cutoff Continued to Sept. 2 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD PAUL MERRELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 4:23-cv-06669-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order granting the Parties' stipulation continuing fact discovery cutoff for a specific deposition. The class certification discovery cutoff is continued to Sept. 2, 2025, for the purpose of taking the deposition of the Defendant's PMK and the individual deposition of Sadiki Christie. On Dec. 28, 2023, prior named class representative, Vivian Salazar filed her class action complaint against Defendant. On May 12, 2025, due to Salazar wishing to withdraw as named class representative, the Parties submitted a joint statement regarding extending scheduling deadlines and leave to file a proposed amended complaint. Ralph designs, markets and distributes premium lifestyle products. A copy of the Court's order dated July 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=570utq at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 9701 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90212 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael J. Chilleen, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993 Telephone: (714) 513-5100 Facsimile: (714) 513-5130 E-mail: mchilleen@sheppardmullin.com RBA INC: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $200,000 ------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Aljets of ClaimDepot reports that current and former employees in the United States who received notice that their personal information was compromised in the May 2024 RBA Inc. data breach may qualify to submit a claim for up to $4,000 in reimbursement or a $60 cash payment, as well as free credit monitoring from a class action settlement. RBA Inc. agreed to pay up to $200,000 to settle a class action lawsuit stemming from a cyberattack on its computer systems that occurred on or around May 25, 2024. The lawsuit alleges the breach exposed files containing sensitive employee information, including names, addresses, Social Security numbers, dates of birth and limited benefits information. Who is eligible for a data breach payout? Class members must meet the following criteria: -- They were a current or former employee in the United States at the time of the breach. -- Their personally identifiable information was compromised in the RBA Inc. data breach that occurred on or around May 2024. -- They received notice of the data breach from RBA Inc. How much is the class action settlement payment? Class members have the following claim options: -- Credit monitoring services: All class members can choose to receive three years of one-bureau credit monitoring services, which includes dark web monitoring, identity theft insurance for up to $1,000,000 and identity recovery services. -- Documented losses: Claimants may submit for up to $4,000 in actual, unreimbursed monetary losses as a result of the data breach. Eligible expenses include unreimbursed losses due to fraud or identity theft, professional fees, costs for credit repair services or freezing/unfreezing credit, and other fees or expenses related to the cybersecurity incident. -- Lost time: Class members can submit for up to five hours of lost time at $25 per hour for a maximum of $125. Lost time may be claimed in addition to documented losses, but the total combined claim cannot exceed $4,000. -- Alternate cash payment: Class members who do not submit a documented loss or lost time claim may choose a $60 alternate cash payment. How to claim a class action rebate To receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a claim form by the deadline of Sept. 29, 2025. Individuals can file a claim online or download a PDF claim form and mail it to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: RBA Data Security Incident Settlement, c/o Settlement Administrator, PO Box 25226, Santa Ana, CA 92799. Required proof and claim information -- Unique ID and PIN from settlement notice required to submit an online claim. -- Documented loss claims require supporting documentation, such as receipts, bank or credit card statements showing unreimbursed fees or fraudulent charges, invoices for services, police reports and other proof of fraudulent activity or identity theft traceable to the data breach. -- Lost time claims require a description of how the class members spent time dealing with the data breach. Payout options Class members can choose one of these payment options: -- PayPal -- Venmo -- Zelle -- Virtual prepaid card -- Paper check mailed to the address provided $200K data breach settlement fund The settlement fund of $200,000 will cover documented losses, lost time and alternate cash payment claims. The remaining settlement costs and fees will be paid for separately by RBA Inc.: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $125,000 -- Service award to class representative: Not to exceed $2,500 -- Credit monitoring services: Cost determined by the number of claims filed Important dates -- Opt-out deadline: Sept. 15, 2025 -- Deadline to file a claim: Sept. 29, 2025 -- Final approval hearing: Oct. 30, 2025 When is the RBA data breach settlement payout date? Payments will be issued to approved claimants after the court grants final approval of the settlement and claim processing is complete. Why did this class action settlement happen? This class action lawsuit was filed after a targeted cyberattack on RBA Inc.'s computer systems in May 2024. The breach exposed files containing sensitive personal information of employees. The plaintiff alleged RBA Inc. failed to adequately protect this information. RBA Inc. denies any wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid the expense and uncertainty of further litigation. [GN] RED ROOF: Final Approval of Class Settlement Sought --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Red Roof Inns, Inc. Data Incident Litigation, Case No. 2:23-cv-04133-SDM-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for final approval of class action settlement. Accordingly, the class action settlement includes authorizing the payment of settlement benefits to Class Members as set forth in the Settlement Agreement and awarding Service Awards in the amount of $5,000 to each Class Representative, $183,333.33 in reasonable attorneys' fees, $14,259.34 for Class Counsel's costs and expenses, and the cost of notice and settlement administration (projected by the Settlement Administrator to be $68,803). Specifically, the Plaintiffs request the Court to enter an Order: (a) granting certification of the Settlement Class for settlement purposes; (b) appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives and reaffirming Class Counsel the attorneys appointed in the Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action; (c) finding the notice plan satisfied due process requirements and the terms of the settlement are fair, reasonable, and adequate; (d) directing the Parties, their attorneys, and the Settlement Administrator to consummate the Settlement in accordance with the Final Approval Order submitted herewith and the terms of the Settlement Agreement; (e) resolving all claims, including the Released Claims, against the Released Parties and ruling the settlement is binding on all Settlement Class Members, including the Releases contained in the Settlement Agreement; (f) granting the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, expenses, and Class Representative service awards; and (g) dismissing the Action and entering a final judgment. Indeed, the $550,000 non-reversionary Settlement Fund achieved through the settlement is a substantial recovery for the more than 25,000 Settlement Class Members impacted by the Data Incident and, as such, the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate by all measures and should receive final approval. The case arises from the alleged compromise of personally identifiable information (or "PII") as a result of a September 2023 cyberattack experienced by Red Roof. The Settlement defines the Class as: "[T]he persons who are identified on the Settlement Class List, including all individuals residing in the United States who were sent notification by Red Roof that their Personal Information was potentially compromised in the Data Incident." Red is an American economy hotel chain. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CmMNxD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Terence R. Coates, Esq. Jonathan T. Deters, Esq. Dylan J. Gould, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 E. Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com jdeters@msdlegal.com dgould@msdlegal.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina Borrelli, Esq. Brittany Resch, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com brittanyr@straussborrelli.com - and - Christopher D. Wiest, Esq. CHRIS WIEST, ATTORNEY AT LAW, PLLC 50 E. Rivercenter Blvd, Ste. 1280 Covington, KY 41011 Telephone: (513) 257-1895 E-mail: chris@cwiestlaw.com - and - Mason Barney, Esq. Tyler Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: mbarney@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com REPLIMUNE GROUP: Faces Jboor Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------------- USAMA JBOOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. REPLIMUNE GROUP, INC., SUSHIL PATEL, EMILY HILL, Case No. 1:25-cv-12085-JEK (D. Mass., July 24, 2025) is a class action on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Replimune securities between November 22, 2024, and July 21, 2025. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On Nov. 21, 2024, after the market closed, the Company issued a press release entitled "Replimune Receives Breakthrough Therapy Designation for RP1 and Submits Biologics License Application to the FDA under the Accelerated Approval Pathway." On July 22, 2025, before the market opened, Replimune issued a press release entitled "Replimune Receives Complete Response Letter from FDA for RP1 Biologics License Application for the Treatment of Advanced Melanoma." On this news, the price of Replimune stock plummeted by $9.52 per share, or 77.24%, to close at $2.80 per share on July 22, 2025. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common shares, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. The Plaintiff purchased Replimune securities during the Class Period and was economically damaged thereby. Replimune was founded in 2015 with the mission to transform cancer treatment by pioneering the development of novel oncolytic immunotherapies. Replimune's proprietary RPx platform is based on a potent HSV-1 backbone intended to maximize immunogenic cell death and the induction of a systemic anti-tumor immune response. The Individual Defendants are officers of the company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Baker, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 101 Greenwood Ave., Suite 440 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Telephone: (215) 600-2817 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: jbaker@rosenlegal.com E-mail: philkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com RICKY SHULER: Faces Hatton et al. Suit Over Breach of Contract -------------------------------------------------------------- JERRY HATTON, DAVID GARCIA, and VUVINNOE DARKESE, Plaintiffs v. RICKY SHULER TRUCKING, INC., RICKY SHULER, JEFFREY MARONEN, and DANIEL SANCHEZ, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-03373 (S.D. Tex., July 21, 2025) is a class action alleging that Defendant failed to comply with the Truth-in-Leasing regulations in that: (i) the Owner Operator Lease Agreement (OOLA), itself, fails to comply with the TILR that govern the terms of such lease agreements; (ii) RST has failed to comply with the TILR that govern a carrier's dealings with Owners related to such lease agreements; and (iii) RST has failed to comply with the TILR that require a carrier to adhere to and perform the terms of the OOLA that are governed by such TILR. According to the complaint, the violation of these TILR constitutes breach of contract and fraud in that: (i) the failure to adhere to and perform the terms of the OOLA that are governed by such TILR also constitute breach of contract; and (ii) the failure to disclose material facts that the TILR require also constitutes fraud. As such Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of the proposed class, also seek any and all remedies that may be available for breach of contract or fraud under applicable state law, including damages, disgorgement, and exemplary damages. Headquartered in McCamey, TX, Ricky Shuler Trucking, Inc. offers multi-modal transloading services to its crude oil and refined products clients. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard Norman, Esq. R. Martin Weber, Esq. CROWLEY NORMAN LLP Three Riverway, Suite 1775 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 651-1771 Facsimile: (713) 651-1775 E-mail: rnorman@crowleynorman.com mweber@crowleynorman.com ROCKET CO: Illegally Uses Trap & Trace Devices, Arnold Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- TANYA ARNOLD, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons v. ROCKET COMPANIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 5:25-cv-01887 (C.D. Cal., July 23, 2025) alleges that by installing and activating Trackers without obtaining user consent or a valid court order, the Defendant violated California Penal Code, which prohibits the use of pen registers and trap and trace devices under these circumstances. The Plaintiff and the Class Members did not consent to the installation, execution, embedding, or injection of the Trackers on their devices and did not expect their behavioral data to be disclosed or monetized in this way. A pixel tracker, also known as a web beacon, is a tracking mechanism embedded in a website that monitors user interactions. It typically appears as a small, transparent 1x1 image or a lightweight JavaScript snippet that activates when a webpage is loaded or a user performs a tracked action. When triggered, the pixel transmits data from the user's browser to a third-party server. This data typically includes page views, session duration, referrer URLs, IP address, browser and device details, and other interaction metadata. When users visit the Website, Defendant causes tracking technologies to be installed, executed, embedded, or injected in visitors' browsers. These include, but are not limited to: -- Google Ads / DoubleClick Tracker -- Facebook PixelTracker -- Snapchat Tracker According to the complaint, trackers are operated by distinct third parties: Google LLC (Google Ads / DoubleClick Tracker), Meta Platforms, Inc. (Facebook Pixel Tracker) and Snap Inc. (Snapchat Tracker). The Defendant enables these trackers, which transmit user data to their respective third-party servers to identify users and support targeted advertising, user profiling, and data monetization within each platform's advertising ecosystem. Through the Trackers, the Third Parties collect detailed user information including IP addresses, browser and device type, screen resolution, operating system, pages visited, session duration, mouse movements, click behavior, referring URLs, unique identifiers (such as cookies and ad IDs), and geolocation based on IP, says the suit. The Defendant owns and operates a website, www.rocketmortgage.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (949) 270-2798 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC 40729 Village Dr., Suite 8 - 1989 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Telephone: (562) 612-1708 E-mail: rc@rosscornelllaw.com ROCKETREACH LLC: Bids to Dismiss, Strike Sant's Class Claims Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Joseph Sant, Merton Chun, Ronesha Smith, and Heather Nicastro, Plaintiffs v. RocketReach LLC, Defendant, Case No. C24-1626-RSM (W.D. Wash.), Judge Ricardo S. Martinez of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington denies the Defendant's motions to dismiss and strike class allegations in a comprehensive ruling addressing right of publicity claims across multiple states. The Court confirmed this matter proceeds as a class action lawsuit. Plaintiffs filed their class action complaint on October 8, 2024, bringing claims under the Washington Personality Rights Act, California Right of Publicity Law, Illinois Right of Publicity Act, and Ohio Right of Publicity in Individual's Persona Act. The Court denied Defendant's motion to strike class allegations, finding that this case is in its earliest stages and the Court cannot at this time conclude that the class is uncertifiable as a matter of law. According to the Court's findings, Defendant operates world's largest and most accurate database" at www.rocketreach.co, offering "a web-based subscription platform for users to access millions of profiles that contain people's personal and professional information, as well as other business development services." The platform displays free-preview and free-trial "profile" pages containing "the name, place of work, education history, skills, and other personal information of a specific person. The Court noted that Plaintiffs alleged Defendant has built and now reaps significant profit from this business by trading off the names, photographs, personas, and identities of millions of Americans to promote its platform, without obtaining their consent or providing them compensation of any kind. Defendant optimizes the free profile pages to rank highly in search engine results through source code, employing specific people to develop these techniques and tracks the number of times when and from where these free profile pages are viewed by non-subscribers. Defendant challenged Plaintiffs' standing based on lacking an injury in fact and causality. The Court found that Plaintiffs established standing, noting that courts in this district and other Ninth Circuit courts have overwhelmingly found that plaintiffs in similar circumstances had sufficiently pleaded a cognizable injury. The Court determined that Plaintiffs allege injuries-in-fact and sufficiently allege a causal link to Defendant: i.e., Defendant posting Plaintiff's information and likenesses on its website without authorization and profiting from this use." Defendant argued the alleged use was exempt under the statute because it was insignificant, de minimis, or incidental and accurately describes the good or services Defendant offers. The Court rejected these arguments, finding that Plaintiffs alleged Defendant's use of their information was instrumental (and continues to be instrumental) to Defendant in obtaining paying customers to its web-based platform. Regarding the merely descriptive exemption, the Court found it "plausible at this stage that Defendant's nonconsensual use of Plaintiffs' information is not in 'good faith'" and noted that "Plaintiffs allege other instances of use, including using Plaintiffs' profile pages to advertise its profile and Healthcare subscription services." According to the Court these allegations go beyond being 'merely descriptive' uses of Defendant's services. For Plaintiff Chun's California claim, Defendant argued he failed to state a claim because he did not plausibly allege appropriation of his name or likeness to Defendant's advantage," the alleged use was exempt as incidental, and his pleadings of mental harm were conclusory and not plausible. The Court distinguished the case from Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corp., noting that "Plaintiff Chun's allegations differ from Brooks in that Defendant used his information 'on free-preview and free-trial profile pages and other pages to advertise subscriptions to its platform.'" The Court found that "later decisions in the Northern District of California and elsewhere have rejected such a separate product requirement." Regarding the incidental use argument, the Court found that "Plaintiff Chun alleges that Defendant uses his personal information on a free-preview profile to advertise subscriptions that allow you to access more information on Plaintiff Chun and determined it is plausible that Defendant generates profit through the use of Plaintiff Chun's profile, and there is a direct, nonincidental relationship between Plaintiff Chun's information and Defendant's products. For the mental injury requirement, the Court noted that "Plaintiff Chun alleges that he 'became worried, frustrated, and concerned, disturbing his peace of mind in a meaningful way' upon learning of Defendant's actions" and found this sufficient to state a claim. Defendant argued Plaintiff Smith's IRPA claim failed because her profile merely provides a preview of the thing that can be viewed by creating an account," which was not a commercial purpose under the statute. The Court distinguished the case from Thompson v. Getty Images, noting that the issue in Getty Images was the sale of the plaintiff's actual photograph, not to sell a different product." The Court found that Plaintiff Smith alleges that Defendant uses her information in a free profile page to advertise subscriptions to its platform and related products and services.' This is a separate product. For Plaintiff Nicastro's Ohio claim, Defendant argued she cannot demonstrate that her name or likeness has value and the alleged use was incidental. The Court distinguished the case from Hudson v. Datanyze, LLC, noting that Plaintiffs do not only allege that their information is being used without consent to make free profiles to solicit subscriptions." Instead, Plaintiffs also allege that Defendant uses source code for free-preview profile pages to ensure they rank highly and numerously in search engine results, that Defendants track the number of times and from where these free profiles are viewed by non-subscribers, and has employees dedicated to these efforts. Defendant moved to strike class allegations arguing various grounds. Defendant argues that the class allegations should be stricken because (1) Plaintiffs have waived their class claims, (2) The Washington statute prohibits class actions, (3) Washington law cannot be applied to putative class members in other states, (4) The Illinois and Ohio statutes preclude class actions, (5) The proposed classes are "overly broad," (6) Individualized issues predominate, making a class action inappropriate, and (7) A class action is not a superior method to adjudicate the controversy. Regarding statutory class action bars, the Court found that "Rule 23 displaces the class action bar and noted that for the Illinois and Ohio statutes, Defendant cites no authority suggesting that there is an implied class action bar. The Court denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in its entirety and also the Motion to Strike Class Allegations. Judge Martinez concluded that having reviewed the instant Motions, the relevant briefings and declarations, and the remainder of the record, the Court finds and orders that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike Class Allegations are denied. A copy of the Court's opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tkawqZ RURAL MEDIA: Fifth Cir. Vacates Sanctions Against Wissel's Atty. ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Ellyse Wissel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Michelle Anderson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; McLain Mott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, Tyler K. Somes, Appellant v. Rural Media Group, Incorporated, Defendant, Case No. 25-10424, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacates the district court's sanctions order against the Plaintiffs' counsel. The Court of Appeals vacated sanctions imposed on attorney Tyler K. Somes, Esq., for opposing a defendant's second request for an extension of time to answer his clients' class-action complaint. The Court of Appeals found the district court's assessment erroneous and ordered that any part of the fine paid is to be refunded. Somes is an attorney based in Washington, D.C., who has been a member of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas's bar since 2020. On September 27, 2024, Plaintiffs Ellyse Wissel, Michelle Anderson, and McLain Mott, with Somes as counsel, initiated a class action in the Northern District, seeking relief in a one-count Video Privacy Protection Act claim against Defendant Rural Media Group, Inc. The action was filed in the district's Fort Worth Division based on a forum-selection clause in a Terms of Service agreement to which the parties were bound. A competing class action was filed just two days earlier in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The district court initially dismissed the action without prejudice after issuing an Electronic Case Filing notice calling for compliance with Local Rule 83.10(a) within two weeks, or risk dismissal because Plaintiffs did not retain local counsel. Final judgment entered on October 17, 2024. Plaintiffs "filed an identical suit the next day -- this time, represented by Somes and local counsel. On October 24, Rural Media Group filed an unopposed motion for an 8-day extension to answer, or otherwise respond to, Plaintiffs' complaint. The district court granted the motion, ordering a response by November 20. When the pleading came due, Rural Media Group sought an additional 30-day extension. Rural Media Group's counsel first conferred with Somes about the extension request. Somes questioned whether Rural Media Group was engaged in class-wide settlement negotiations in the competing California action. After Rural Media Group's counsel confirmed that it was, Somes declined to agree to the second requested extension. Rural Media Group filed its opposed motion for extension on November 20, stating the complexities caused by the overlap in this case and the one in California dictated a need for an extra 30 days. The motion acknowledged that Rural Media Group was exploring the possibility of an early resolution on a class-wide basis in the California action, which may moot this case. The district court granted the motion and sua sponte directed Somes to show cause as to why he should not be sanctioned for opposing Rural Media Group's second extension request. The district court reasoned that it can think of no material, adverse effect on Plaintiffs in refusing to agree to the extension. At the November 26 hearing, Somes opened with an apology for his earlier failure to comply with the local-counsel rule. He then defended his opposition by explaining that he sought to protect his clients' contractual right to litigate in a forum they chose with Defendant. According to the Court, Somes believed that courts don't entertain those motions for interim class counsel until a defendant has answered. Fearing a settlement in the California case would release the claims in this case, Somes thought it was necessary to move things along. The district judge stated: "I am concerned that the refusal to give the extension in this case was not for any reason, other than trying to avoid something happening in the California case that might have adversely affected your case, maybe not for your client, but for you. That's not a valid reason to oppose an extension." The judge found that Somes "either acted in bad faith or in blind disregard of" the Northern District's local rules. Therefore, the judge "fined Somes $150, an amount representing the mileage and time" incurred by defense counsel. He also ordered Somes to read: (1) the Dondi case, (2) the Northern District's local rules, (3) the Texas Lawyer's Creed, (4) the Texas Rules of Professional Conduct, and (5) the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A month later, Rural Media Group moved to transfer the underlying action with the first-filed, competing California action to avoid duplicative litigation. Plaintiffs opposed the motion for the same reason stated by Somes in his show-cause hearing: the forum-selection clause gave Plaintiffs the vested right to litigate in Fort Worth. On February 27, 2025, the district court denied Rural Media Group's motion, agreeing with Plaintiffs that the forum-selection clause was valid and enforceable. The parties reached a settlement shortly thereafter, and the district court dismissed the case with prejudice and issued a final judgment on March 3. The Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's imposition of sanctions for abuse of discretion and found the ruling was "based on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence. According to the Court of Appeals "the district court based its decision in part on a clearly erroneous factual finding. The district court stated that Somes had notice that he was required to read the Northern District's en banc Dondi decision. However, a review of the district court's local rules reveals that no reference to Dondi is contained therein." The Court of Appeals noted that in the Northern District's application for pro hac vice status, attorneys are explicitly directed to certify that they have read the Dondi decision. However, Somes did not appear pro hac vice but, rather, as a fully admitted member to the Northern District's bar. Therefore, the district court's finding that Somes was previously told to read that decision, which was integral to its imposition of sanctions, was clearly erroneous." The Court of Appeals concluded that even if Dondi's spirit is encompassed in the local rules, the district court's assessment that Somes opposed the extension not for any reason but for his own pecuniary interest is not supported by the record. The Court of Appeals also added that the delay would operate to prejudice Plaintiffs who sought to bring a class action in their contractually-selected forum. The Court of Appeals noted that "the district court vindicated Plaintiffs' right to their chosen forum when it denied Rural Media Group's motion to transfer the case to California. Hence, "Somes's argument that the extension would threaten his clients' right to litigate in the Northern District's Fort Worth Division is far from specious and cannot support sanctions." Accordingly, "the district court's November 26, 2024, sanctions order is vacated and any part of the fine paid is to be refunded." The Court of Appeals Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IgjGs4 SABLE OFFSHORE: Faces Class Action Suit for Securities Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- Berger Montague PC is investigating claims under the federal securities laws against Sable Offshore Corp. (NYSE: SOC) ("Sable" or the "Company"), an offshore oil and gas operations company headquartered in Houston, Texas, after a class action lawsuit was filed against Sable. Investor Deadline: Investors who purchased or acquired Sable securities between May 19, 2025 through June 3, 2025 (the "Class Period"), including on or traceable to Sable's May 2025 secondary offering, may, no later than September 26, 2025, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class. The lawsuit alleges that the Company misrepresented that oil production off California's coast had resumed when, in fact, it had not. When the truth about the state of Sable's operations was revealed, shares declined, causing investor losses. About Berger Montague Berger Montague, with offices in Philadelphia, Minneapolis, Delaware, Washington, D.C., San Diego, San Francisco, Chicago, Malvern, and Toronto, has been a pioneer in securities class action litigation since its founding in 1970. Berger Montague has represented individual and institutional investors for over five decades and serves as lead counsel in courts throughout the United States. For more information or to discuss your rights, please contact: Andrew Abramowitz, Esq. Berger Montague Tel: (215) 875-3015 aabramowitz@bergermontague.com - and - Caitlin Adorni, Esq. Berger Montague Tel: (267) 764-4865 cadorni@bergermontague.com [GN] SABLE OFFSHORE: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Sable Offshore Corp. (NYSE: SOC): (1) between May 19, 2025 and June 3, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"); and/or (2) pursuant and/or traceable to Sable's May 21, 2025 secondary public offering (the "SPO"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Sable Offshore Corp. investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Sable class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=40629 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Defendants represented that Sable Offshore Corp. had restarted oil production off the coast of California when it had not; and (2) as a result, defendants' statements about Sable's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 26, 2025. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=40629 or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at case@rosenlegal.com. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] SCENT SPLIT: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Pittman Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- DEBBIE PITTMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. Scent Split LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08273 (N.D. Ill., July 21, 2025) arises from Defendant Scent Split's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff. Despite readily available accessible technology, the Defendant has chosen to rely on an exclusively visual interface. Moreover, Defendant's website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Based in Houston, TX, Scent Split LLC owns and operates the website, https://scentsplit.com, which offers perfumes for men and women for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Appeals Denied Motion to Stay to 5th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION is taking an appeal from a court order denying its motion to stay case in the lawsuit entitled Trever Guilbeau, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Schlumberger Technology Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 5:21-cv-142, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint is brought against the Defendant for its alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. On Mar. 30, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. On July 7, 2023, Judge Elizabeth S. Chestney filed a Report and Recommendations (R&R) denying the Defendant's motion for miscellaneous relief and granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class. On Oct. 3, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to strike. On Mar. 5, 2024, Judge Jason K. Pulliam denied the Defendant's motion for summary judgment and adopted Judge Chestney's R&R. The Defendant's motion to strike is denied as moot. On May 2, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion for leave to appeal and a motion to stay case. On June 2, 2025, Judge Pulliam granted the Defendant's motion for leave to appeal, but denied its motion to stay case. The appellate case is entitled Guilbeau v. Schlumberger Technology Corporation, Case No. 25-50594, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on July 28, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees TREVER GUILBEAU, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. WAGE & HOUR FIRM, L.L.P. 5050 Quorum Drive Dallas, TX 75254 Defendant-Appellant SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION is represented by: Robert Peter Lombardi, Esq. KULLMAN FIRM 1100 Poydras Street New Orleans, LA 70163 Telephone: (504) 596-4127 SCOTT MARSH: Court Denies Waggoner's Bid to Recuse Federal Judge ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as David Lee Waggoner, et al., Plaintiffs v. Scott Marsh, et al., Defendants, Case No. 25-CV-254-JFH-SH (N.D. Okla.), Judge John F. Heil, III, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma denies the plaintiffs' motion to recuse. The court ruled that Plaintiffs have failed to set forth any factual or legal basis upon which the Court's impartiality can be reasonably questioned. On May 21, 2025, plaintiffs filed a civil complaint against three groups of defendants: (1) the Rogers County Government and numerous Rogers County officials (the "County Defendants"); (2) the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority and its Executive Director (the "Turnpike Defendants"); and (3) the Claremore Daily Progress newspaper and its Editor and Publisher (the "Newspaper Defendants"). The court understood plaintiffs to argue that under the Supreme Court's decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma: "(1) Rogers County is without jurisdiction to levy or collect ad valorem property tax in Indian country; (2) the Claremore Daily Progress has damaged Rogers County citizens' reputations by publishing tax delinquency notices and other notices of state and county court actions (where the county and state have no jurisdiction); and (3) the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority has illegally collected tolls on turnpikes crossing Indian country." Plaintiffs identified this as a class action lawsuit, seeking various forms of relief, including injunctive relief and monetary damages, on behalf of themselves and others. They defined the "class" to include "All persons or entities who, since July 9, 2020, have owned property, traveled, conducted commerce, resided, or been subjected to state court actions within the boundaries of the Cherokee, Muscogee (Creek), Choctaw, Chickasaw, Seminole, or Osage Nation reservations, and have been subjected to state or county taxation, liens, tolls, foreclosures, defamation, state court judgments, harassment, or civil enforcement by Oklahoma official agency, or subdivision." The court denied plaintiffs' first TRO Motion because plaintiffs did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, which required them to either provide Defendants notice of the motion or demonstrate why notice should not be required. On June 5, 2025, the court entered an Order denying the second TRO motion because Plaintiffs, as pro se parties, could not represent the interests of third parties and failed to demonstrate that they would suffer irreparable harm absent the relief requested. The court noted that Plaintiffs' property was not targeted for the Delinquent Property Tax Sale and they had otherwise failed to show that any harm they would suffer from the enforcement of ad valorum taxes would be irreparable. On June 9, 2025, plaintiffs filed the motion to recuse. Plaintiffs' arguments distilled down to the following: (1) Plaintiffs disagree with the Court's Orders denying preliminary injunctive relief because they believe the Court erroneously rejected their jurisdictional argument under McGirt, and that the Court erred in finding that they failed to demonstrate irreparable harm sufficient to meet the standard for preliminary injunctive relief; and (2) Plaintiffs infer bias from the timing of the Court's rulings. Title 28 U.S.C. Section 455(a) provides that a judge "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." The court noted that "the test is whether a reasonable person, knowing all the relevant facts, would harbor doubts about the judge's impartiality. The standard is completely objective, and recusal must not be mandated "upon the merest unsubstantiated suggestion of personal bias or prejudice. Regarding the court's prior rulings, the court clarified that it has not, in fact, made any rulings on the merits of Plaintiff's jurisdictional argument. Rather, its prior rulings denying preliminary injunctive relief were based on: (1) Plaintiffs' failure to adhere to proper procedure; and (2) Plaintiffs' failure to demonstrate irreparable harm, as required to obtain preliminary injunctive relief. The court emphasized that adverse rulings alone do not demonstrate judicial bias and do not constitute grounds for recusal. Regarding the timing of the court's rulings, the court noted that it "has broad discretion to manage its docket" and that plaintiffs "have not provided any factual support" for inferring bias from the fact that the Court has ruled more quickly on some motions than others. A copy of the Court's order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bQe0r2 SIRIUS XM: Appeals Denied Arbitration Bid in Woods Suit to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- SIRIUS XM RADIO, LLC is taking an appeal from a court order denying its motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Denise Woods, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Sirius XM Radio, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-03799-WHO, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs Denise Woods and Sherry Tapia bring this action under California law on behalf of a class of California Sirius XM subscribers to challenge a deceptive pricing scheme whereby Sirius XM falsely advertises its music plans at lower prices than it actually charges. Sirius XM fails to include in its advertised prices the amount of its invented "U.S. Music Royalty Fee," which increases the true plan price by 21.4 percent above the advertised price for the plans. On Mar. 21, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration, which Judge William H. Orrick denied on July 11, 2025. The Court concludes that there was no manifest assent between the Plaintiffs and Sirius XM concerning the arbitration agreement prior to entering into contract. The appellate case is entitled Woods, et al. v. Sirius XM Radio, LLC, Case No. 25-4574, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 23, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on July 28, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order is due on August 5, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on September 4, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on October 14, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on November 13, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees DENISE WOODS, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Daniel Hattis, Esq. HATTIS LUKACS & CORRINGTON 11711 SE 8th Street, Suite 120 Bellevue, WA 98005 - and - Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq. DENITTIS OSEFCHEN, PC 5 Greentree Centre, Suite 410 Marlton, NJ 08054 - and - Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq. HATTIS & LUKACS 936 Woodlawn Drive Thousand Oaks, CA 91360 Defendant-Appellant SIRIUS XM RADIO, LLC is represented by: Jeffrey R. Johnson, Esq. JONES DAY 51 Louisiana Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 - and - Dennis Murphy, Esq. JONES DAY 555 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 SMALL MINE: Faces McNicol Suit Over Labor Law Breaches ------------------------------------------------------ ANDREW MCNICOL, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SMALL MINE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00372 (D. Nev., July 21, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid wages and other damages from Defendant Small Mine Development, LLC for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law. The Defendant employed Plaintiff McNicol in Elko County and Humboldt County, Nevada from approximately January 2019 until August 2023. The Plaintiff and the other hourly-paid employees regularly work more than 40 hours a workweek. However, the Defendant does not pay Plaintiff and the other hourly employees for all their hours worked, including overtime hours. Small Mine Development, LLC provides staffing services for mining companies. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Esther C. Rodriguez, Esq. RODRIGUEZ LAW OFFICES, P.C. 10161 Park Run Drive, Suite 150 Las Vegas, NV 89145 Telephone: (702) 320-8400 Facsimile: (702) 320-8401 E-mail: info@rodriguezlaw.com - and - Travis J. Grefenstette, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: tgrefenstette@mybackwages.com SOC LLC: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Zavala Due March 23, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARTURO ZAVALA, v. SOC LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00912-DAD-SCR (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dale Drozd entered a scheduling order as follows: Any motion for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 shall be filed by no later than March 23, 2026, a date proposed by the parties. Any opposition to that motion shall be filed by no later than May 7, 2026, a date proposed by the parties. Any reply to that opposition shall be filed by no later than May 28, 2026, a date proposed by the parties. SOC is an integrated provider of mission support solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated July 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pxpCn6 at no extra charge.[CC] SPRING ENERGY: Nock Suit Transferred to D. of Maryland ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT NOCK, an individual, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SPRING ENERGY RRH, LLC d/b/a SPRING POWER & GAS, RRH ENERGY SERVICES, LLC and RICHMOND ROAD HOLDINGS, LLC, Delaware limited liability companies, ENDURANCE SALES & MARKETING, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01042-LTS-RWL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Robert W. Lehrburger entered an order granting the Plaintiff's application to transfer. The Court has considered the parties' arguments and found them to be either moot or without merit. Considering all the circumstances, the Court finds Nock has clearly and convincingly established that transfer to the District of Maryland is warranted. The Plaintiff Robert Nock filed this case against Defendants as a putative class action, alleging receipt of unsolicited telemarketing calls in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and corresponding Maryland law. After more than two years of litigation, and with Defendants’ summary judgment motion fully briefed and pending, Nock has filed a motion to transfer the case to the District of Maryland so that it can be consolidated with two other putative class actions – one filed by Nock a year ago, and the other filed recently by Nock’s attorneys. For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED. Nock, a Maryland resident, commenced this action on February 8, 2023, claiming that Spring made unsolicited phone calls offering its energy products and services. Spring provides energy services and products in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. A copy of the Court's decision and order dated July 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fyCP0V at no extra charge.[CC] STUBHUB INC: Janiga Sues Over Unlawful Private Info Disclosure -------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN JANIGA, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. STUBHUB, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-01844 (C.D. Cal., July 21, 2025) alleges that the Defendant violated California Penal Code Section 638.51 and the California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 by installing and activating certain tracking technologies without obtaining user consent or a valid court order. The Defendant enables these tracking technologies, which transmit user data to servers controlled by the respective third parties such as Google LLC and Microsoft Corporation. Moreover, the transmission allows for the identification of users and supports various activities such as targeted advertising, user profiling, cross-site tracking, and the monetization of personal information. StubHub, Inc. operates as an online ticket marketplace that engages in the resale of live event tickets for concerts, sports, theater, and other entertainment experiences. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (949) 270-2798 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC 40729 Village Dr., Suite 8 - 1989 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Telephone: (562) 612-1708 E-mail: rc@rosscornelllaw.com TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR: Parties Submit Court Discovery Letter ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Howington v. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-05684-VKD (N.D. Cal.), the Parties jointly submit a Joint Discovery Letter Brief concerning the Defendants' objections and responses to the Plaintiffs' Document Request. The case is a class action lawsuit alleging that TSMC engages in a pattern-or-practice of race, national origin, and citizenship discrimination, and that TSMC creates a hostile work environment for non-Taiwanese/Chinese workers. The parties have reached an impasse regarding a number of document requests issued by Plaintiffs, necessitating Court intervention. Taiwan is a multinational semiconductor contract manufacturing and design company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HlElj1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Kotchen, Esq. Daniel Low, Esq. Lindsey Grunert, Esq. KOTCHEN & LOW LLP 1918 New Hampshire Avenue NW Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 471-1995 E-mail: dkotchen@kotchen.com dlow@kotchen.com lgrunert@kotchen.com The Defendants are represented by: Mark S. Posard, Esq. Fletcher C. Alford, Esq. Kevin Liu, Esq. Myles Lanzone, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 2200 Ross Ave Suite 3700 Dallas, TX 75201 TANNER MACIOCE: Class Cert Bid Filing in Butera Due Jan. 30, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC BUTERA, v. TANNER MACIOCE, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00559-CB (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Cathy Bissoon entered a case management order as follows: 1. The parties shall file any motion to add new parties on or before Aug. 15, 2025. 2. The parties shall file any motion to amend the pleadings on or before Aug. 15, 2025. 3. The parties have elected mediation as their preferred form of Alternative Dispute Resolution. A mediation before David Jones, Esq., will take place on or before Oct. 17, 2025. 4. The parties shall complete all class certification discovery on or before Jan. 9, 2026. 5. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification, including all materials in support thereof, is due by Jan. 30, 2026. The Defendants' opposition papers are due by Feb. 27, 2026. The Plaintiff's reply is due by March 13, 2026. Otherwise, counsel shall comply with the form and timing for briefing outlined in the Practices and Procedures of the undersigned on the Court's website (see web page at https://www.pawd.uscourts.gov/content/cathy-bissoon-district- judge). A copy of the Court's order dated July 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xX3pXj at no extra charge.[CC] TAPESTRY INC: Ayala Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Classes --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Carlos Ayala, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Tapestry, Inc.; Kate Spade LLC dba Kate Spade New York; Stuart Weitzman; Does 1 through 20, Inclusive, Case No. 3:24-cv-01052-BAS-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move for an order to certify the following classes pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(b)(3): a. The Minimum Wage Class: "All current and former retail employees of the Defendants in the state of California who were classified as exempt from May 10, 2021 through the resolution of this matter." b. The Overtime Class: "All current and former retail employees of the Defendants in the state of California who were classified as exempt from May 10, 2021 through the resolution of this matter." c. The Meal Period Class: "All current and former retail employees of the Defendants in the state of California who were classified as exempt from May 10, 2021 through the resolution of this matter." d. The Rest Period Class: "All current and former retail employees of the Defendants in the state of California who were classified as exempt from May 10, 2021 through the resolution of this matter." e. The Wage Statement Class: "All current and former retail employees of the Defendants in the state of California who were classified as exempt from May 10, 2021 through the resolution of this matter." f. The Business Expense Reimbursement Class: "All current and former retail employees of the Defendants in the state of California who were classified as exempt from May 10, 2021 through the resolution of this matter." g. The Waiting Time Penalty Class: "All current and former retail employees of the Defendants in the state of California who were classified as exempt from May 10, 2021 through the resolution of this matter." 2. Appointing the Plaintiff Carlos Ayala as Class Representative for the Classes; 3. Appointing Lebe Law, APLC and attorneys Jonathan M. Lebe and Rayne A. Brown as Class Counsel for the Classes; and 4. Granting such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Tapestry is an American multinational fashion holding company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=e7Q8PL at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq. Rayne A. Brown, Esq. LEBE LAW, APLC 3900 W Alameda Avenue, Fifteenth Floor Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (213) 444-1973 E-mail: Jon@lebelaw.com Rayne@lebelaw.com TARGET CORP: C.D. California Refuses to Remand Haro Labor Case -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Christopher Haro, et al. v. Target Corporation, et al., Case No. EDCV 25-0831 JGB (DTBx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Jesus G. Bernal of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denies the Plaintiffs' motion to remand. The Court denied the motion filed by Plaintiffs Christopher Haro and Christopher Ruiz in their putative class action against Target Corporation. The Court also vacated the July 14, 2025 hearing as the matter was resolved without oral argument. The matter is a putative class action lawsuit filed by Plaintiff Haro, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals against Target Corporation. The proposed class covers all current and former non-exempt distribution or warehouse workers of Target within the State of California. Plaintiffs sought remand on two grounds: (1) Target failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy for the putative class exceeds the $5,000,000 CAFA jurisdictional minimum; and (2) this Court does not have equitable jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' UCL claim. The Court rejected Plaintiffs' challenge to federal jurisdiction. Target removed the case pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d) and established that approximately 2,260 class members were affected. The Court found that waiting time penalties alone created at least $8,678,400 in controversy, well exceeding CAFA's $5 million threshold. The Court explained that to be entitled to recover waiting time penalties, each putative class member need suffer only one of the other injuries alleged." When Plaintiffs argued against assuming widespread violations, the Court responded: "To the extent that Plaintiffs seek to skirt the amount in controversy by arguing that Defendant committed infrequent or ad hoc violations, the Court is unpersuaded. Regarding the UCL claim, the Court ruled that potential lack of equitable jurisdiction would not require remand. "Even if the Court lacks equitable jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' UCL claim, it must deny the Motion," the Court explained, because "there is original jurisdiction, and therefore removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1441(a), over a case as long as there is subject matter jurisdiction over one or more of the claims alleged. The Court concluded that "Defendant has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy here exceeds $5,000,000. Therefore, the Court denied the motion to remand, keeping the case in federal court under CAFA jurisdiction. "For the reasons above, the Court denies the Motion," Judge Bernal stated definitively. The wage and hour class action will proceed in federal court, with Target Corporation facing claims alleging violations of California labor laws affecting warehouse and distribution center workers. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=im0DlF TASKRABBIT INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Hidden Junk Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that TaskRabbit has misrepresented the freelance service rates advertised on its platform by hiding arbitrary "junk fees" from consumers until checkout. The 16-page lawsuit claims that TaskRabbit "lures" users by listing flat hourly rates on its online marketplace only to quietly tack on to the advertised price what it calls a "Trust and Support" fee. According to the suit, consumers who use TaskRabbit, a platform that connects people with a network of "taskers" they can hire for personal assistance, handyman services, moving or delivery jobs, furniture assembly and other freelance work, only learn of this apparent "junk fee" once they have reached the final checkout page, and after they have already selected a tasker and entered information about themselves and the proposed task. According to the TaskRabbit lawsuit, the platform's use of "drip pricing" -- a deceptive tactic whereby previously undisclosed fees are revealed to consumers incrementally during the purchase process -- by way of adding the Trust and Support fee is a violation of California law and federal guidance about misleading "bait-and-switch" advertising. By omitting the extra fee from the represented hourly rates, which are listed in bold font, and tucking it away as a fine-print line item late in the transaction, TaskRabbit has unfairly manipulated users into paying more than they were led to expect, after they have invested significant time navigating through the lengthy online process, the case says. What's more, the TaskRabbit "junk fees" provide no additional value to consumers and are not linked to any actual services performed, such as vetting taskers or facilitating communications, the complaint alleges. "The fees vary inconsistently across transactions without regard to the scope, nature, or complexity of the underlying job, further underscoring their lack of legitimacy," the filing asserts. "Rather than serving a legitimate business purpose, these charges function solely to pad [TaskRabbit's] profit margins." TaskRabbit has profited at consumers' expense, class action lawsuit says The plaintiff, a California resident, claims to have been quoted hourly rates of approximately $39 and $71 when he hired two taskers for cleaning services last year. Although the tasker advertisements made no mention of added fees, the consumer was nevertheless charged Trust and Support fees of $28.88 and $10.76 for the respective services on top of the represented prices, the suit states. The plaintiff argues that he would not have used TaskRabbit had he known the advertised prices were a "complete falsehood." TaskRabbit's deceptive advertising tactics have left consumers like the plaintiff "footing the bill for outrageous costs" that were deliberately concealed to induce them to pay more than originally promised, the case contends. Who's covered by the TaskRabbit lawsuit? The TaskRabbit class action lawsuit looks to represent all consumers who, during the applicable statute of limitations period, were charged fees beyond what was advertised on TaskRabbit's website or app. I paid extra fees on TaskRabbit. How do I join the class action lawsuit? In general, there's nothing you need to do to join, sign up for or add your name to a class action lawsuit when it's first filed. If the case proceeds and is resolved with a class action settlement, the people covered by the deal -- known as class members -- will be notified and given follow-up instructions. If you've used TaskRabbit or just want to stay in the loop with class action lawsuit and class action settlement news, sign up for ClassAction.org's free weekly newsletter. [GN] TC HEARTLAND: Class Certification & Daubert Hearing Set for Nov. 19 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMUEL GARCIA individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TC HEARTLAND, LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-04192-NW (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order modifying class certification briefing schedule: Event Proposed Date Deadline for Defendant to file opposition to Aug. 8, 2025 motion for class certification, file Daubert motions in opposition to motion for class certification, and disclose rebuttal reports in opposition to the Plaintiff's class certification experts: Deadline for the Plaintiff to file reply in Sept. 15, 2025 support of motion for class certification, oppositions to Defendant's Daubert motions, and Daubert motions to exclude Defendant's class certification experts: Class Certification and Daubert Hearing: Nov. 19, 2025 Fact Discovery Cutoff: Dec. 23, 2025 Expert Discovery Cutoff: Jan. 28, 2026 Pretrial Conference: May 27, 2026 Trial: June 8, 2026 On July 1, 2025, Judge DeMarchi issued an order in which she found that "TC Heartland is entitled to obtain discovery of Mr. Garcia's medical records." On July 3, 2025, the parties filed a stipulation to continue TC Heartland’s deadline to oppose Plaintiff's class certification motion until July 29, 2025. TC provides packaged food products. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cmb7Hv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan Gudino, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Hwy Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 The Defendant is represented by: Alexander M. Smith, Esq. Kelly M. Morrison, Esq. Dean N. Panos, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 515 S. Flower Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2054 Telephone: (213) 239-5100 Facsimile: (213) 239-5199 E-mail: asmith@jenner.com kmorrison@jenner.com dpanos@jenner.com TEA DATING: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------- Mikael Thalen of SAN reports that Tea, the women-only dating safety app that features anonymous reviews of men, is facing a class-action lawsuit after a data breach exposed tens of thousands of user pictures and other personal information. The lawsuit, filed Monday, July 28, also names the social media platform X and the anonymous online forum 4chan. The complaint, brought by a Northern California woman identified with the pseudonym Jane Doe, accuses the three companies of negligence, invasion of privacy and violations of federal law after 72,000 sensitive images were left publicly accessible on a misconfigured database. The images included selfies of users, as well as photos of driver' s licenses and passports, that Tea obtained to verify user identities. The data was discovered and shared by users on 4chan, which the complaint calls "the notorious imageboard known for harassment campaigns against women." "This wasn't a sophisticated hack," the lawsuit says. "This was the digital equivalent of leaving the bank vault door wide open with a neon sign saying 'Free Money Inside.'" The plaintiffs are seeking damages, restitution and injunctive relief. They also want the defendants to implement stronger security measures to prevent future exposure and dissemination of sensitive personal information. Data spread on X After discovering the exposed database, 4chan users began downloading the files in bulk. Links to download the data cache proliferated on X as well. The lawsuit says that despite notifications to both websites, neither removed the data in a timely manner. "X Corp.'s inadequate response ensured that the stolen data reached a far wider audience than 4chan alone could have achieved," the complaint says. The plaintiff, according to the filing, joined Tea in February 2024 to anonymously warn other women in her area about a man who had allegedly sexually assaulted two other women. The woman gave Tea a selfie and a photo of her driver's license, believing her identity would be kept confidential. The lawsuit says Tea "became the very threat it promised to protect against" by exposing women' s personal data. "She lives in constant fear that her exposed driver' s license will be used for identity theft, that her biometric data will be used to create deepfakes or bypass security systems, or worst of all, that the man she reported will find out she exposed him on the app and seek retaliation," the complaint says. Private messages accessed To make matters worse for Tea, on the same day the lawsuit was filed, a security researcher accessed more than one million private messages from the app that detailed sensitive discussions on everything from abortion to cheating partners. In response, Tea said it disabled its direct messaging feature. "We have recently learned that some direct messages (DMs) were accessed as part of the initial incident," the company said in a statement. "Out of an abundance of caution, we have taken the affected system offline." [GN] THOMPSONGAS LLC: Gahrmann Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- ADAM GAHRMANN, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. THOMPSONGAS LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00651 (M.D. Fla., July 22, 2025) alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees all overtime wages owed. Specifically, the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees for time spent completing pre- and post-trip inspections of their vehicles, and also for company-required safety training completed off-the-clock. The Plaintiff is a resident of Lee County, Florida, in the Middle District of Florida. From around January 2024 until April 2025, Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as service technician. THOMPSONGAS LLC is a Maryland Limited Liability Company that retails propane gas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason L. Gunter, Esq. Conor P. Foley, Esq. Peter M. Jennings, Esq. GUNTERFIRM 2165 W. First St., No. 104 Fort Myers, FL 33901 Telephone: (239) 334-7017 Email: Jason@GunterFirm.com Conor@GunterFirm.com Peter@GunterFirm.com TITAN PHARMACEUTICALS: M&A Investigates Proposed BSKE Ltd. Merger ----------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- Titan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq: TTNP), relating to its proposed merger with BSKE Ltd. Under the terms of the agreement, Titan shareholders are expected to own approximately 13.3% of the combined company. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for August 26, 2025. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/titan-pharmaceuticals-inc/https://monteverdelaw.com/case/wk-kellogg-co/https://monteverdelaw.com/case/dnow-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Couchbase, Inc. (NASDAQ: BASE) related to its sale to Haveli Investments for $24.50 per share in cash without interest to Couchbase shareholders. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/couchbase-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- SpartanNash Company (NASDAQ: SPTN) related to its sale to C&S Wholesale Grocers for $26.90 per share in cash without interest to SpartanNash shareholders. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/spartannash-company/https://monteverdelaw.com/case/waters-corporation/https://monteverdelaw.com/case/guaranty-bancshares-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- CFSB Bancorp, Inc. (NASDAQ: CFSB), relating to the proposed merger with Hometown Financial Group, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, CFSB shareholders will receive $14.25 in cash for each share of CFSB common stock. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/cfsb-bancorp-inc-cfsb/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Monteverde & Associates PC Logo NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] TIVITY HEALTH: $17.05 Class Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 12 ------------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP regarding the proposed Settlement in the Tivity Health Securities Litigation: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE ROBERT STROUGO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. TIVITY HEALTH, INC., et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 3:20-cv-00165 CLASS ACTION Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr. Magistrate Judge Jeffery S. Frensley SUMMARY NOTICE IF YOU PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED TIVITY HEALTH, INC. ("TIVITY HEALTH") COMMON STOCK BETWEEN MARCH 8, 2019, AND FEBRUARY 19, 2020, INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD"), YOU COULD RECEIVE A PAYMENT FROM A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. CERTAIN PERSONS ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFINITION OF THE CLASS AS SET FORTH IN THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, that in the litigation (the "Litigation"), a $17.05 million settlement has been proposed (the "Settlement"). A hearing will be held on November 12, 2025, at 9:00 a.m., before the Honorable Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr., at the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Fred D. Thompson U.S. Courthouse and Federal Building, 719 Church Street, Nashville, TN 37203, for the purpose of determining, among other things, whether: (i) the proposed Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and therefore should be approved; and (iii) the application of Lead Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses from the Settlement Fund, including interest earned thereon, and an award to Lead Plaintiff pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(4), should be granted. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THE LITIGATION, AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE NET SETTLEMENT FUND. You may obtain a copy of the Stipulation of Settlement, the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"), and the Proof of Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim") at www.TivityHealthSecuritiesLitigation.com, or by contacting the Claims Administrator: Tivity Health Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator c/o Verita Global, P.O. Box 301171, Los Angeles, CA 90030-1171; 1-888-756-7630. If you are a Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim by mail postmarked no later than October 20, 2025, or electronically via the website by that date. If you are a Class Member and do not submit a valid Proof of Claim, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will still be bound by any judgment entered by the Court in this Litigation (including the releases provided for therein). No further exclusion opportunity is being provided under the Settlement. Because no Class Member excluded themselves previously when notice was provided, you will be bound by any judgment entered by the Court in this Litigation (including the releases provided for therein) whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim. Any objection to the proposed Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, and/or the fee and expense application must be filed with the Court and sent to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel no later than October 22, 2025, in the manner and form explained in the Notice. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement, you may contact Lead Counsel at the following address: ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP ELLEN GUSIKOFF STEWART 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 settlementinfo@rgrdlaw.com Telephone: 1-800-449-4900 DATED: June 30, 2025 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE TRUIST BANK: Agrees to Settle TCPA Class Action for $4.1 Million ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that Truist Bank has agreed to pay $4.1 million to resolve claims it violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by placing prerecorded calls to consumers without their consent. The Truist Bank settlement benefits subscribers or regular users of 5,998 phone numbers assigned to cellular telephone service in the United States to which Truist placed a prerecorded telephone call concerning an unrelated account between Feb. 10, 2019, and Aug. 31, 2022. According to a class action lawsuit, Truist Bank violated the TCPA by placing prerecorded calls to consumers without their consent. The Truist Bank TCPA violations allegedly concerned accounts that were not even related to the consumers receiving the calls. Truist Bank is a financial institution which was formed in 2019 when BB&T merged with SunTrust Banks. Truist hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $4.1 million class action settlement to resolve these allegations. Under the terms of the Truist Bank settlement, class members can receive an equal share of the net settlement fund. According to the settlement website, each class member is estimated to receive approximately $440. However, exact payments may be higher or lower depending on the number of participating class members and other factors. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Sept. 8, 2025. The final approval hearing for the Truist Bank TCPA violations settlement is scheduled for Oct. 16, 2025. No claim form is required to benefit from the settlement. Class members who do not exclude themselves will automatically receive settlement benefits. Who's Eligible This settlement benefits those who received a prerecorded call from Truist Bank regarding an unrelated account between Feb. 10, 2019, and Aug. 31, 2022, on one of 5,998 phone numbers. Potential Award $440 (estimated) Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form Deadline 09/08/2025 Case Name Truong v. Truist Bank, Case No. 23-cv-00079-MOC-DCK, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina Final Hearing 10/16/2025 Settlement Website TBTCPASettlement.com Claims Administrator Truist Bank TCPA Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 301132 Los Angeles, CA 90030-1132 Admin@tbtcpasettlement.com (888) 333-9046 Class Counsel Keith J. Keogh Timothy Sostrin KEOGH LAW LTD Defense Counsel Sarah A. Zielinski Bryan A. Fratkin MCGUIREWOODS LLP [GN] UNITED STATES: Doster Asks to Extend Time for Writ of Certiorari ---------------------------------------------------------------- HUNTER DOSTER, et al. filed on July 19, 2025, a request to extend time to file for a petition of writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, under Case No. 25-94, seeking a review of a ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in the case captioned Hunter Doster, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Applicants vs. Troy E. Meink, Secretary of the Air Force, et al., Case No. 24-3404. [BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners HUNTER DOSTER, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Aaron Siri, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Email: aaron@sirillp.com Defendants-Respondents TROY E. MEINK, Secretary of the Air Force, et al. are represented by: D. John Sauer, Esq. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Email: supremectbriefs@usdoj.gov UNITED STATES: Faces ITAX Class Suit Over Withholding Reductions ---------------------------------------------------------------- ITAX SELF HELP TAX CO., representative on behalf of the collective of U.S. taxpayers similarly situated, v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; COMMISSIONER OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, in his official capacity; and the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 1:25-cv-00695-KK (D.N.M. July 24, 2025) is a class action brought by ITAX, acting as a representative on behalf of a nationwide class if U.S. taxpayers who were unlawfully assessed and subjected to under-payment penalties by the Internal Revenue Service beginning in 2021, after the IRS issued guidance to employers that revised default assumptions under Form W-4 and caused widespread under-withholding. ITAX seeks relief for those who, despite submitting valid W-4 forms and complying with IRS procedures, were penalized due to systemic IRS-induced withholding reductions. IRS is an agency of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. UNITED STATES: Haitians Sue Over Deportation for Nationals ---------------------------------------------------------- Jacqueline Charles of Miami Herald reports that a group of Haitians with Temporary Protected Status is challenging the Trump administration's end of legal protections from deportation for nationals of Haiti. The class-action lawsuit was filed by five beneficiaries of TPS on July 30, Wednesday, in federal court in the District of Colombia. The suit argues that returning Haitians to a nation being overtaken by gangs puts them at risk, that the decision by Homeland Security Secretary Krisiti Noem to end the deportation protections for up to more than a half-million Haitians did not go through the review process required by Congress, and that the move was based on racial animus toward Haitians. "The termination of Haiti's TPS designation is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, not in accordance with law, in excess of statutory authority, without observance of procedure required by law, and contrary to constitutional rights because it was motivated by unlawful discriminatory animus," the lawsuit said. During his 2024 presidential campaign, President Donald Trump made numerous statements demonstrating his discriminatory attitude against Haitians, the suit said, highlighting his false accusations about Haitians in Springfield, Ohio, were eating their American neighbors' pets. The group is being represented by the same lawyers who filed another suit -- and won -- earlier this year after Noem announced a six-month roll-back of Haiti's TPS designation. The lawfirms are Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli & Pratt, Just Futures Law, Giskan Solotaroff & Anderson and Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner. "Haiti is a nation in chaos. Even Secretary Noem admits that. The decision to strip critical TPS protections despite the extraordinary conditions in Haiti is not just cruel, it's also unlawful," said Sejal Zota, legal director for Just Futures Law. "The administration cannot reverse-engineer the facts to justify its politically motivated decision to terminate." Countries in turmoil In early July, a federal judge in New York ruled that Noem lacked the legal authority to reduce the time of Haitians' TPS from 18 months to 12 months, and said the termination date for the current designation should remain Feb. 3, 2026. DHS finally relented but also argued that it disagreed with the judge's ruling. Weeks earlier, the agency had also announced that once the designation ends, TPS for to a half million Haitians currently living in the United States would come to an end. The designation, given to Haiti after the 2010 earthquake left more than 300,000 dead and 1.5 million homeless, is reserved for countries undergoing turmoil such as civil strife and natural disasters, and allows their nationals in the United States to remain here temporarily with eligibility to work. Though a DHS spokesperson at the time of Noem's termination announcement said the decision was made because conditions in Haiti had improved, that was not the official reason stated in the federal registry. Noem gave an argument based on "national interests," arguing that TPS incentivizes unlawful migration. She also said an unspecified percentage of TPS holders in the U.S. were violent criminals. The suit highlights her comments about the lack of safe conditions in Haiti, which it says should be used during a proper review process of whether to keep or end the designation. "Secretary Noem's termination notice emphasizes precisely how unsafe Haiti is. The termination notice explains, among other things, that 'gang violence in Haiti persists as armed groups operate with impunity, enabled by a weak or effectively absent central government,' and that the gangs inflict on Haiti 'terror and violence, including rape and other forms of sexual violence,' " the suit states. This is not the first time Haitians have challenged Trump's on his attempt to terminate TPS for Haiti. During his first term, a number of lawsuits were filed and lawyers prevailed. Just as they argued the first time, lawyers in the current lawsuit highlight a number of racially charged comments the president and his allies have made about Haitians. They also underscore how armed gangs in Haiti are driving displacements and hunger as they target schools and hospitals. "The long history of racial and national origin discrimination against Haitians must end here and now," said attorney Ira Kurzban. "Haitians in the U.S. are the quintessential example that motivated Congress to establish Temporary Protected Status in 1990. The administration, by false statements and a misapplication of the law, should not be permitted to render that protection a nullity." Deaths and homelessness Last year, gang violence contributed to the deaths of more than 5,000 Haitians; this year, 4,000 have died, according to the United Nations. There are currently more than 1.3 million people who have been forced to flee their homes, many of them forced to live in soiled encampments. The lawsuit says "the U.S. State Department advises American citizens: 'Do not travel to Haiti due to kidnapping, crime, terrorist activity, civil unrest, and limited healthcare;' it notes that 'Haiti has been under a State of Emergency since March 2024' and that '[c]rimes involving firearms are common in Haiti,' including robbery, carjackings, sexual assault, and kidnappings for ransom." The five plaintiffs represent a cross-section of the Haitians who currently hold TPS. While some arrived in the U.S. fleeing the gang violence that erupted after the 2021 assassination of President Jovenel Moise, others have been here since the earthquake. Among the plaintiffs is Vilbrun Dorsainvil, a 34-year-old homeowner in Springfield, Ohio, who has held TPS status since 2021. Dorsainvil, who was a doctor in Haiti, works as a registered nurse. Another plaintiff, Fritz Miot, 32, has held TPS since 2011. He's completing his fourth year of graduate science studies and is on track to obtain a Ph.D. in neuroscience at Loma Linda University in California. The suit says Miot has juvenile onset diabetes, which requires him to take daily insulin injections and appointments with medical specialists. "In Haiti, neither the insulin nor the specialists would be readily accessible, if at all, even if he could afford them," the suit said. "Mr. Miot's loss of TPS and work authorization and his deportation to Haiti would endanger his health, all the while curtailing his research, graduate studies, promising future in neuroscience." A third plaintiff, Marlene Gail Noble, was abandoned as an infant in Haiti, has been in foster care and was the victim of abusive adoptive parents in the U.S., the suit claims. She was first brought to the U.S. at the age of two by a faith-based Florida organization after contracting tuberculosis. The disease caused her spinal cord to collapse and resulted in her being unable to sit, move or function without additional medical care. She received spinal fusion surgery in Florida sometime in the early 1990s and was placed in the legal guardianship of a couple living in Pennsylvania. After at least three additional foster care placements, she was placed in the home of adoptive parents in Mercer County, Pennsylvania. "Throughout her childhood, her humanitarian parole status was renewed each time before it expired, until approximately 2000 when she was nine years old," the suit says. While Noble believed, as a teenager and young adult, that she was legally in the U.S., she was not. "Ultimately, her adoptive parents were abusive to her, and she cut off all contact with them as a young adult," the suit said. "In October 2023, after evaluating other options for pursuing legal status in the United States that were ultimately unavailable to her, she and her immigration attorney filed a TPS application." Brian Concannon, executive director of the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti, a collaborator on the case, said "ending TPS uproots Haitians who are legally in the U.S. and contributing to communities and workplaces. "It sends them to a Haiti controlled by gangs armed with US weapons, suffering from famine and economic disaster," he said. Contrary to the narrative the Trump administration has pushed while trying to enforce his mass deportation campaign, TPS holders have clean records, the suit said. "The statute expressly excludes individuals with more than one misdemeanor conviction from its protection. Nor are they a drain on public resources. The statute expressly prevents TPS holders from obtaining federal public benefits," the lawsuit says. "TPS holders' labor and civic engagement have revitalized communities across America, from Brooklyn, New York and Springfield, Ohio, to Miami, Florida, and numerous places in-between. Haitian TPS holders have a justified, statutorily guaranteed expectation that Haiti's TPS designation will remain in place until lawfully terminated." [GN] UNITED STATES: Hernandez et al. Sue Over Immigration Law Breaches ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tony Hoyos Hernandez et al., Plaintiffs v. Kristi Noem et al., Defendants, Case No.1:25-cv-02344-RBW (D.D.C., July 21, 2025) is a class action accusing the Defendants of repeated violations of black-letter immigration law, due process, and fundamental principles of administrative legality. The Plaintiffs were apprehended and processed under Section 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and thus subjected to mandatory detention. However, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement unlawfully circumvented this framework by releasing Plaintiffs under INA--an act unauthorized by statue for arriving aliens detained without a warrant. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs now seek injunctive and declaratory relief and challenge unlawful agency action. The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is a government agency tasked to prevent transnational crime and illegal immigration. [BN] The Plaintiffs appear Pro Se. UNITED STATES: Motion to Certify Immigrant Detention Suit Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ian Round, writing for The Daily Record, reports that a federal judge on Friday, July 25. declined to certify the proposed class in the lawsuit over immigrant detention conditions in downtown Baltimore. U.S. District Judge Julie Rubin on July 25 ruled that the plaintiffs hadn't shown that they could adequately represent the class and that there wasn't sufficient commonality between their broad-ranging claims. The two plaintiffs, identified by their initials, D.N.N. and V.R.G., say U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement violates the rights of people detained at its "hold rooms" in Baltimore by limiting access to medicine, food, water, counsel and sanitation, depriving them of sleep by keeping the lights on all night, and overcrowding the cells. In response, ICE did not deny key allegations about sleeping conditions, sanitation and more, but said detainees' rights weren't violated. Rubin ruled that the plaintiffs had not met the burden of proving they could adequately represent the entire class. "Although the adequacy hurdle is not particularly challenging to clear," she wrote, "Plaintiffs have not satisfied it here." Lead plaintiffs' obligations in a class-action case are more than "simply lending their names to a suit controlled entirely by the class attorney," she wrote, citing a 2009 opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. "There is no evidence before the court that Plaintiffs know or understand the claims asserted, that they have reviewed any pleadings, that they are familiar with the motions that have been filed that bear upon or pertain to the class, that they have any awareness of the conditions of the Baltimore Hold Rooms since their departure months ago (at which point some of their claims were mooted), or that they have any understanding of the duties of a class representative," Rubin wrote. Rubin described an attestation by the plaintiffs, in which they say they understand the role, as "rather rote." "It may well be that Plaintiffs have thoughtfully considered their roles as class representatives and understand their associated duties," she wrote. "The issue, however, is that Plaintiffs fail to put anything in front of the court on this point." Rubin also ruled that the plaintiffs hadn't satisfied the "commonality" requirement for class certification, because each person who signed a declaration hadn't had the same experience. Some said they were forced to sleep sitting up due to overcrowded rooms; others said they were alone in the cell. Rubin also denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction, writing that it was moot. The parties were scheduled to debate the motions for class certification and a preliminary junction at a hearing, but Rubin canceled it. The plaintiffs are represented by the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, the National Immigration Project and the firm Crowell & Moring. "We are deeply disappointed by the decision but do not believe that the ruling is detrimental to the long-term viability of the case," Amica Center spokeswoman Abegail Baguio wrote in an email. "It is a decision on early-stage class certification, which means that we will focus on gathering more evidence and proceeding with the case on a more ordinary timeline. The decision is not a ruling on the merits and gives us the opportunity to continue building a stronger record for the lawsuit." Baltimore is far from the only place where ICE detention conditions have been challenged; advocates have described similar -- and in some cases worse worse -- conditions nationwide. Several members of Maryland's congressional delegation were denied access to the hold rooms, the Baltimore Banner reported. D.N.N. and V.R.G. were transferred out of Baltimore to longer-term ICE facilities in New Mexico and Louisiana. One has Type 2 diabetes and the other has a thyroid condition; both described losing access to medicine when they were detained for at least a day. Their health has "deteriorated in custody" Baguio said, as they "have been deprived of consistent access to medication for their chronic health conditions and adequate health care." [GN] UNITED STATES: Refugee Resettlement Ban to Proceed as Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- IRAP reports that a federal court ruled that the legal challenge to the Trump administration's suspension of refugee resettlement can move forward as a class action lawsuit on behalf of all impacted refugees. The court also denied the government's motion to dismiss the case. The International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP) filed Pacito v. Trump on behalf of Church World Service (CWS), HIAS, and Lutheran Community Services Northwest (LCSNW), as well as nine impacted individuals, who now represent three subclasses of impacted refugees. The subclasses include refugees awaiting admission to the United States; refugees and Afghan and Iraqi Special Immigrant Visa holders in the U.S. who are entitled to resettlement support; and refugees petitioning for family members to come to the U.S. through the Follow-To-Join refugee program. After a Supreme Court ruling on June 27 limited the ability of federal courts to issue nationwide injunctions, class certification ensures that the case will continue to be able to provide relief on a wide scale. "The orders ensure that this case will move forward on behalf of all people harmed by the Trump administration's unlawful refugee ban," said Linda Evarts, Senior Supervising Attorney in IRAP's Litigation department. "We will keep fighting to ensure they have their day in court." Earlier this month, named plaintiff Pacito was among a number of refugees who resettled in the United States as a result of the lawsuit. [GN] UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces Suit Over Misleading Business Statements ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against UnitedHealth Group Incorporated ("UnitedHealth" or the "Company") (NYSE: UNH) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired UnitedHealth securities between December 3, 2024 and April 16, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until July 7, 2025 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) UnitedHealth had, for years, engaged in a corporate strategy of denying health coverage in order to boost its profits, and ultimately, its share price; (2) this anti-consumer (and at times unlawful) strategy resulted in regulatory scrutiny (as well as public angst) against UnitedHealth, which ultimately resulted in the murder of Brian Thompson ("Thompson"); (3) animus towards UnitedHealth was such that, subsequent to the murder of Thompson, many Americans openly celebrated his demise, expressed admiration for his accused killer, and/or otherwise demanded that UnitedHealth change its strategy even if they condemned Thompson's killing; (4) the foregoing regulatory and public outrage caused UnitedHealth to change its corporate practices; (5) notwithstanding the foregoing, UnitedHealth recklessly stuck with the guidance it issued the day before Thompson's murder, which was unrealistic considering UnitedHealth's changing corporate strategies; and (6) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. If you purchased or otherwise acquired UnitedHealth shares and suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Marion Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact Information: Brandon Walker, Esq. Marion Passmore, Esq. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com www.bespc.com [GN] VENTURE GLOBAL: IMRF Appointed as Lead Plaintiff in Firstfire Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as FIRSTFIRE GLOBAL OPPORTUNITIES FUND LLC, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. VENTURE GLOBAL, INC. et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-04642-JAV (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jeannette A. Vargas entered an order as follows: -- appointing IMRF as lead plaintiff, -- appointing Labaton as lead counsel, and -- appointing Cohen Milstein as liaison counsel. Pursuant to the schedule proposed by the parties, within 45 days of this Order, lead plaintiff will either amend the operative complaint or indicate they do not intend to amend. The Defendants will file their anticipated motion to dismiss within 60 days of either the filing of an amended complaint or the notification that lead plaintiff does not intend to amend. The Lead plaintiff shall submit any opposition to the motion to dismiss 60 days after the motion is filed. Reply briefs shall be due 30 days after the opposition brief is filed. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF Nos. 3, 11, and 36. Given the lack of opposition to IMRF's motion, no proof has been offered rebutting this presumption. The Court therefore finds that IMRF is the most adequate plaintiff and appoints it to serve as lead plaintiff. IMRF has selected Labaton as lead counsel and Cohen Milstein as liaison counsel. Each firm has substantial experience in the prosecution of securities fraud class actions, having served as lead or co-lead counsel in many securities class actions, and IMRF’s choice of counsel is qualified to prosecute this securities action on behalf of the class. Accordingly, the Court approves the selection of Labaton and Cohen Milstein as counsel. Venture is an energy infrastructure company providing liquefied natural gas (LNG) to utilities and energy companies. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated July 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LqT9Im at no extra charge.[CC] VESYNC CORPORATION: Chen Seeks to File Documents Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICK CHEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. VESYNC CORPORATION, Case No. 3:23-cv-04458-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order allowing him to file under seal documents containing information or references to information that the Defendant designated as either Confidential or Highly Confidential – Attorney's Eyes Only. The Plaintiff states that the "compelling reasons" standard applies at class certification. The Plaintiff submits this request only to comply with his obligations under Local Rule 79-5 and the protective order issued in the case and take no position at this time on the propriety of other parties' confidentiality designations, or whether they meet the compelling reasons test for retaining confidentiality. The Plaintiff requests that the Court seal the following portions of Plaintiff's reply in support of motion for class certification: Document Sought To Be Filed Portion Sought To Be Under Seal Sealed Plaintiff's Reply Memo ISO Class 4:13, 15-16 Certification 5:15-20 9:26-28 Exhibit 2 To Declaration of L. Entire Document Timothy Fisher ISO Plaintiff's Reply ISO Class Certification Vesync develops smart home platform. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0QR6vX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Luke Sironski-White, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com lsironski@bursor.com - and - Greg Sinderbrand, Esq. SINDERBRAND LAW GROUP, P.C. 2829 Townsgate Road, Suite 100 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (818) 370-3912 E-mail: greg@sinderbrandlaw.com VILLAGES AT NOAH'S: Murphy Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK MURPHY AND MARIA MURPHY, as guardians of OLIVIA MURPHY, et.al., and all other persons similarly situated; v. VILLAGES AT NOAH'S LANDING LTD., a Florida limited partnership, et.al., Case No. 8:25-cv-00022-TPB-TGW (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting them an enlargement of time to file their motion for class certification, through and including Aug. 26, 2025, or to a date the Court deems just and appropriate. The enlargement of time requested is 25 days. The case is still in the inception of discovery, the motion to dismiss is pending, and the discovery period extends to July 16, 2026. On May 27, 2025, this Court entered a Case Management and Scheduling Order, where the Plaintiffs request a reasonable extension of time to file their Motion for Class Certification on August 1, 2025. Villages offers a range of housing options and amenities for older adults. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VSBQqh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew W. Dietz, Esq. DISABILITY INCLUSION & ADVOCACY LAW CLINIC Nova Southeastern University Shepard Broad College of Law 3305 College Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314 Telephone: (954) 262-6138 E-mail: mdietz@nova.edu - and - Jack Scarola, Esq. Victoria Mesa-Estrada, Esq. SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Telephone: (561) 686-6300 Facsimile: (561) 383-9451 E-mail: jxs@searcylaw.com ScarolaTeam@searcylaw.com vmestrada@searcylaw.com MesaTeam@searcylaw.com The Defendants are represented by: James C. Valenti, Esq. Samuel J. Hensel, Esq. JAMES C. VALENTI, P.A. 114 N. Tennessee Ave, Suite 200 Lakeland, FL 33801 Telephone: (863) 937-6056 E-mail: j.valenti@valenti-law.com s.hensel@valenti-law.com s.reger@valenti-law.com - and - Allan J. Rotlewicz, Esq. CALLAHAN & FUSCO, LLC 200 SW 1st Avenue, Suite 940 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (877) 618-9770 Facsimile: (954) 252-2308 E-mail: arotlewicz@callahanfusco.com eserve@callahanfusco.com - and - Noel F. Johnson, Esq. DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP 200 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2401 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (786) 957-1157 Facsimile: (786) 957-1158 E-mail: Noel.Johnson@Dinsmore.com Jessica.SanMartin@Dinsmore.com - and - Jeffrey M. Partlow, Esq. Allaa M. Tayeb, Esq. COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A. Tower Place, Suite 400 1900 Summit Tower Boulevard Orlando, FL 32810 Telephone: (321) 972-0079 Facsimile: (321) 972-0099 E-mail: jeffrey.partlow@csklegal.com geraldine.asher@csklegal.com allaa.tayeb@csklegal.com deeana.bryant@csklegal.com kirbie.andrews@csklegal.com WELLMADE INDUSTRIES: Liu Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YU CONG LIU, YIXIANG ZHANG, and CAN GEN HAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WELLMADE INDUSTRIES MFR. N.A. LLC; WELLMADE FLOOR COVERINGS INTERNATIONAL, INC.; ZHU CHEN a/k/a GEORGE CHEN; JIAYI CHEN a/k/a MORGAN CHEN; JIAN JUN LU; AND MING CHEN a/k/a ALLEN CHEN, Case No. 4:25-cv-00134-WMR (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending the time (a) by one week (until Aug. 4, 2025) for the Parties to file their Civil Local Rule 23.1 Statement; and (b) by a minimum of 120 days for the Plaintiffs to file a motion for certification of a class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. The Plaintiffs and the Served Defendants have conferred regarding class certification, and the Served Defendants consent to the Plaintiffs' request for an extension of this deadline. This is the Plaintiffs' first request to seek an extension of this deadline, and no party will be prejudiced by the extension. The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit on May 27, 2025. This is a complex lawsuit involving class-wide claims arising from the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, the Georgia Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit. Wellmade specializes in the design, production and distribution of hard surface flooring collections. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RJn79n at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel Werner, Esq. Elaine Woo, Esq. RADFORD SCOTT LLP 125 Clairemont Ave., Suite 380 Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: (678) 271-0300 E-mail: dwerner@radfordscott.com ewoo@radfordscott.com - and - Aaron Halegua, Esq. AARON HALEGUA, PLLC 524 Broadway, 11th Floor New York, NY 10012 Telephone: (646) 854-9061 E-mail: ah@aaronhalegua.com WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Mortgage Fees ---------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that a consumer filed a class action lawsuit against Wells Fargo & Co. and Wells Fargo Bank N.A. Why: The bank allegedly improperly charged certain mortgage fees and failed to return the funds for more than a decade. Where: The Wells Fargo class action was filed in California federal court. A new Wells Fargo class action lawsuit claims the bank improperly charged mortgage applicants certain fees during the loan origination process and failed to return the funds for more than a decade. Plaintiff Lance Baird filed the class action complaint against Wells Fargo & Co. and Wells Fargo Bank N.A. on June 6 in California state court. The bank removed the case to California federal court on July 15. According to the Wells Fargo class action, the bank has improperly charged mortgage applicants certain fees during the loan origination process and failed to return the funds for more than a decade. The lawsuit claims Wells Fargo began sending letters to borrowers in December 2022, apologizing for incorrectly assessing return to float fees and offering cashier's checks for the erroneously charged fees. However, Baird claims the letters failed to provide an adequate explanation or accounting of the errors, leaving borrowers unable to determine the full extent of their damages. Wells Fargo allegedly failed to adequately reimburse customers According to the class action lawsuit, Wells Fargo's actions were concealed until the letters were sent, and the bank's attempt to settle the issue with insufficient refunds is inadequate. The lawsuit claims Wells Fargo's actions have left consumers facing ongoing harm and unreimbursed out-of-pocket losses. Baird makes his allegations on behalf of a proposed class of all persons within California who received a letter from Wells Fargo alerting them that one or more return to float fees may have been incorrectly assessed during the loan origination process with a check enclosed to purportedly compensate for the error. The Wells Fargo lawsuit asserts claims for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, civil theft/receiving stolen property, conversion, unjust enrichment and accounting. He is seeking an order certifying the class action, compensatory damages, punitive damages, statutory damages, statutory penalties, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, pre- and post-judgment interest and a jury trial. Earlier, Wells Fargo and other companies agreed to a $19.5 million settlement to resolve allegations they violated California privacy laws by recording phone calls without consumers' consent. What do you think of the allegations made in this Wells Fargo class action lawsuit? Tell us in the comments. Baird is represented by Brian S. Kabateck, Shant A. Karnikian, Anastasia K. Mazzella and Annie Martin-McDonough of Kabateck LLP and D. Joshua Staub and James C. D. Carr of Law Office of D. Joshua Staub. The Wells Fargo class action lawsuit is Baird v. Wells Fargo & Co., et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-05959, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. [GN] WEST VIRGINIA: 4th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Sheppheard Prison Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Thomas Sheppheard, Tyler Randall, Adam Perry, next friend and guardian of Minor child J.P., on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Patrick Morrisey, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of West Virginia; Rob Cunningham, in his official capacity as the Acting Cabinet Secretary of the West Virginia Department of Homeland Security, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 24-6691, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirms the district court's dismissal of the lawsuit. Circuit Judge Jasmine H. Yoon wrote the Panel's Opinion. Judge Yoon opines that because the Appellants have failed to make sufficient factual allegations to support the traceability and redressability elements of Article III standing, the Panel affirms the judgment of the district court. The underlying putative class action complaint challenges conditions in West Virginia correctional facilities. The Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief seeking to represent all currently incarcerated persons housed in state prison facilities, jail facilities, and juvenile centers in West Virginia. The complaint asserted three putative classes: individuals in prison facilities represented by Sheppheard, individuals in jail facilities represented by Randall, and minor individuals in juvenile center facilities represented by J.P. The Plaintiffs alleged that they were subjected to inhumane living conditions through overcrowding, understaffing, and deferred maintenance," which "all have an impact on safety." Specifically, they claimed that overcrowding makes a facility less safe, secure, and humane than it could be," that "any shortage of correctional officers limits the ability to properly supervise the State's incarcerated individuals," and that the facilities were in "serious need of maintenance" requiring funding of more than "$270 million. The Plaintiffs sought extensive declaratory and injunctive relief, requesting the court to: a) Certify a class of all individuals currently incarcerated at any correctional facility within the state of West Virginia; b) Declare that Defendants' actions violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments; c) Enjoin Defendants from engaging in unconstitutional practices and compel them to implement necessary policies; d) Compel Defendants to make structural repairs, hazard abatements, financial investments, and personnel changes; e) Enjoin and compel Defendants to spend state budget surplus funds "in order to make all of the necessary deferred maintenance repairs required at all West Virginia correctional facilities in an amount not less than 270 million dollars;" and f) Compel Defendants to spend state budget surplus funds to hire and pay the requisite number of correctional staff needed to appropriately staff the facilities, not less than 60 million dollars. On July 2, 2024, the district court granted both the Governor's and the Secretary's motions to dismiss. The district court found that the Plaintiffs "lacked standing because they could not establish that their injuries were fairly traceable to either Defendant's conduct or that their injuries would be redressed by a favorable decision against either Defendant. Regarding the Secretary, the district court found that his general duty does not provide a sufficient causal connection between the Appellants' alleged injuries and Secretary Sorsaia's conduct." The court noted that the Plaintiffs' alleged injuries are due in large part to funding decisions from the West Virginia legislature, not the Secretary. According to the Court, the Appellants lacked standing to sue the Governor for similar reasons as neither his pardon nor budget powers is sufficient to establish a causal connection between the Governor's general executive power and the remedy the Plaintiffs seek. Court of Appeals Analysis Circuit Judge Yoon, writing for the unanimous panel, applied the three-part test for Article III standing: (1) it has suffered an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. The Court of Appeals found that the Plaintiffs' "injuries are not traceable to the action of the Governor." The court noted that "another official--the Commissioner of WVDCR--actually carries out the day-to-day operations of these facilities." The Plaintiffs "have not clearly alleged facts that demonstrate that it is the Governor, and not the Commissioner of WVDCR, who caused Appellants' injuries." The court rejected the Plaintiffs' reliance on South Carolina Wildlife Federation v. Limehouse, stating that "the Governor occupies a very different role. He does not allocate staff, set scheduling shifts, perform or direct maintenance, supervise the cooking of food or provision of supplies, or determine how showers are run in the facilities." Similarly, regarding the Secretary, the court found that the Plaintiffs cannot rely on the Secretary's general duty to provide support, oversight, and guidance to the WVDCR. The court concluded that it is difficult to see how the Secretary could be causally connected to the Appellants' injuries" because he lacks appropriation power and the statutory authority to enact policies and procedures for the facilities. The Court of Appeals determined that the Plaintiffs' injuries are not redressable through relief against either defendant. Regarding the Governor's pardon power, the court stated that power is discretionary and federal courts have no ability to control an Executive's decision in this arena. The court rejected the Plaintiffs' argument that the Governor could use discretionary funds, noting that "it remains speculative how much CARES Act money is in the fund at this time" and that the Plaintiffs "do not clearly allege facts demonstrating how an order forcing the Governor to spend CARES Act money in that fund would actually remedy their injuries." For the Secretary, the court found that he has no role in the appropriations process, beyond formulating comprehensive budgets for consideration by the Governor and that any action the Secretary takes towards appropriations necessarily requires legislative approval." The court emphasized that "policy disagreements should be addressed to elected policymakers at the ballot box, not to unelected judges in the courthouse" and noted that the Plaintiffs "are not without recourse" as they "may organize, lobby, and attempt to influence policymakers in West Virginia." The Court's Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LE1YAZ WHOLE FOODS: Agrees to Settle Canisters Class Suit for $650,000 --------------------------------------------------------------- ClaimDepot reports that consumers who bought a 12-ounce canister of 365 Organic Hot Cocoa Rich Chocolate Flavor Mix or 365 Everyday Value Organic Hot Cocoa Rich Chocolate Flavor Mix from a Whole Foods Market store in California or purchased it online while physically in California between Nov. 3, 2017, and March 13, 2025, may qualify to claim a cash payment from a class action settlement. Whole Foods Market California Inc. and Mrs. Gooch's Natural Food Markets Inc. agreed to pay up to $650,000 to settle a class action lawsuit. The lawsuit alleged the companies sold hot cocoa mix in large, opaque canisters containing nonfunctional empty space, which may have misled California consumers about the amount of product they were buying. Who is eligible to file a Whole Foods claim? Class members must meet all of the following criteria: -- They purchased at least one 12-ounce canister of 365 Organic Hot Cocoa Rich Chocolate Flavor Mix or 365 Everyday Value Organic Hot Cocoa Rich Chocolate Flavor Mix. -- They purchased the product from a Whole Foods Market store located in California or remotely (such as online) while physically present in California. -- The purchase occurred between Nov. 3, 2017, and March 13, 2025. How much is the hot cocoa payout? Pro rata payment: Eligible class members who submit a valid and timely claim can receive a cash payment from the settlement fund. The total amount allocated for class member payments is $100,000, which will be distributed on a pro rata basis among all valid claimants. The estimated payment per class member is about $2.90-$4.10, but this amount may change depending on the number of valid claims submitted. If there are unclaimed funds after the initial distribution, further distributions may be made to class members who cashed their checks or received electronic payments, provided the additional payment is at least $1. Any remaining funds after a second distribution will be donated to the California Association of Food Banks, subject to court approval. How to claim a class action payment Class members can file a claim online or download, print and complete the PDF claim form and mail it to the settlement administrator. Claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by Oct. 14, 2025. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Goodwin Hot Cocoa Settlement, ATTN: Claims Administrator, PO Box 25412 Santa Ana, CA 92799 Those who received an email notice with a notice ID and PIN do not need to file a claim. However, they can update their contact information or select their payment method through the settlement website by Dec. 3, 2025. What documentation is required to submit a claim? -- Only one claim may be submitted per person regardless of how many units were purchased. -- Proof of purchase is not required for up to two claims per household. -- If three or more claims are submitted from the same household, proof of purchase will be required for the third and subsequent claims. -- If the claims administrator already has your information, you may not need to submit a claim at all. Payout options -- PayPal -- Venmo -- Zelle -- Virtual prepaid card -- Physical check $650,000 million settlement fund breakdown The $650,000 settlement fund covers -- Settlement administration costs: $92,536 -- Attorneys' fees and costs: $452,464 -- Service award to the class representative: Up to $5,000 -- Payments to class members: $100,000 (distributed pro rata among valid claimants) Important dates -- Deadline to file a claim: Oct. 14, 2025 -- Opt-out deadline: Oct. 14, 2025 -- Final approval hearing: Dec. 3, 2025 When is the Goodwin Hot Cocoa Settlement payout date? Payments will be distributed approximately 30-60 days days after the court grants final approval of the settlement and any appeals are resolved. Why was there a class action settlement? The class action lawsuit alleged Whole Foods Market sold hot cocoa mix in large, opaque canisters with nonfunctional empty space, leading California consumers to believe they were getting more product than they actually received. The claims included negligent misrepresentation and violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law. Whole Foods Market denied any wrongdoing or violation of law. The parties agreed to settle to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainty of further litigation. [GN] WISCONSIN: Court Refuses to Dismiss or Transfer Robillard Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Sean Robillard and Sara Domres, Plaintiffs v. Grace Knutson, Defendant, Case No. 24-CV-1077-JPS-JPS (E.D. Wis.), Judge J.P. Stadtmueller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss or transfer venue. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied without prejudice. Plaintiffs brought this putative class action against Grace Knutson, Director of Sex Offender Programs for the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, alleging "systemic deficiencies in the policies and practices have caused the Electronic Monitoring Center to issue warrants for individuals on extended supervision who are suspected of having tampered with their GPS monitors without taking reasonable measures to confirm whether the suspected tampering alert is related to an equipment malfunction." The Court referred to this practice as the "Policy." Plaintiff Sean Robillard lives in Beaver Dam, Wisconsin, located in the Eastern District. Officers from the Beaver Dam Police Department arrested him on April 27, 2024, pursuant to a warrant issued because of the Policy. Though Robillard had not tampered with his GPS device and no one investigated or confirmed whether he had, he was nevertheless taken to Dodge County Jail where he was fingerprinted, photographed, and strip searched." He remained at Dodge County Jail for two nights before being released to his parole officer's custody. Plaintiff Sara Domres lives in Sullivan, Wisconsin, located in the Western District. She was arrested on August 31, 2024 for allegedly tampering with her GPS device. Domres did not tamper with her device, but she was nevertheless arrested and brought to Jefferson County Jail where she was booked, fingerprinted, and strip searched. She was held for three nights over a holiday weekend before being released. Plaintiffs allege that they were both wrongfully held because of the Policy and the fact that WDOC does not have any "on-call" parole officers on the weekends or holidays to address situations where individuals on GPS monitoring are arrested due to alleged monitor tampering. Defendant argued that venue was improper in the Eastern District and moved to dismiss or transfer the action to the Western District of Wisconsin. The Court analyzed venue under 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(b), which provides that venue is proper in: (1) A judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) A judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred; and (3) Any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the Court's personal jurisdiction. While venue was proper in the Western District under subsection (b)(1) because Defendant resides there, the Court found venue was also proper in the Eastern District under subsection (b)(2). According to the Court In this case, there is undoubtedly a 'close nexus' between the events that occurred in the Eastern District--namely, the arrest and detainment of Robillard and ostensibly other putative class members due to the Policy--and Plaintiffs' wrongful seizure claims. The Court rejected Defendant's argument that only the defendant's actions should be considered for venue purposes, explaining that the focus of Section 1391 is the nexus between the facts and the cause of action, not the defendant and the cause of action. The Court emphasized that venue may be proper in more than one district as long as a 'substantial' part of the key events or omissions occurred in the district. Regarding Defendant's alternative request to transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a), the Court conducted a flexible and individualized analysis considering witness availability, party convenience, location of material events, and sources of proof. The Court found that of the 24 total witnesses identified by the parties as having relevant information, at least eighteen reside in the Eastern District, which weighed against transfer. The Court concluded that this question presents a 'close call' such that transferring the matter based on convenience would be inappropriate because transferring would merely shift inconvenience from one party to another." The Court also found that the interests of justice did not favor transfer, noting that any district court in a state can enter and enforce equitable relief against a state agency whose policies are enforced statewide. Plaintiffs moved to certify a class of all persons currently or in the future who are subject to GPS monitoring by Wisconsin Department of Corrections who are on extended supervision. The Court denied this motion without prejudice for several reasons. First, the Court noted Plaintiffs' problematic theme of disregard for the Court's protocols and the local rules, including filing the motion without meeting and conferring with Defendant as required and exceeding page limits in their reply brief. More significantly, the Court found that "Plaintiffs provide nothing beyond the pleadings to support that Wisconsin Department of Corrections has a policy concerning how it responds to GPS device tampering alerts for offenders on supervision on weekends and holidays." The Court explained: "This alleged Policy is the crux of their entire case" and "by not providing any evidence of the Policy, Plaintiffs have failed to support their claim that a common question predominates." The Court emphasized that "the requirements for class certification are not merely pleading requirements. Parties seeking class certification must prove that they can actually satisfy them." Since Plaintiffs moved for certification before Defendant answered the complaint and before any discovery, "the Court has no way of ascertaining whether the existence of such a Policy will be factually disputed." The Court ordered that Defendant Grace Knutson's Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, to Transfer be and the same is hereby denied. The Court further ordered that Plaintiffs Sean Robillard and Sara Domres' Motion to Certify Class be and the same is hereby denied without prejudice. The Court directed the parties to submit a new joint Rule 26(f) plan on July 30, 2025, and indicated it would "set a deadline for any renewed motion for class certification, along with other relevant deadlines for this litigation, in a separate scheduling order." A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DWv9HI WORKFORCE7 INC: Ballast Must File Class Cert Reply by August 11 --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Hon. Judge Edgardo Ramos entered an order granting an extension of Plaintiffs' deadline to file their reply to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs' deadline to file their reply to the motion for class certification is Aug. 11, 2025. 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 Court's order dated July 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KoEXni 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 XTREMELY CLEAN: Santana Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- Ileana Santana, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated individuals v. Xtremely Clean Janitorial Services LLC, and Wanda Barton, individually, Case No. 8:25-cv-01935 (M.D. Fla., July 23, 2025) is a collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to recover minimum wages, overtime compensation, liquidated damages for retaliation, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees. The Plaintiff seeks relief on behalf of herself and all similarly situated current and former employees who, at any time on or after February 2025, worked in excess of 40 hours per week without receiving proper compensation. Plaintiff Santana is a resident of Hillsborough County, Florida. Plaintiff is a covered employee for purposes of the Act. Xtremely is a residential and commercial cleaning business operating in the Tampa, Florida area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.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 ***