250808.mbx

250808.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, August 8, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 158 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Radcliff Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Slusser Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Tello Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Tovar Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Vinson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Vite Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Wallace Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams AIS INFOSOURCE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Allen Alleges AMERICA ULIKE: Faces Nguyen Suit Over Deceptive Sale Prices AMERICAN CONSUMER: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Hicks Says APPLE INC: Faces Coral Spring Suit Over Common Stock Drop ATLAS SAND: Faces Sosalla Suit Over Failure to Protect Info ATLASSIAN US: Hughes Sues Over Illegal Trap and Trace Technology BAE SYSTEMS: Settlement in Cabrales Gets Final Nod CAMP 1382: Berrezueta Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FSLA CAPITAL ONE: More Time to File Class Cert Bid Sought CASH ADVANCE: Filing for Class Certification Due June 26, 2026 CENCORA INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Martinez Due July 27, 2026 CENTENE CORP: Duff Allowed Leave to File Class Cert Sur-Reply CENTURION MANAGED: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Smith Due August 1 CENTURY ALUMINUM: Class Settlement in McDaniel Gets Final Nod CHENEGA GLOBAL: Kalantari Seeks Conditional Collective Status CHRISTIAN DIOR: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Holland Says CITIZEN WATCH: Faces Fay Class Action Lawsuit Over Fake Sales COCA-COLA COMPANY: Class Cert Bid Filing in Delvalle Due Sept. 19 COMPASS GROUP: Court Enters Ruling on Class Certification Bid CONSTRUCTION CO: Class Cert Denial Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge COSTCO WHOLESALE: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Lock Due Oct. 21 COVERAGEX LLC: Camer Can Commence Class Discovery CVS HEALTH: Class Certification Deadline in Lewis Suit Extended CVS HEALTH: Filing for Class Cert. in Getz Bid Due Feb. 4, 2026 D'S NATURALS: Hampton Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind DCI DONOR: Class Action Settlement in Wells Suit Gets Final Nod DELTA STAR: Class Cert Hearing in Wilson Set for Oct. 23 DIDI GLOBAL: Plaintiffs Seeks Production of Documents DYCK O'NEAL: Saunders Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply ELECTRIC LAST: Hacker Suit Seeks Settlement Distribution Order EMPWR SOLAR: Fact Discovery in Shelton Class Suit Due Nov. 24 ENPHASE ENERGY: Continues to Defend Pension Fund Class Suit in Cal. ENPHASE ENERGY: Hearing on Hayes Securities Suit Set for Nov. 6 ESTEE LAUDER: Plaintiffs Seeks to Certify Class Action FCA US: Seeks to Modify Scheduling Order in Maugain Class Suit FIDELITY NATIONAL: Seeks Leave to Take Expert Coffman's Deposition FINASTRA TECHNOLOGY: Javid Sues Over Compromised Personal Info FORD MOTOR: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Miller Due May 15, 2026 FORD MOTOR: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Nelson Due May 15, 2026 FRED MEYER: Class Cert Bid in Shields Suit Due May 12, 2026 FRESENIUS VASCULAR: $787K Settlement in Gravley Gets Final Nod GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER: Calchi Class Settlement Gets Final Nod GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER: Class Settlement in Papalia Gets Final OK GOOGLE LLC: Must File Renewed Bid to Seal Materials in Rabin Suit HESS BAKKEN: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Peman Suit Due Nov. 19 HILLSDALE COLLEGE: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Feb. 27, 2026 HOMEOWNER SOLUTION: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 24, 2026 HORIZON LAND: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Reply by August 20 IDAHO: Davids Wins Provisional Class Certification Bid INTEGRATED SPECIALTY: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Pruitt Says INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Vinci Surgical Class Suit Trial Still Not Set JOHNSON CONTROLS: Brown Balks at Failure to Secure Personal Info JP MORGAN: Behrens Class Action Dismissed KEYSTONE AUTOMOTIVE: Dodd Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Under FLSA KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Sept. 12 opposition Sur-Reply Date Sought LAS PRINCESAS: Lara Seeks Conditional Cert of Settlement Classes LASKO PRODUCTS: Wins Summary Judgment in Velez Consumer-Fraud Suit LESLIE GIORDANI: Hid Martorello's Personal Assets, Cofy Alleges LESLIE'S CLOSET: Bowman Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website LIME ROCK: Court Strikes Class Allegations in Colton LINDA SOUTHERN: Bid for Class Action Status Tossed LOCAL ECLECTIC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Davis Alleges LOEWS HOLLYWOOD: Hearing on Class Cert Bid Vacated LOS ANGELES, CA: Roelling Seeks to Recover Back Pay & Overtime MAC COSMETICS: $300K Settlement in Maciel Suit Gets Initial Nod MANAGED CARE: Seeks Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal in Crowe MARKETSOURCE INC: Must File Class Cert Opposition by August 11 MEDUSIND INC: $5MM Class Settlement in Owings Gets Initial Nod MICHAEL MCDONALD: Court Narrows Claims in ACLS Suit MICHAELS MANAGEMENT: Seeks to Stay Class Cert Proceedings MICROSTRATEGY INC: Faces DGCL Violation Class Suit in Delaware MR. COOPER: Class Cert. Scheduling Order Entered in Cabezas Suit MULLOOLY JEFFREY: General Pretrial Management Entered in Hubbuch NESTLE HEALTHCARE: Horti Seeks to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal NESTLE HEALTHCARE: Horti Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes NEW YORK: Faces Class Suit Over Unlawful Contract Restrictions NIKITA BAKER: Class Cert Bid Denied w/o Prejudice NIKITA BAKER: Plaintiffs Loses Class Status Bid NUTRICOST: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Cohen Due August 29 OLYMPIAN LABS: Faces Suit Over Pea Protein Powder Deceptive Claims ON SEMICONDUCTOR: Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Claims PACIFIC MARITIME: Fowler Seeks to Certify Class of Dockworkers PLAYSTUDIOS INC: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Opposition PLAYSTUDIOS INC: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert. Bid PRICE LITTLE: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Nov. 14 PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Loses Summary Judgment Bid v. Curran PROSPERENTRUST & LLC: Pothineni Sues Over Investment Fraud PURCHASE POINT: Cole Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind PURDUE PHARMA: Morales Class Action Closed RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Cabonilas Says RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT: Court Junks Bid to Stay Venet Case RICE DRILLING: Class Settlement in Gregor Suit Gets Initial Nod RICHARD DAUVAL: Plaintiffs Seeks Judicial Class Notice ROBERT LUNA: Class Cert Hearing in Stewart Suit Set for August 5 SALLY BEAUTY: Faces Edwards Class Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages SHEVAUN HARRIS: Plaintiffs Allowed Leave to Amend Complaint SHOE SHOW: Harris Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective SIG SAUER: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response SIMPLE TIRE: Faces Martines Suit Over Illegal Trackers SIMPLETIRE LLC: Faces Pham Class Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages SIRIUS XM: Horoschak Bid for Conditional Collective Status Tossed SKOPOS FINANCIAL: Bid to Extend Class Cert Filing Tossed TC HEARTLAND: Class Cert Hearing in Garcia Set for Nov. 19 TODD SANFIELD: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Martinez Says TOMMY FORD: Tripp Bid for Class Certification Tossed TOPEKA, KS: Plaintiff's Bid to Proceed w/o Fee Prepayment OK'd TOURO COLLEGE: Yodice Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid TOYOTA OF BOARDMAN: Class Cert Filing in Shafer Due March 1, 2026 UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Bid to Extend Class Cert. Briefing Tossed WGM PAINTING: Caseres Seeks Unpaid Regular Wages Under FLSA WUNDERKIND CORP: Systematically Tracks Web Visitors, Balogun Says Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Inc. Has $665MM Total Liabilities at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mass. Family Wins $42.6M in Lawsuit Against J&J ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Tech. Faces Over 700 Exposure Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has 5,434 Pending Claims at June 30 ********* 3M COMPANY: Radcliff Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ---------------------------------------------------------- Robert Radcliff, 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-06287-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 ulcerative colitis 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: Slusser Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hurley Slusser, 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-06288-RMG (D.S.C., June 26, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products and/or PFAS chemicals. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 3M COMPANY: Tello Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Tello, 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-06273-RMG (D.S.C., June 26, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products and/or PFAS chemicals. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 3M COMPANY: Tovar Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals --------------------------------------------------------------- Jesus Tovar, 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-06274-RMG (D.S.C., June 26, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products and/or PFAS chemicals. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 3M COMPANY: Vinson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals -------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Vinson, 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-06252-RMG (D.S.C., June 26, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or the Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use and was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF product. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Phone: 540-672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com 3M COMPANY: Vite Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams ---------------------------------------------------------- Steven Vite, 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-06289-RMG (D.S.C., June 26, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products and/or PFAS chemicals. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 3M COMPANY: Wallace Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams ------------------------------------------------------------- Melvin Wallace, 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-06292-RMG (D.S.C., June 26, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products and/or PFAS chemicals. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 AIS INFOSOURCE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Allen Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ CLIFTON TYLER ALLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AIS INFOSOURCE, L.P., Case No. 4:25-cv-03462 (S.D. Tex., July 25, 2025) arises out of the recent data breach involving the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices, including Plaintiff's and Class Members' names, Social Security numbers, and financial account numbers (Private Information). According to the complaint, individuals who receive services from the Defendant's clients, are required to entrust Defendant with sensitive, non-public Private Information as a condition of receiving services from Defendant's clients, without which Defendant could not perform its regular business activities. The Defendant retains 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, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose Private Information was compromised as a result of Defendant's failure to adequately protect the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members. The Defendant provides various back-office processing and automation services for financial institutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com AMERICA ULIKE: Faces Nguyen Suit Over Deceptive Sale Prices ----------------------------------------------------------- CHI NGUYEN, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff v. AMERICA ULIKE INTERNATIONAL INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-06132 (N.D. Cal., July 22, 2025) arises from the Defendant's violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. On April 2024, in reliance on Ulike's false and deceptive advertising, Plaintiff Chi Nguyen purchased the Ulike Air 10 hair removal device from Ulike.com. Ms. Nguyen purchased the Air 10 for the seemingly "discounted" price of $299, which Ulike displayed next to the stricken-out reference price of $399, a false promise of $100 off a retail price that was never a real price. When purchasing the Ulike Air 10, Ms. Nguyen was exposed to, read, and relied upon Ulike's false reference pricing claims that the product was being sold at a steep discount from its regular price. Based on that representation, she reasonably believed the product was of a greater value than it would be without the displayed false reference price, says the suit. America Ulike International Inc. is an online retailer that provides home beauty devices.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack Fitzgerald, Esq. Melanie R. Monroe, Esq. Trevor Flynn, Esq. Peter Grazul, Esq. Allison Ferraro, Esq. FITZGERALD MONROE FLYNN PC 2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (619) 215-1741 E-mail: jfitzgerald@fmfpc.com mmonroe@fmfpc.com tflynn@fmfpc.com pgrazul@fmfpc.com AMERICAN CONSUMER: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Hicks Says ------------------------------------------------------------- VERONICA HICKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN CONSUMER CREDIT COUNSELING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-12056-IT (D. Mass., July 22, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information that was impacted in a data breach the Defendant disclosed in July 2025. As part of its regular course of business, the Defendant obtained and stored the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class members. By taking possession and control of Plaintiff and Class Members' Private Information, the Defendant assumed a duty to securely store and protect it. The Defendant breached this duty to Plaintiff and Class Members by failing to properly safeguard and protect their Private Information, thus enabling cybercriminals to access, acquire, appropriate, compromise, disclose, encumber, exfiltrate, release, steal, misuse, and/or view it, says the suit. As a result, the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party -- an undoubtedly nefarious third party that seeks to profit off this disclosure by defrauding Plaintiff and Class Members in the future. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit to hold Defendant responsible for its grossly negligent failure to use statutorily required or reasonable industry cybersecurity measures to protect Class Members' Private Information. American Consumer Credit Counseling, Inc. is a non-profit credit counseling agency that helps individuals and families manage and reduce their debt.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (771) 772-3086 E-mail: cturner@milberg.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 APPLE INC: Faces Coral Spring Suit Over Common Stock Drop --------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF CORAL SPRINGS POLICE OFFICERS' PENSION PLAN, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. APPLE INC., TIMOTHY D. COOK, LUCA MAESTRI, and KEVAN PAREKH, Case No. 3:25-cv-06252 (N.D. Cal., July 25, 2025) is a securities class action on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Apple common stock between June 10, 2024, and June 9, 2025, inclusive, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Since 2011, iPhones and other Apple smart devices have contained software for the Company's digital personal assistant, called "Siri." In recent years, a number of Apple's competitors have introduced artificial intelligence capabilities, which put pressure on Apple to incorporate generative-AI technology into its iPhones and especially to introduce advanced AI-based Siri features. In 2020, Epic Games, Inc. sued Apple, challenging Apple's restrictions on app developers' ability to communicate with consumers, and direct them to purchasing mechanisms outside of those offered by Apple's App Store. Apple takes a 30% commission on all revenues generated from its App Store, and Epic's efforts to open other avenues for app-related payments posed a threat to one of Apple's major revenue streams. The claims against Defendants arise from their misrepresentations and omissions that fall into two categories: statements regarding the launch of new generative-AI based Siri features; and statements concerning Apple's compliance with the Epic Injunction, including statements relating to any impacts on revenue from this compliance. Throughout the Class Period, starting with the Company's 2024 Worldwide Developers Conference, the Defendants represented to investors that the Company would be rolling out a number of AI-supported features for Siri in the first half of 2025, promising that "over the next year" or "in the coming months," Siri would gain AI functionality that would enable it to "take hundreds of new actions in and across Apple and third-party apps," and "deliver intelligence that's tailored to the user and their on-device information." The Company also repeatedly represented that it had implemented a plan to comply with the Epic Injunction. As a result of these representations, the price of Apple common stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period. 8. The truth began to emerge during a series of evidentiary hearings held by the court in the Epic Action from February 24 through February 26, 2025, in response to a motion from Epic seeking to enforce the injunction and hold Apple in civil contempt, says the suit. On Feb. 25, 2025, a senior Apple employee testified that the impact on the Company's finances was a key factor in its decision to implement a particular anti-competitive aspect of its "compliance plan," and that eliminating this would cost the Company "hundreds of millions if not billions," in App Store revenue. As a result of these disclosures, the price of Apple common stock declined by $6.68 per share, or 2.7%. On March 7, 2025, an Apple spokesperson was quoted by multiple news outlets, disclosing that the launch of the Siri generative-AI features would be delayed. As a result of these disclosures, the price of Apple common stock declined by $11.16 per share, or 5.1% over the following two trading sessions. On April 3, 2025, The Wall Street Journal published an article criticizing Apple for overpromising on its AI capabilities and chiding the Company that it "shouldn't announce products until they're sure they can deliver them." On this news, the price of Apple common stock declined by $20.70 per share, or 9.2%. Then, on June 9, 2025, Apple held its annual Worldwide Developer Conference where it notably failed to announce any updates regarding advanced Siri features beyond that the Company "needed more time to reach a high quality bar." Industry commentators were underwhelmed with this news, with CNN commenting that "it's unlikely that any of the announcements made at Monday's event will change the perception that Apple is behind its competitors in AI." These disclosures caused the price of Apple common stock to decline by $2.47 per share, or 1.2%. As a result of the detailed Defendants' actions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common stock, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, the suit further alleges. Apple is a multinational technology company most well-known for its iPhone. It also sells a range of other smart technology products, personal computers, and related accessories. It also offers a variety of integrated software and services through the operation of various platforms, including the App Store.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 819-3481 E-mail: jonathanu@blbglaw.com ATLAS SAND: Faces Sosalla Suit Over Failure to Protect Info ----------------------------------------------------------- BRANDON SOSALLA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ATLAS SAND COMPANY, LLC, D/B/A ATLAS ENERGY SOLUTIONS INC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00613-amb (W.D. Wis., July 22, 2025) is a class action arising from Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information about its clients and its current and former employees. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. The cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class' PII, says the suit. The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant and a Data Breach victim. He brings this class action on behalf of himself, and all others harmed by Defendant's misconduct. Atlas Sand Company is a company that provides solutions to the energy industry with focus on technology, automation, and remote operations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com ATLASSIAN US: Hughes Sues Over Illegal Trap and Trace Technology ---------------------------------------------------------------- DANA HUGHES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ATLASSIAN US, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-06690 (C.D. Cal., July 22, 2025) arises from the Defendant's installation and use of data broker software without obtaining consent in violation of the California Trap and Trace Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant uses data broker software on its website https://www.atlassian.com, to secretly collect data about a Website visitor's computer, location, and browsing habits. The data broker software then compiles this data and correlates that data with extensive external records it already has about most Californians in order to learn the identity of the Website user. The Defendant specifically intended its surveillance operations to cause injury to California residents. The Defendant configured its tracking systems on its Website to identify, profile, and exploit California users, the suit alleges. The Plaintiff visited the Website on February 11, 2025. When Plaintiff did so, her identifying information by way of electronic impulses was sent to Demandbase. The purpose of this transfer of data from Defendant to Demandbase was for de-anonymization, profiling, and targeting. The transfer benefitted both Defendant and Demandbase financially, asserts the Plaintiff. ATLASSIAN US, INC. is a Delaware corporation that owns, operates, and/or controls the website, an online platform that offers software and other products, and technology solutions and resources, to help teams communicate, and to keep, plan and track their activities and ideas. The Company has its principal place of business in San Francisco, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Tauler, Esq. J. Evan Shapiro, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 E-mail: rtauler@taulersmith.com eshapiro@taulersmith.com BAE SYSTEMS: Settlement in Cabrales Gets Final Nod -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FEDERICO CABRALES, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. BAE SYSTEMS SAN DIEGO SHIP REPAIR, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-02122-AJB-DDL (S.D. Cal.), the Court entered an approves the Settlement and directing the parties to effectuate the Settlement Agreement according to its terms, including: -- The California Labor & Workforce Development Agency be paid $75,000 as a portion of the total $100,000 PAGA Maximum Settlement Amount; -- $15,000 be divided among FLSA Collective Members on a pro ratabasis; -- Phoenix Settlement Administrators be paid $35,5000.00for its services rendered as Settlement Administrator; -- The Plaintiffs' Counsel be paid $2,121,489.29 in attorneys' fees and $179,769.00 in reasonable litigation expenses for their work as Class Counsel; and -- The Plaintiffs Federico Cabrales and Tychicus Stanislas each be awarded $20,000.00 as compensation for their efforts as Class Representatives. On Oct. 26, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action complaint against the Defendant in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, which the Defendant removed to this Court on Dec. 23, 2021. The Plaintiffs allege claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the California Private Attorneys' General Act ("PAGA"), and other California state labor laws on behalf of themselves and other employees of The Defendant. "Settlement Class Members" means (1) all current and former California based non exempt employees of BAE who worked at least one Workweek during the Class Period, (2) all current and former California based non-exempt employees of Acro Service Corporation who were placed to work at BAE for at least one Workweek during the Class Period, and (3) all current and former California based non-exempt employees of NSC Technologies, LLC who were placed to work at BAE for at least one Workweek between Aug. 9, 2021 and the end of the Class Period. "Class Period" means the period from Oct. 26, 2017, through June 1, 2024. "Participating Settlement Class Members" means all Settlement Class Members who (1) did not submit a timely and valid Request for Exclusion and (2) did not previously settle the alleged claims at issue in the Action through an individual settlement agreement with Defendant BAE, including but not limited to through the November 17, 2023 Direct Settlement Campaign. "FLSA Collective Members" means (1) all current and former California based non exempt employees of BAE who worked at least one Workweek during the FLSA Period, (2) all current and former California based non-exempt employees of Acro who were placed to work at BAE for at least one Workweek during the FLSA Period, and (3) all current and former California based non-exempt employees of NSC who were placed to work at BAE for at least one Workweek between Aug. 9, 2021 and the end of the FLSA Period. "FLSA Period" means the period from January 20, 2019, through June 1, 2024. "PAGA Members" means (1) all current and former California based non-exempt employees of BAE who worked at least one Workweek during the PAGA Period, (2) all current and former California based non-exempt employees of Acro who were placed to work at BAE for at least one Workweek during the PAGA Period, and (3) all current and former California based non-exempt employees of NSC who were placed to work at BAE for at least one Workweek between August 9, 2021 and the end of the PAGA Period. (Settlement ¶ 20.) “PAGA Period” means the period from November 16, 2020, through June 1, 2024. BAE provides non-nuclear ship repair, modernization, conversion, and overhaul services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pTuYAW at no extra charge.[CC] CAMP 1382: Berrezueta Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FSLA -------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTIAN GABRIEL BERREZUETA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. CAMP 1382 LLC d/b/a CAMPAGNOLA RESTAURANT, CURT HUEGEL, and PATRICIO TELLO, Case No. 1:25-cv-06131 (S.D.N.Y., July 25, 2025) seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff brings the First Claim for Relief as a collective action pursuant to FLSA Section 16(b), 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), on behalf of all servers, bartenders, barbacks, runners, and bussers employed by Defendants at Campagnola on or after the date that is three years before the filing of the Original Complaint. The Defendant owns and operates a restaurant called Campagnola in Manhattan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. Josef Nussbaum, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 32 Broadway, Suite 601 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 688-5640 Facsimile: (212) 981-9587 CAPITAL ONE: More Time to File Class Cert Bid Sought ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AZLYNNE HOARD and CHIQUITA PLENTY, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CAPITAL ONE, N.A., Case No. 3:24-cv-01133-JLS-VET (S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for extension of time to file a motion for class certification on or before the deadline date of Aug. 15, 2025, to: -- establish a briefing schedule (45 days for the Defendant's opposition, 21 days for Plaintiff's reply, and a hearing the week of Nov. 10, 2025, subject to the Court's availability), and -- grant leave to file the Plaintiffs' memorandum in support of motion for class certification and the Defendant's opposition to the motion, in excess of the page limits under the Local Civil Rule 7.1(h). The Plaintiffs require a brief extension of time to file the motion for class certification because their experts require additional time to analyze and utilize in their report data produced in this litigation. Additionally, the Parties agree that establishing a class certification briefing schedule at this stage will promote clarity and efficiency in the litigation. The Plaintiffs request additional space because their Memorandum will incorporate and synthesize findings from multiple expert witnesses whose reports address technical, economic, and damages-related issues critical to class certification. Capital is a diversified bank that offers a broad array of financial products and services to consumers, small businesses and commercial clients. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xfNf8W at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sophia G. Gold, Esq. Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. Amanda J. Rosenberg, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 490 43rd Street, Suite 122 Oakland, CA 94609 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: sgold@kalielgold.com jkaliel@kalielpllc.com arosenberg@kalielgold.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com CASH ADVANCE: Filing for Class Certification Due June 26, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLAUDIA Y. RUELAS FIGUEROA, v. CASH ADVANCE CENTERS OF CALIFORNIA, LLC, ET AL., Case No. 1:25-cv-00534-JLT-EPG (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Erica Grosjean entered a class action scheduling conference order as follows: Mid-discovery status conference: Jan. 26, 2026, at 10:00 AM. Non-expert discovery of Lead Plaintiff's claims and class certification: March 27, 2026 Expert disclosure deadline re class certification: April 26, 2026 Rebuttal expert disclosure deadline class certification: May 26, 2026 Expert discovery deadline re class certification: June 26, 2026 Motion for class certification: June 26, 2026 Opposition to class certification: Aug. 28, 2026 Reply re class certification: Sept. 30, 2026 Hearing on class certification: Oct. 16, 2026, at 10:00 AM. A copy of the Court's order dated July 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oqxkRN at no extra charge.[CC] CENCORA INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Martinez Due July 27, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIREYA MARTINEZ, v. CENCORA, INC. et al. Case No. 5:24-cv-02663-MRA-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Monica Ramirez Almadani entered a pretrial scheduling order as follows: Pretrial Event Court Order Motions in limine filing deadline: Feb. 22, 2027 Settlement conference completion date: Feb. 15, 2027 Expert discovery cut-off: Dec. 14, 2026 Non-expert discovery cut-off: Oct. 5, 2026 Hearing on motion for class certification: Oct. 5, 2026 Motion for class certification filing July 27, 2026 deadline: Cencora is an American drug wholesale company and a contract research organization. A copy of the Court's order dated July 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FJs1Qh at no extra charge.[CC] CENTENE CORP: Duff Allowed Leave to File Class Cert Sur-Reply ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MISTY DUFF, individually and on behalf of R.D., a minor, et al., v. CENTENE CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00750-JPH (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Jeffery P. Hopkins entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for leave to file a sur-reply in further support of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs are ordered to file a sur-reply within 14 days of the date of this Order. The sur-reply must not exceed ten (10) pages total. On Aug. 8, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class, to which the Defendants filed their opposition on Oct. 6, 2022. On Jan. 30, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a supplemental brief in support of their motion for class certification. The Defendants filed their amended opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on March 22, 2024. Centene is an American for-profit healthcare company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xzpmeQ at no extra charge.[CC] CENTURION MANAGED: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Smith Due August 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUMMER SMITH, v. CENTURION MANAGED CARE OF FLORIDA, LLC, RICKY D. DIXON and DANIEL NAJEM, Case No. 3:25-cv-00511-WWB-LLL (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Wendy Berger entered a case management and scheduling order as follows: Deadline for Moving for Class Certification: Aug. 1, 2025 Discovery Deadline: Oct. 30, 2026 Dispositive Motions, and Daubert Motions: Dec. 1, 2026 All Other Motions Including Motions In Limine: March 3, 2027 Trial Status Conference: April 13, 2027 Centurion is a provider of correctional healthcare services across the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated July 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wbyUDh at no extra charge.[CC] CENTURY ALUMINUM: Class Settlement in McDaniel Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Katie Leigh McDaniel, et al., v. Century Aluminum Company, Century Aluminum of South Carolina, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-05766-RMG (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Richard M. Gergel entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class action settlement and petition for class counsel attorneys' fees, costs, and a class representative service award. Regarding attorneys' fees and expenses in connection with this Rule 23(b)(3) settlement, Class Counsel has requested a total award of $396,000—consisting of $236,000 in attorney's fees and $150,000 in actual expenses, as well as a $1,000 class representative service award to Plaintiff McDaniel. The Court received no objections to Class Counsel's request for this award. A review of the Barber factors that are discussed at length in the Plaintiffs' motion, demonstrates that the proposed award is reasonable and should be approved. The Plaintiffs' counsel expended significant effort aimed towards successful resolution of this action as between the Parties and the issues presented in the litigation were difficult and complex, as explained supra. The proposed class action settlement thus satisfies the elements of Rule 23(b)(3). Accordingly, the Court certifies a settlement class as follows: Settlement Class: "All persons who, as of Sept. 1, 2023, owned a single-family home located in the Class Area as reflected by the Berkley County public records." Excluded from the Settlement Class: (1) Defendants; (2) any entity in which the Defendants have a controlling interest; (3) any Person with any ownership interest in the Defendants; (4) any current or former officer or director of the Defendants; (5) the legal representatives, successors, or assigns of the Defendants. In this putative class action, Plaintiffs, a class of persons who owned single-family homes in the Class Area as of September 1, 2023, seek property damages from Defendants stemming from repeated emissions of aluminum oxide particulates, also known as alumina, into the air from Defendants' Mount Holly aluminum smelter in September 2023 that Plaintiffs allege damaged their properties. Century produces primary aluminum, in both molten and ingot form. A copy of the Court's order and opinion dated July 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TcYayA at no extra charge.[CC] CHENEGA GLOBAL: Kalantari Seeks Conditional Collective Status ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEYA KALANTARI and ETHAN LAGE, v. CHENEGA GLOBAL PROTECTION, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00961-CNS-NRN (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for hybrid conditional class and collective action certification. Specifically, the Plaintiffs move the Court to: (1) Conditionally certify the Plaintiffs' CWA claims as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23; (2) Conditionally certify the Plaintiffs' FLSA claims as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b); (3) Order the Defendants to provide the Plaintiffs with a list of all hourly non-exempt security guards employed by the Defendant at the CDC campus in Ft. Collins, Colorado who worked at least one shift in excess of 2 hours between Jan. 28, 2022 and the present, including the employees' names, last known addresses, email addresses, telephone numbers, and dates of work; (4) Authorize the Plaintiffs to send the Notices and Op-Out Forms attached as the Plaintiff's Exhibits 5 & 6 to all individuals in the Chenega Class whose information is provided by the Defendants through the addresses within their above-described contact information and provide follow-up contact to assure receipt of such Notices and Forms; (5) Authorize the Plaintiffs to send the Notice and Consent Firm; (6) Designate Plaintiffs to serve as the representatives of the Chenega Class and Overtime Sub-Class; (7) Grant such other relief the Court deems just and proper. The Plaintiffs seek to represent a Class, under within-referenced state wage and hour law, along with a Collective, under the FLSA, consisting of: "all affected employees, who were hourly employees employed security guards (officers, sergeants, lieutenants, and captains) at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) campus in Fort Collins, Colorado anytime between Jan. 28, 2021, to the present." The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant violated the Colorado Wage Act ("CWA"), and the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards ("COMPS") Orders, by splitting up the work week to avoid the payment of overtime, requiring them to work during their unpaid meal breaks, and failing to provide them and other similarly situated employees with all rest breaks they were entitled to under the above laws. The Plaintiffs also allege that Defendant violated the overtime pay provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Defendant Chenega hired Kalantari as a security guard in July of 2019 and Kalantari continued to work for Chenega until July of 2024. The Defendant is an international security company which provides physical security and fire and emergency management services to U.S. Government customers around the world. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OLjXXh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Trent R. Taylor, Esq. David H. Miller, Esq. THE WILHITE & MILLER LAW FIRM 1600 Ogden Street Denver, CO 80218 Telephone: (303) 551-7663 Facsimile: (303) 832-7102 E-mail: ttaylor@wilhitelawfirm.com dhmiller@wilhitelawfirm.com CHRISTIAN DIOR: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Holland Says ----------------------------------------------------------- SCOTT HOLLAND, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CHRISTIAN DIOR, INC. AND CHRISTIAN DIOR COUTURE SAS, Case No. 1:25-cv-06200 (S.D.N.Y., July 28, 2025) arises out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendants, which held in their possession certain personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and other current and former customers of the Defendants. Accordingly, the Defendants owe these individuals an affirmative duty to adequately protect and safeguard this private information against theft and misuse. Despite such duties created by statute, regulation, and common law, at all relevant times, Defendants utilized deficient data security practices, thereby allowing sensitive and private data to fall into the hands of strangers. The Defendants experienced a significant data breach on January 26, 2025, which Defendants did not discover until May 7, 2025. Despite the Defendants' awareness of both the value and sensitivity of the data they safeguarded and serious risk presented by insufficient security practices, Defendants did not take sufficient steps to ensure that their systems were secure. The Defendants knew or should have known about the risk to the data they stored and processed, and the critical importance of adequate security measures in the face of increasing threats, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff and Class Members are now at a significantly increased and impending risk of fraud, identity theft, and similar forms of criminal mischief—risks which may last the rest of their lives, the suit adds. The Plaintiff and Class Members were required to provide Private Information to Defendant. According to Defendants' Privacy Statement, "if you make purchases from dior.com or in our stores, we must collect information to process (and, if relevant, fulfill and ship) your order." Founded in 1946 by French designer Christian Dior, Defendant Christian Dior SAS "is a French multinational luxury goods company."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurie Rubinow, Esq. James C. Shah, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 1830 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (866) 540-5505 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 - and - Amber L. Schubert, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union St., Ste. 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 E-mail: aschubert@sjk.law CITIZEN WATCH: Faces Fay Class Action Lawsuit Over Fake Sales ------------------------------------------------------------- ALEXANDRA FAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CITIZEN WATCH COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-01895-LL-DDL (S.D. Cal., July 25, 2025) alleges that the Defendant take advantage of consumers with fake sales, deceptive sales that do not provide legitimate discounts off of the true regular prices. On its website, the Defendant advertises discounts off of its regular prices. For example, it advertises substantial sales on banners shown on the top of its website. Accordingly, these sales seem like great deals. But the truth is that discounts of approximately 20% are almost always available. When one sale ends, Citizen Watch just advertises another. Citizen Watch tricks consumers into thinking they are getting a discount when they are really just paying the regular price. Alexandra Fay bought a watch from Citizen Watch's website and she was deceived by its fake sales. She brings this case to protect consumers nationwide who purchased "discounted" Citizen Watch Products. The proposed class includes citizens of every state. Citizen Watch makes, markets, and sells watches.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Simon Franzini, Esq. Grace Bennett, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: simon@dovel.com grace@dovel.com COCA-COLA COMPANY: Class Cert Bid Filing in Delvalle Due Sept. 19 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN DELVALLE and KYMBERLEA DURANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE COCA-COLA COMPANY, Case No. 1:24-cv-06163-VEC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Valerie Caproni entered an order that the Plaintiffs must move for class certification not later than Friday, Sept. 19, 2025. Responses are due Friday, Oct. 24, 2025, and replies are due Friday, Nov. 14, 2025. Coca-Cola is a multinational beverage corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kDTLGL at no extra charge.[CC] COMPASS GROUP: Court Enters Ruling on Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES JILEK, V. COMPASS GROUP USA. INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00818-JAG-DCK (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. entered an order on a motion for class certification filed by the plaintiff James Jilek, and a motion to strike filed by the defendant. On April 25, 2025, the parties notified the Court that they have settled this class action. The Court has granted preliminary approval of the settlement, with a final approval hearing scheduled for Jan. 9, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. Given the posture of this case, the Court denies without prejudice Jilek's motion for class certification, and Compass's motion to strike. If the Court ultimately does not grant final approval of the settlement, the parties may refile their motions at that time. Let the Clerk send a copy of this Order to all counsel of record Compass retails prepared foods and drinks for on-premise consumption. A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fAtDwu at no extra charge.[CC] CONSTRUCTION CO: Class Cert Denial Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as McCoy v. Barnard Construction Company, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-02575 (D. Colo., Filed Sept. 19, 2024), the Hon. Judge Daniel D. Domenico entered an order referring motion to Deny Class Certification and/or Strike Class Allegations to Magistrate Judge Timothy P O'Hara. The suit alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) involving minimum wage or overtime compensation. Barnard is a heavy-civil construction company.[CC] COSTCO WHOLESALE: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Lock Due Oct. 21 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lock, et al., v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-07904 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 23, 2023), the Hon. Judge Sanket J. Bulsara entered an order on motion for extension of time to complete discovery: -- All class certification discovery to Sept. 23, 2025 be completed by: -- Deadline for Plaintiffs to File Motion Oct. 21, 2025 for Class Certification: The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Costco is an American multinational corporation that operates a chain of membership-only warehouse clubs.[CC] COVERAGEX LLC: Camer Can Commence Class Discovery ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GILLIAN CAMER, v. COVERAGEX LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00139-JB-B (S.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge Sonja F. Bivins entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion to commence discovery to avoid the destruction of records that identify putative class members. Discovery pertaining to class certification shall commence immediately and shall be completed no later than Nov. 21, 2025. Any motion for class certification shall be filed on or before Dec. 19, 2025. Courts have recognized that it "would be unjust to prevent [a plaintiff] from attempting to demonstrate the elements for certification of a class without the benefit of discovery, due to [the defendant's] failure to participate in the case." The Plaintiff has proposed a class of: "All persons throughout the United States (1) who did not provide their telephone number to COVERAGEX, LLC, (2) to whom COVERAGEX, LLC delivered, or caused to be delivered, more than one voice message or text message within a 12-month period, promoting COVERAGEX, LLC goods or services, (3) where the person's residential or cellular telephone number had been registered with the National Do Not Call Registry for at least thirty days before COVERAGEX, LLC delivered, or caused to be delivered, at least two of the voice messages or text messages within the 12-month period, (4) within four years preceding the date of this complaint and through the date of class certification." The Plaintiff has filed a putative class action against the Defendant, in which she alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). Coveragex offers automobile and home service provider coverage A copy of the Court's order dated July 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9tUHIr at no extra charge.[CC] CVS HEALTH: Class Certification Deadline in Lewis Suit Extended --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT LEWIS, JR., on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. CVS HEALTH CORPORATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-03763-SEG (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Sarah E. Geraghty entered an order extending the class certification deadline. The Plaintiff Lewis filed this putative class action against Defendant CVS Health Corporation on July 7, 2025. The Plaintiff has moved to extend the deadline for filing a motion for class certification until such time that the Court enters a scheduling order. Defendant does not oppose the motion. CVS is a health solutions company focused on providing comprehensive care services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=k4HdRJ at no extra charge.[CC] CVS HEALTH: Filing for Class Cert. in Getz Bid Due Feb. 4, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NEIL GETZ, et al., v. CVS HEALTH CORPORATION, et al, Case No. 2:25-cv-04689-MWC-E (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michelle Williams Court entered a civil trial order as follows: Last Date to Hear Motion to Amend Pleadings Sept. 19, 2025 or Add Parties: Last Date to File Class Certification Motion: Feb. 4, 2026 Fact Discovery Cut-Off: Mar. 27, 2026 Expert Disclosure (Initial): Apr. 3, 2026 Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal): Apr. 17, 2026 Expert Discovery Cut-Off: May 1, 2026 CVS provides health solutions 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=DKiSoQ at no extra charge.[CC] D'S NATURALS: Hampton Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- PHYLLIS HAMPTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. D's Naturals, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08332 (N.D. Ill., July 22, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate it website, https://nocow.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff Hampton has made an attempt to complete a purchase on Nocow.com for her dietary needs. When she visited the website, she noticed that it contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by her and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inadequate focus order, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, lack of alt-text on graphics, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse, says the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in D's Naturals' policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. D's Naturals, LLC operates the website that offers a variety of protein bar options.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law DCI DONOR: Class Action Settlement in Wells Suit Gets Final Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIAH WELLS, v. DCI DONOR SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00994-CKD (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Carolyn K. Delaney entered an order granting final approval of class action settlement: 1. The Plaintiff's motion for final approval of the class action settlement is granted, and the court approves the settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; 2. The Plaintiff's request for an award of attorney's fees and costs, incentive award, and settlement administrator costs is also granted; 3. The court awards the following sums: a. Class counsel shall receive $52,500.00 in attorney's fees and $2,588.81 in expenses; b. The Plaintiff Mariah Wells shall receive $5,000.00 as an incentive payment; c. ILYM Group, Inc. shall receive $4,850.00 in settlement administration costs; and d. The parties shall direct payment of 75% of the settlement allocated to the PAGA payment, or $9,375.00 to the LWDA as required by California law, and the remainder of the PAGA payment, $3,125.00, shall be included in the net settlement fund; 4. The parties are directed to effectuate all terms of the settlement agreement and any deadlines or procedures for distribution set forth therein; 5. This action is dismissed with prejudice in accordance with the terms of the parties' amended settlement agreement, with the court specifically retaining jurisdiction over this action for the purpose of enforcing the parties' settlement agreement; and 6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. Accordingly, the Court finds that consideration of this factor weighs in favor of granting final approval of the parties’ settlement in this action. In sum, after considering all of the relevant factors, the court finds on balance that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. Accordingly, the Court will grant plaintiff's motion for final approval of the parties’ class action settlement. DCI provides trusted organ, eye, and tissue donation services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SmfBEb at no extra charge.[CC] DELTA STAR: Class Cert Hearing in Wilson Set for Oct. 23 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAX WILSON, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated; v. DELTA STAR, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive; Case No. 3:21-cv-07326-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Laurel Beeler entered an order granting the parties joint stipulation to continue hearing on motion for class certification: Deadline for the Defendant to file Opposition Aug. 22, 2025 to Motion for Class Certification: Deadline for the Plaintiff to file Reply in Sept. 22, 2025 support of Motion for Class Certification: Hearing on the Plaintiff's Motion for Oct. 23, 2025 Class Certification: On June 2, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, including 5 declarations of putative class members. The Plaintiff sets his motion for class certification for hearing on Sept. 4, 2025. Delta manufactures medium-power transformers, mobile transformers, and mobile substations. A copy of the Court's order dated July 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RUCIlg at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq. Talia Lux, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101 Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: (818) 230-7502 Facsimile: (818) 230-7259 E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com statavos@justicelawcorp.com tlux@justicelawcorp.com The Defendants are represented by: Tyler M. Paetkau, Esq. Kathy Huynh, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 1999 Harrison St., Suite 13000 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 768-0650 Facsimile: (510) 768-0651 E-mail: tyler.paetkau@huschblackwell.com kathy.huynh@huschblackwell.com DIDI GLOBAL: Plaintiffs Seeks Production of Documents ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE DIDI GLOBAL INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:21-cv-05807-LAK-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order compelling the production of certain documents withheld by DiDi based on of People's Republic of China blocking statutes and attorney-client privilege grounds. DiDi is a technology platform specializing in mobility and other services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eLjoSf at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. Jing Chen, Esq. Daniel Tyre-Karp, Esq. Robin Howald, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Ave, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com jchen@rosenlegal.com dtyrekarp@rosenlegal.com rhowald@rosenlegal.com DYCK O'NEAL: Saunders Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAREN SAUNDERS, v. DYCK O'NEAL, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-00335-RJJ-MV (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the deadline for the Plaintiff to file her replies in support of her motion for class certification and motion for summary judgment from July 30, 2025, to Aug. 13, 2025, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b). The putative class action alleges that Defendant Dyck O'Neal, Inc. made nonconsensual, prerecorded-voice calls to the cell numbers of Plaintiff and others, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). On June 4, 2025, Plaintiff filed her Motion for Class Certification and Motion for Summary Judgment. On July 16, 2025, Defendant filed its responses to the motions. Dyck O'Neal operates as a debt collection law firm. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CEWEyh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander H. Burke, Esq. BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC 909 Davis St., Ste. 500 Evanston, IL 60201 Telephone: (312) 729-5288 E-mail: aburke@burkelawllc.com - and - Larry P. Smith, Esq. David M. Marco, Esq. SMITHMARCO, P.C. 5250 Old Orchard Rd., Ste. 300 Skokie, IL 60077 Telephone: (844) 424-7135 E-mail: lsmith@smithmarco.com dmarco@smithmarco.com ELECTRIC LAST: Hacker Suit Seeks Settlement Distribution Order -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HACKER v. ELECTRIC LAST MILE SOLUTIONS INC. et al. (RE ELECTRIC LAST MILE SOLUTIONS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION), Case No. 2:22-cv-00545-MEF-LDW (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff, on Aug. 18, 2025, will move the Court for entry of an order granting distribution of class action settlement fund. The Settlement Distribution Order seeks: (i) approval of the Claims Administrator's recommendations accepting and rejecting claims submitted in the Action; and (ii) distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, in accordance with the plan of allocation, to authorized claimants whose claims have been accepted as valid and approved by the Court; (iii) bar dates for the filing and processing of claims and for a full release of all persons and entities participating in the claims administration process. Electric designs and manufactures electric vehicles. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TR394r at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. Yu Shi, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. One Gateway Center, Suite 2600 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 313-1887 Facsimile: (973) 833-0399 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com yshi@rosenlegal.com EMPWR SOLAR: Fact Discovery in Shelton Class Suit Due Nov. 24 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES E. SHELTON, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EMPWR SOLAR, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-06870-JMY (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge John Milton Younge entered an amended scheduling order as follows: a. All fact discovery shall be completed by Nov. 24, 2025. b. The parties shall produce their expert report(s) by Dec. 8, 2025; rebuttal expert report(s) shall be produced by Dec. 22, 2025; all expert discovery, including all depositions of expert witnesses, shall be completed by Jan. 5, 2026. c. All motions for summary judgment, motions for class certification, and Daubert motions shall be filed no later than Feb. 16, 2026. Responses to such motions shall be filed no later than March 18, 2026. The case is referred to United States Magistrate Judge Carol Sandra Moore-Wells for settlement purposes. A Final Pretrial Conference will be held on Tuesday, June 9, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. Counsel shall appear by remote video and will be notified by Chambers via email with instructions on how to participate remotely. Counsel are referred to Judge Younge’s operating procedures for further information: http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/judges-info/district-court-judges/john-milton younge. EMPRW is a vertically integrated solar contractor. A copy of the Court's order dated July 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kGHb3Q at no extra charge.[CC] ENPHASE ENERGY: Continues to Defend Pension Fund Class Suit in Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Enphase Energy Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 22, 2025 that the Company continues to defend itself from the Pension Fund class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On December 13, 2024, another putative class action complaint was filed naming the Company, its chief executive officer and its chief products officer (collectively, "Defendants II") in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Trustees of the Welfare and Pension Funds of Local 464A v. Enphase Energy, Inc., Case No. 4:24-cv-09038 (the "Pension Fund Action"), purportedly on behalf of a class of individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired our common stock between April 25, 2023 and October 22, 2024. The Pension Fund Action alleges that Defendants II made false and/or misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On or about February 11, 2025, several additional stockholders moved to be appointed lead plaintiff in the Pension Fund Action and have their selection of counsel appointed as lead counsel. On March 31, 2025, the Court vacated a hearing on the motions scheduled for April 10, 2025 and took the matter under submission. The Court has not yet issued a decision. Once a lead plaintiff and lead counsel are appointed, the parties will negotiate a schedule for an anticipated amended complaint and motion to dismiss. The Company disputes the allegations in the above-referenced lawsuit and intends to defend the matters vigorously. Enphase Energy, Inc. is a global energy technology company. The company delivers smart, easy-to-use solutions that manage solar generation, storage and communication on one intelligent platform. The company revolutionized the solar industry with their microinverter technology and it produces a fully integrated solar-plus-storage solution. The company is based in Fremont, California. ENPHASE ENERGY: Hearing on Hayes Securities Suit Set for Nov. 6 --------------------------------------------------------------- Enphase Energy Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 22, 2025 that the United States District Court for the Northern District of California has scheduled the Hayes securities class suit hearing on November 6, 2025. On July 15, 2024, a putative class action complaint was filed against the Company, its chief executive officer and its chief financial officer (collectively, the "Initial Defendants") in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Hayes v. Enphase Energy, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-04249 (the "Securities Class Action"), purportedly on behalf of a class of individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired its common stock between December 12, 2022 and April 25, 2023. The Securities Class Action alleges that Initial Defendants made false and/or misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On or about July 29, 2024, six additional stockholders filed motions to be appointed lead plaintiff and have their selection of counsel appointed as lead counsel in the Securities Class Action. The Court held a hearing on the lead plaintiff motions on September 5, 2024, and appointed Lon D. Praytor as lead plaintiff on March 31, 2025. On April 17, 2025, movant Andrey Ponomarchuk filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's order appointing Praytor as lead plaintiff. Lead plaintiff Praytor filed an amended complaint on May 21, 2025, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by Enphase and its chief executive officer, purported only on behalf of a class of individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired its common stock between February 7, 2023 and April 25, 2023 and removing its chief financial officer as a defendant (the remaining defendants referred hereto as "Defendants"). Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on July 2, 2025. Lead Plaintiff's opposition is due August 15, 2025, and Defendants' reply is due September 15, 2025. A hearing is currently scheduled for November 6, 2025. Enphase Energy, Inc. is a global energy technology company. The company delivers smart, easy-to-use solutions that manage solar generation, storage and communication on one intelligent platform. The company revolutionized the solar industry with their microinverter technology and it produces a fully integrated solar-plus-storage solution. The company is based in Fremont, California. ESTEE LAUDER: Plaintiffs Seeks to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit re The Estee Lauder Co., Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:23-cv-10669-AS (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (i) certifying this case as a class action; (ii) appointing Lead Plaintiff as Class Representative; and (iii) appointing Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP as Class Counsel. Estee is a manufacturer and marketer of skin care, makeup, fragrance and hair care products. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kOPrsg at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael P. Canty, Esq. James T. Christie, Esq. Guillaume Buell, Esq. Jacqueline R. Meyers, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: mcanty@labaton.com jchristie@labaton.com gbuell@labaton.com jmeyers@labaton.com - and - Thomas C. Michaud, Esq. VANOVERBEKE MICHAUD & TIMMONY P.C. 79 Alfred Street Detroit, MI 48201 Telephone: (313) 578-1200 Facsimile: (313) 578-1201 E-mail: tmichaud@vmtlaw.com FCA US: Seeks to Modify Scheduling Order in Maugain Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ETIENNE MAUGAIN, et al., v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00116-JLH-SRF (D. Del.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order modifying Scheduling Order as follows: Event Deadline Deadline for the Defendant to Provide Aug. 8, 2025 Name(s) of Designee(s) and Proposed Dates of Availability: Deadline for Rule 30(b)(6) deposition: August 29, 2025 Expert discovery regarding class May 11, 2026 certification cutoff: Deadline for any opposition to a motion June 15, 2026 for class certification: Deadline for case dispositive motions June 15, 2026 (other than motions for summary judgment) and Daubert motions Deadline for any reply in support of a July 15, 2026 motion for class certification: FCA designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=onSuBu at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kelly A. Green, Esq. Jason Z. Miller, Esq. SMITH, KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS, LLP 1000 N. West Street, Suite 1501 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 504-1656 Facsimile: (302) 652-8405 E-mail: kag@skjlaw.com jzm@skjlaw.com - and - Russell D. Paul, Esq. Amey J. Park, Esq. Natalie Lesser, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: rpaul@bm.net apark@bm.net nlesser@bm.net - and - Cody R. Padgett, Esq. Majdi Hijazin, Esq. Abigail Gertner, Esq. Nathan Kiyam, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 E-mail: Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com Majdi.Hijazin@capstonelawyers.com Abigail.Gertner@capstonelawyers.com Nate.Kiyam@capstonelawyers.com - and - Steven Calamusa, Esq. Geoff Stahl, Esq. Rachel Bentley, Esq. GORDON & PARTNERS, P.A. 4114 Northlake Blvd., Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 799-5070 Facsimile: (561) 799-4050 E-mail: scalamusa@fortheinjured.com gstahl@fortheinjured.com rbentley@fortheinjured.com - and - Theodore Leopold, Esq. Geoffrey Graber, Esq. Karina Puttieva, Esq. Blake R. Miller, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 11780 U.S. Highway One, Suite N500 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33408 Telephone: (561) 515-1400 Facsimile: (561) 515-1401 E-mail: tleopold@cohenmilstein.com brmiller@cohenmilstein.com The Defendant is represented by: Patrick M. Brannigan, Esq. Jessica L. Reno, Esq. ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 700 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 574-7400 E-mail: pbrannigan@eckertseamans.com jreno@eckertseamans.com - and - Stephen A. D'Aunoy, Esq. Scott H. Morgan, Esq. KLEIN THOMAS LEE AND FRESARD 100 N. Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 888-2970 E-mail: steve.daunoy@kleinthomaslaw.com scott.morgan@kleinthomaslaw.com FIDELITY NATIONAL: Seeks Leave to Take Expert Coffman's Deposition ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit re: Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:23-cv-00252-TJC-PDB (M.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for leave to take deposition of the Plaintiffs' rebuttal expert Chad Coffman. If the Court grants this motion, the Defendants intend to depose Coffman on August 12, 2025, so they can address his testimony in their sur-reply in opposition to class certification. On March 3, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, along with an initial report from their expert witness Chad Coffman. The Defendants filed their brief in opposition to the Plaintiffs' class certification motion on May 2, 2025. The Plaintiffs filed a reply on July 15, 2025, addressing price impact and Goldman for the first time Fidelity is a global provider of financial technology (FinTech) solutions. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PwoUzd at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Hille R. Sheppard, Esq. John M. Skakun III, Esq. Caroline A. Wong, Esq. Takayuki Ono, Esq. Ian M. Ross, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP One South Dearborn Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 853-7000 E-mail: hsheppard@sidley.com jskakun@sidley.com caroline.wong@sidley.com tono@sidley.com iross@sidley.com - and - R. Eric Bilik, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 50 North Laura Street, Suite 3300 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Telephone: (904) 798-2685 E-mail: ebilik@mcguirewoods.com FINASTRA TECHNOLOGY: Javid Sues Over Compromised Personal Info -------------------------------------------------------------- BAITUL JAVID, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FINASTRA TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-01372 (M.D. Fla., July 22, 2025) seeks to remedy harms on behalf of the Plaintiff and all similarly situated individuals whose personally identifiable information was accessed during a data breach. On June 30, 2025, Finastra began releasing notices to individuals whose data was compromised as a result of a data breach that the company discovered on November 7, 2024. Finastra waited 8 months after learning of the data breach before notifying Plaintiff and class members or the public that Finastra's systems had been breached and that Plaintiff and Class Members' data had been compromised. As a result of the Data Breach, through which their PII was compromised, disclosed, and obtained by unauthorized third parties, Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered concrete damages and are now exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft for a period of years, if not decades. Furthermore, the Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft, at their own expense. Consequently, the Plaintiff and Class Members will incur ongoing out-of pocket costs, says the suit. Finastra Technology, Inc. is a financial services software company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. Andrew J. Fuller, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 1809 7th Avenue, Suite 1610 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 802-1272 Facsimile: (206) 299-4184 E-mail: tloeser@cpmlegal.com afuller@cpmlegal.com FORD MOTOR: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Miller Due May 15, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Miller v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 2:20-cv-01796 (E.D. Cal., Filed Sept. 4, 2020), the Hon. Judge Dale A. Drozd entered an amended scheduling order as follows: -- Fact discovery shall be completed by: Dec. 19, 2025 -- Expert disclosures shall be completed by: Feb. 6, 2026 -- Rebuttal expert disclosures shall be March 6, 2026 completed by: -- Expert discovery shall be completed by: April 17, 2026 -- Plaintiffs shall file their motion for May 15, 2026 class certification no later than: -- All other motions, except for motions Aug. 7, 2026 for continuances, temporary restraining orders, or other emergency applications shall be filed no later than: The nature of suit states Contract Product Liability. Ford is an American multinational automaker.[CC] FORD MOTOR: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Nelson Due May 15, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Trevor Nelson, et al., v. Ford Motor Co., Case No. 2:24-cv-02231 (E.D. Cal., Filed Aug. 19, 2024), the Hon. Judge Dale A. Drozd entered an amended scheduling order as follows: -- Fact discovery shall be completed by: Dec. 19, 2025 -- Expert disclosures shall be completed by: Feb. 6, 2026 -- Rebuttal expert disclosures shall be March 6, 2026 completed by: -- Expert discovery shall be completed by: April 17, 2026 -- Plaintiffs shall file their motion for May 15, 2026 class certification no later than: -- All other motions, except for motions Aug. 7, 2026 for continuances, temporary restraining orders, or other emergency applications shall be filed no later than: The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. Ford is an American multinational automaker. FRED MEYER: Class Cert Bid in Shields Suit Due May 12, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RANDY SHIELDS, v. FRED MEYER STORES INC, Case No. 2:23-cv-01455-TL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Tana Lin entered an order that the deadlines in the case schedule shall be extended and the modified case schedule through class certification set as follows: Event Date Deadline for joining additional parties: Dec. 31, 2024 Class expert discovery cutoff: Feb. 6, 2026 Class certification discovery cutoff: April 20, 2026 The Plaintiff's motion for class May 12, 2026 certification to be filed: The Defendant's response to class June 17, 2026 certification motion to be filed: The Plaintiff's reply to class July 27, 2026 certification motion to be filed: Fred operates multidepartment stores. A copy of the Court's order dated July 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Hu5cMz at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Guy W. Beckett, Esq. BERRY & BECKETT, PLLP 1708 Bellevue Avenue Seattle, WA 98122 Telephone: (206) 441-5444 E-mail: gbeckett@beckettlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Fred Burnside, Esq. Jacob Harper, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 Facsimile: (206) 757-7700 E-mail: fredburnside@dwt.com jacobharper@dwt.com FRESENIUS VASCULAR: $787K Settlement in Gravley Gets Final Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN GRAVLEY, SR., TYRONE BANKS, AND BARBARA WELZENBACH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FRESENIUS VASCULAR CARE, INC. d/b/a AZURA VASCULAR CARE, Case No. 2:24-cv-01148-MMB (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge entered an order: -- granting the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the settlement, and -- granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, litigation costs and expenses, and service awards. In weighing the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Girsh factors, and the Prudential and Baby Products considerations, the Court finds that the Settlement Agreement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. The Court finds that the requested fee award of $1,102,500 (35% of the common fund) is unreasonable and will reduce the award to $787,500 (25% of the common fund). The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action, alleging that Fresenius breached its duty to care for patients’ confidential personal information when third party hackers allegedly accessed confidential patient information from Defendant's computer systems in a data breach incident. The Settlement Class is defined as: "All natural persons whose Personal Information may have been compromised in the Data Breach disclosed by Azura, including all persons who were sent notice of the Data Breach." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) the Judge(s) presiding over the Action and members of their immediate families and their staff; (2) Azura, its subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which Azura or its parents, have a controlling interest, and its current or former officers and directors; (3) natural persons who properly execute and submit a Request for Exclusion prior to the expiration of the Opt-Out Period; and (4) the successors or assigns of any such excluded natural person. Under the Class Action Settlement Agreement, Defendant agreed to create a non reversionary Settlement Fund of $3,150,000. Azura is a national network of outpatient vascular care and ambulatory surgery centers. A copy of the Court's memorandum dated July 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wC6g65 at no extra charge.[CC] GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER: Calchi Class Settlement Gets Final Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nancy Calchi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Holdings (US) LLC, GSK Consumer Health, Inc., and Pfizer Inc., Case No. 7:22-cv-01341-KMK (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kenneth M. Karas entered an order granting final approval to class action settlement: 1. The Court finally certifies, for settlement purposes, the Settlement Class that it provisionally certified in granting preliminary approval: "All purchasers of any flavor Robitussin product with dextromethorphan and marketed as non-drowsy, including Robitussin Cough+Chest Congestion DM Maximum Strength Syrups; Robitussin Cough+Chest Congestion DM Maximum Strength / Nighttime Cough DM Maximum Strength Day & Night Value Pack Syrups; Robitussin Cough+Chest Congestion DM Maximum Strength Liquid Filled Capsules; Robitussin Cough+Chest Congestion DM Syrups; Children's Robitussin Cough & Chest Congestion DM Syrups; Children's Robitussin Cough & Chest Congestion DM / Nighttime Cough Long-Acting DM Day & Night Value Pack Syrups; Robitussin Sugar-Free Cough+Chest Congestion DM Syrups; Robitussin Honey Cough+Chest Congestion DM Maximum Strength Syrups; Robitussin Honey Cough+Chest Congestion DM Maximum Strength / Nighttime Cough DM Maximum Strength Day & Night Value Pack Syrups; Robitussin Elderberry Cough+Chest Congestion DM Maximum Strength Syrups; Children's Robitussin Elderberry Cough & Chest Congestion DM Syrups; Robitussin Severe Multi-Symptom Cough Cold + Flu CF Maximum Strength Syrups; Robitussin Severe Multi-Symptom Cough Cold + Flu CF Maximum Strength / Nighttime Severe Multi-Symptom Cough Cold + Flu CF Maximum Strength Day & Night Value Pack Syrups; Robitussin Severe Cough + Sore Throat CF Maximum Strength Syrups; Robitussin Honey Severe Cough Flu + Sore Throat CF Maximum Strength Syrups; Robitussin Honey Severe Cough Flu + Sore Throat CF Maximum Strength / Nighttime Severe Cough Flu + Sore Throat CF Maximum Strength Day & Night Value Pack Syrups; Robitussin Multi-Symptom Cold CF Syrups; Children's Robitussin Cough & Cold CF Syrups; Robitussin Long-Acting CoughGels; Robitussin 12 Hour Cough Relief Extended-Release Grape Syrups; Robitussin 12 Hour Cough Relief Extended- Release Orange Syrups for personal or household use, and not for resale, in the United States during the Class Period." Specifically excluded from the Settlement Class are (i) Haleon, its officers, directors, affiliates, legal representatives, employees, successors, and assigns, and entities in which Haleon has a controlling interest; (ii) judges presiding over the Litigation; (iii) local, municipal, state, and federal governmental entities; (iv) counsel of record for the Parties; and (v) all Persons who validly opt- out in a timely manner. As defined in the Settlement Agreement, the term "Class Period" means the time period from Feb. 16, 2016 through Jan. 23, 2025. 2. The Court reaffirms its preliminary finding that Class Counsel and the Class Representatives are adequate and reaffirms its appointment of Dovel & Luner, LLP as Class Counsel and Plaintiffs Nancy Calchi and Stacey Papalia as Class Representatives. 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this file. GlaxoSmithKline is the consumer healthcare division of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kFujWy at no extra charge.[CC] GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER: Class Settlement in Papalia Gets Final OK ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stacey Papalia, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Holdings (US) LLC, Case No. 7:22-cv-02630-KMK (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kenneth M. Karas entered an order granting final approval to class action settlement: 1. The Court finally certifies, for settlement purposes, the Settlement Class that it provisionally certified in granting preliminary approval: "All purchasers of any flavor Robitussin product with dextromethorphan and marketed as non-drowsy, including Robitussin Cough+Chest Congestion DM Maximum Strength Syrups; Robitussin Cough+Chest Congestion DM Maximum Strength / Nighttime Cough DM Maximum Strength Day & Night Value Pack Syrups; Robitussin Cough+Chest Congestion DM Maximum Strength Liquid Filled Capsules; Robitussin Cough+Chest Congestion DM Syrups; Children's Robitussin Cough & Chest Congestion DM Syrups; Children's Robitussin Cough & Chest Congestion DM / Nighttime Cough Long-Acting DM Day & Night Value Pack Syrups; Robitussin Sugar-Free Cough+Chest Congestion DM Syrups; Robitussin Honey Cough+Chest Congestion DM Maximum Strength Syrups; Robitussin Honey Cough+Chest Congestion DM Maximum Strength / Nighttime Cough DM Maximum Strength Day & Night Value Pack Syrups; Robitussin Elderberry Cough+Chest Congestion DM Maximum Strength Syrups; Children's Robitussin Elderberry Cough & Chest Congestion DM Syrups; Robitussin Severe Multi-Symptom Cough Cold + Flu CF Maximum Strength Syrups; Robitussin Severe Multi-Symptom Cough Cold + Flu CF Maximum Strength / Nighttime Severe Multi-Symptom Cough Cold + Flu CF Maximum Strength Day & Night Value Pack Syrups; Robitussin Severe Cough + Sore Throat CF Maximum Strength Syrups; Robitussin Honey Severe Cough Flu + Sore Throat CF Maximum Strength Syrups; Robitussin Honey Severe Cough Flu + Sore Throat CF Maximum Strength / Nighttime Severe Cough Flu + Sore Throat CF Maximum Strength Day & Night Value Pack Syrups; Robitussin Multi-Symptom Cold CF Syrups; Children's Robitussin Cough & Cold CF Syrups; Robitussin Long-Acting CoughGels; Robitussin 12 Hour Cough Relief Extended-Release Grape Syrups; Robitussin 12 Hour Cough Relief Extended- Release Orange Syrups for personal or household use, and not for resale, in the United States during the Class Period." Specifically excluded from the Settlement Class are (i) Haleon, its officers, directors, affiliates, legal representatives, employees, successors, and assigns, and entities in which Haleon has a controlling interest; (ii) judges presiding over the Litigation; (iii) local, municipal, state, and federal governmental entities; (iv) counsel of record for the Parties; and (v) all Persons who validly opt- out in a timely manner. As defined in the Settlement Agreement, the term "Class Period" means the time period from Feb. 16, 2016 through Jan. 23, 2025. 2. The Court reaffirms its preliminary finding that Class Counsel and the Class Representatives are adequate and reaffirms its appointment of Dovel & Luner, LLP as Class Counsel and Plaintiffs Nancy Calchi and Stacey Papalia as Class Representatives. 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this file. GlaxoSmithKline is the consumer healthcare division of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2tX373 at no extra charge.[CC] GOOGLE LLC: Must File Renewed Bid to Seal Materials in Rabin Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rabin, et al., v. Google LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-04547 (N.D. Cal., Filed Aug. 5, 2022), the Hon. Judge P. Casey Pitts entered an order that Google shall file its renewed motion to seal materials related to the parties' briefing on class certification by Aug. 1, 2025. The nature of suit states Diversity-Other Contract. Google is an American multinational technology company specializing in Internet-related services and products. [CC] HESS BAKKEN: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Peman Suit Due Nov. 19 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Penman v. Hess Bakken Investments II, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00097 (D.N.D., Filed June 10, 2022), the Hon. Judge Daniel L. Hovland entered an order granting Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order. -- Discovery due by: Sept. 30, 2025 -- Discovery Motions due by: Oct. 14, 2025 -- Plaintiff(s) Expert Witness Oct. 30, 2025 Disclosures and Reports due by: -- Defendant(s) Expert Witness Dec. 11, 2025 Disclosures and Reports due by: -- Plaintiff(s) Rebuttal Expert Jan. 22, 2026 Disclosures due by: -- Class certification motions due by: Nov. 19, 2025 The nature of suit states Diversity-Other Contract. Hess is an operating oil and gas asset in North Dakota.[CC] HILLSDALE COLLEGE: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Feb. 27, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN ROBERT GOODMAN, ET AL., v. HILLSDALE COLLEGE, Case No. 1:25-cv-00417-HYJ-PJG (W.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Phillip J. Green entered a case management order as follows: Motions or Stipulations to Join Parties Aug. 29, 2025 or Amend Pleadings: Completion of discovery: Jan. 23, 2026 Class certification motion deadline: Feb. 27, 2026 Hillsdale is a private, conservative, Christian liberal arts college in Hillsdale, Michigan. A copy of the Court's order dated July 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qibZiu at no extra charge.[CC] HOMEOWNER SOLUTION: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 24, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PHYLLIS KING, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. HOMEOWNER SOLUTION PROS INC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00256-RGA (D. Del.), the Hon. Judge Richard G. Andrews entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. The parties shall make their initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) on or before July 30, 2025. 2. All motions to join other parties, and to amend or supplement the pleadings, shall be filed on or before Jan. 20, 2026. 3. The Plaintiff shall move for class certification by March 24, 2026. The Plaintiff shall disclose experts in support of class certification by March 24, 2026. The Defendant shall file its opposition to class certification by May 26, 2026. The Defendant shall disclose experts in opposition to class certification by May 26, 2026. The Plaintiff shall file her reply in support of class certification by July 10, 2026. Homeowner is a real estate investment company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GLiZ7o at no extra charge.[CC] HORIZON LAND: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Reply by August 20 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SABRINA LUCERO, DONOVAN MCCLURE, KARIANE AMPARAN, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v. HORIZON LAND MANAGEMENT, LLC and RYAN HOTCHKISS, Case No. 1:25-cv-00903-JKB (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge James Bredar entered an order granting the Defendants' unopposed motion for an extension of time to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of collective action of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claim, and the Plaintiffs' time to reply to the Defendants' response. The Defendants shall file their responsive pleading on or before July 31, 2025. The Plaintiffs shall file their reply to the Defendants' response on or before Aug. 20, 2025. Horizon provides affordable housing. A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CAyfwl at no extra charge.[CC] IDAHO: Davids Wins Provisional Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ABBY DAVIDS, M.D.; K.P.; N.R.; F.F.; J.A.O.G.; JOHN DOE; v. ALEX J. ADAMS, in his official capacity as Director of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare; MIREN UNSWORTH, in her official capacity as the Deputy Director of IDHW in charge of Health & Human Services; ELKE SHAW-TULLOCH, in her official capacity as the administrator of IDHW's Division of Public Health; ANGIE BAILEY, as the Director of the Idaho Bureau of Rural Health & Primary Care; and RAUL LABRADOR, in his official capacity as the Attorney General of Idaho, Case No. 1:25-cv-00334-AKB (D. Idaho), the Hon. Judge Amanda Brailsford entered an order as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' motion for temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and provisional class certification is granted. a. The Court certifies the provisional class to include: "all current and future persons residing in Idaho who have been diagnosed with HIV and who could qualify for federally funded services through the Ryan White Program unless required to verify they are qualified aliens for those benefits." 2. The Court enjoins the Defendants and their officers, agent, employees, attorneys, and any person who is in active concert or participation with them from implementing or enforcing H.B. 135 to impose immigration status verification requirements on Patient Plaintiffs for benefits under the Ryan White Program. 3. The Court appoints counsel for the Plaintiffs as counsel for the provisional class. 4. The Court waives the bond requirement under Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In summary, Plaintiffs have raised serious questions on the merits of their preemption claim and established the likelihood of irreparable harm. Further, the balance of equities and hardships favor preserving the status quo. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Because Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements of Rule 23 at this stage, the Court provisionally grants class certification for purposes of a preliminary injunction and appoints Plaintiffs’ counsel as counsel for the provisional class. On June 26, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed this action challenging H.B. 135. The Plaintiffs allege that "before H.B. 135, immigration status did not render patients ineligible” for benefits from the Ryan White Program but that under H.B. 135 they "will be unable to provide proof of immigration status sufficient to receive federally-funded [services]" under the Program. Based on these allegations, the Plaintiffs assert claims for relief under the Supremacy Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause. The Plaintiffs assert all their claims under 42 U.S.C. section 1983; they also assert their Supremacy Clause and Due Process Clause claims in equity. A copy of the Court's memorandum decision and order dated July 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hLshLR at no extra charge.[CC] INTEGRATED SPECIALTY: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Pruitt Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN PRUITT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTEGRATED SPECIALTY COVERAGES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01857-LL-KSC (S.D. Cal., July 22, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to secure the personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and the members of the proposed Classes. The Plaintiff provided his private information indirectly to Defendant for risk adjustment services, software, and solutions. On June 6, 2025, the Defendant began sending letters to Plaintiff and Class Members, advising them that between February 16, 2025, and February 19, 2025, an unauthorized actor accessed Defendant's environment, which contained the Private Information of Defendant's customer's employees. As a result of the Data Breach, which Defendant failed to prevent, the private information of its customer's employees, including Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members, was stolen. The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently failing to implement reasonable measures to safeguard its current and former customers' employees' private information and by failing to take necessary steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of that information. The Defendant's woefully inadequate data security measures made the data breach a foreseeable, and even likely, consequence of its negligence, alleges the suit. Through this lawsuit, the Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the injuries they inflicted on Plaintiff and Class Members due to their impermissibly inadequate data security measures, and to seek injunctive relief to ensure the implementation of security measures to protect the Private Information that remains in Defendant's possession. Integrated Specialty Coverages, LLC provides insurance services and underwriting products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: cardoso@kolawyers.com INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Vinci Surgical Class Suit Trial Still Not Set ----------------------------------------------------------------- Intuitive Surgical Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2025, that the United States District Court for the Northern District of California has not yet set a trial date for the Vinci Surgical Robot Antitrust class suit. Three class action complaints were filed against the Company in the Northern District of California Court alleging antitrust allegations relating to the service and repair of certain instruments manufactured by the Company. A complaint by Larkin Community Hospital was filed on May 20, 2021, a complaint by Franciscan Alliance, Inc. and King County Public Hospital District No. 1 was filed on July 6, 2021, and a complaint by Kaleida Health was filed on July 8, 2021. The Court has consolidated the Franciscan Alliance, Inc. and King County Public Hospital District No. 1 and Kaleida Health cases with the Larkin Community Hospital case, which is now captioned on the Larkin docket as "In Re: da Vinci Surgical Robot Antitrust Litigation." A Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint has been filed on behalf of each plaintiff named in the earlier-filed cases. On January 14, 2022, Kaleida Health voluntarily dismissed itself as a party to this case. On January 18, 2022, the Company filed an answer against the plaintiffs in this matter, and discovery has commenced. With regard to this class action case, on September 7, 2023, the Court heard argument on the parties' respective motions for summary judgment and motions related to expert testimony. On March 31, 2024, the Court granted-in-part and denied-in-part plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on certain market definition issues and denied Intuitive's motion on the antitrust claims. In denying Intuitive's motion, the Court declined to decide whether third-party companies were required to obtain 510(k) clearance for their services with respect to EndoWrist instruments, and in the absence of a formal ruling from the FDA on that question denied Intuitive's motion for summary judgment challenging plaintiffs' standing on that ground. There were additional rulings on the expert witness issues as well. In the summary judgment order, the Court ruled with plaintiffs that the da Vinci robot and EndoWrist instruments occupy separate product markets for antitrust purposes. The Court also ruled that there is an antitrust aftermarket for the repair and replacement of EndoWrist instruments, and that Intuitive holds monopoly power in that aftermarket. The Court denied summary judgment for plaintiffs on the issue of whether soft-tissue surgical robots constitute a relevant antitrust market or are part of a larger market that includes laparoscopic and open surgery for antitrust purposes. On July 30, 2024, the Court granted Intuitive's motion for reconsideration, vacating those portions of the Court's March 31, 2024 Order granting summary judgment as to the definition of a U.S. market for EndoWrist instrument repair and replacement and Intuitive's market power in such a market. On March 31, 2025, the Court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification. No trial date has been scheduled for this matter. Based on currently available information, the Company is unable to make a reasonable estimate of loss or range of losses, if any, arising from this matter. Intuitive Surgical, Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets da Vinci (R) surgical systems and the Ion (R) endoluminal system based in California. JOHNSON CONTROLS: Brown Balks at Failure to Secure Personal Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- TYRONE BROWN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Johnson Controls, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 25-1061 (E.D. Wis., July 22, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the sensitive personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and others similarly situated, including, but not limited to names, dates of birth, and Social Security Numbers. According to the complaint, the Defendant collects personal data in connection with employment applications or as needed for human resources administration as well as information from its consumers. Johnson Controls experienced a significant data breach in September 2023, caused by a ransomware attack attributed to the Dark Angels group. The unauthorized access to their systems occurred between February 1, 2023, and September 30, 2023. The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement an information security program designed to: (a) to ensure the security and confidentiality of customer information; (b) to protect against anticipated threats or hazards to the security or integrity of that information; and (c) to protect against unauthorized access to that information that could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to any customer, asserts the complaint. Through this Complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms individually, and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals whose PII was accessed during the Data Breach. The Plaintiff has a continuing interest in ensuring that personal information is kept confidential and protected from disclosure, and Plaintiff should be entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief. Johnson Controls is a company that provides products, solutions, and services related to building automation, HVAC equipment, industrial refrigeration, fire detection and suppression, security, and digital solutions. Purportedly, they focus on creating smart, healthy, and sustainable buildings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Rosemergy, Esq. CAREY, DANIS & LOWE 8235 Forsyth Blvd, Suite 1100 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 678-1064 Facsimile: (314) 721-0905 E-mail: jrosemergy@careydanis.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com JP MORGAN: Behrens Class Action Dismissed ----------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRUCE BEHRENS, KATHLEEN BEHRENS, SHERRI SHEFFERT, and DAVID J. SHEFFERT, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., U.S. BANK, N.A., CHICAGO MERCANTILE EXCHANGE INC., THE CME GROUP, INC., JOHN DOES no. 1-40, Case No. 6:24-cv-02047-LTS-MAR (N.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge Leonard T. Strand entered an order as follows: 1. The Defendants' motions to dismiss are each granted and this action is dismissed. 2. The Plaintiffs' cross-motion to change venue or sever CMEG and CME is denied as moot. 3. The Clerk of Court shall close this case. The Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint in this court on Sept. 10, 2024. On Feb. 14, 2025, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The Plaintiffs' amended complaint alleges that they were victims of Peregrine Financial Group (PFG). They contend that they invested with PFG from 2007 to 2008 and suffered losses in September and October 2008. JPMorgan is an American national bank. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion and order dated July 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dc320R at no extra charge.[CC] KEYSTONE AUTOMOTIVE: Dodd Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- VONERIC DODD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KEYSTONE AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00848 (M.D. Tenn., July 25, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, the Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from September 2019 through September 2024 as a non-exempt, hourly employee. The Plaintiff worked at the Defendant's location at 6111 Bunkum Rd., Washington Park, Illinois. The Plaintiff's most recent base hourly rate of pay was $19.80. In addition to the base rate of pay, Keystone incorporated various types of routine and nondiscretionary pay into their payment structure. Keystone promised their hourly employees monthly sales bonuses and other forms of remuneration, asserts the suit. Keystone is a leading provider of alternative aftermarket auto parts and services to repair and accessorize vehicles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Garrison, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, PLLC 200 31st Avenue North Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com - and - Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 Telephone: (269) 250-7500 E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Sept. 12 opposition Sur-Reply Date Sought -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUBHASH PATEL and RICHARD SUN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. and FRANS VAN HOUTEN, Case No. 1:21-cv-04606-ERK-MMH (E.D.N.Y.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order regarding class certification-related case schedule and word limits: (1) the deadline for the Defendants' sur-reply in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion shall be Sept. 12, 2025, and the accompanying memorandum of law shall not exceed 3,250 words; (2) the Defendants may serve expert reports responding to Dr. Nye's reply expert report on the same date; (3) Defendants may re-depose Dr. Nye for three hours on the record; (4) if the parties file Daubert motions directed at Dr. Nye's reply expert report or any expert reports Defendants may serve in response to that report, the parties shall do so on the following schedule: Daubert Briefing Schedule The Defendants' Daubert motion: Sept. 12, 2025 The Plaintiffs' opposition: Oct. 13, 2025 The Plaintiffs' Daubert motion: Oct. 13, 2025 The Defendants' opposition: Nov. 13, 2025 The parties disagree on whether a reply expert report is permitted under the Court's prior Orders. The parties conferred to attempt to resolve their dispute to avoid Defendants filing a motion to strike Dr. Nye's reply expert report. On Feb. 28, 2025, the Plaintiffs served their motion and an accompanying expert report of Dr. Zachary Nye. On April 8, 2025, Defendants deposed Dr. Nye, and on April 29, 2025, served their opposition to the Motion and associated expert reports. Koninklijke is a health technology company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=N1ivxX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Emma Gilmore, Esq. Villi Shteyn, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com egilmore@pomlaw.com vshteyn@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com The Defendants are represented by: Sharon L. Nelles, Esq. William B. Monahan, Esq. Thomas C. White, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 558-4000 LAS PRINCESAS: Lara Seeks Conditional Cert of Settlement Classes ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE ALBERTO HERNANDEZ LARA, ISMAEL LORENZO PEREZ, LEONEL SANTIAGO GOMEZ, and URIEL HERNANDEZ ESPINOZA, v. LAS PRINCESAS CORPORATION, MARTHA ZEFERINO JOSE, and THE TANKARD NURSERIES INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00346-JKW-DEM (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. Conditionally certifying the proposed settlement classes for the purpose of the parties' settlement; 2. Granting preliminary approval of the settlement agreement (attached as Exhibit A1) reached between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants Las Princesas Corporation and Martha Zeferino Jose ; 3. Granting preliminary approval of the settlement agreement (attached as Exhibit B2) reached between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant The Tankard Nurseries, Inc.; 4. Appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel Patricia Kakalek, Rachel McFarland, Marissa Baer, Clermont Ripley, and Carol Brooke as class counsel; 5. Approving the proposed Class Notice and Notice distribution plan, including the proposed deadline for opt-outs; 6. Approving the settlement of the Fair Labor Standards Act claims of Plaintiffs and opt-in plaintiffs; and 7. Scheduling a final approval hearing on the proposed settlement agreements. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0sBgy0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rachel C. McFarland, Esq. Marissa L. Baer, Esq. Jason B. Yarashes, Esq. LEGAL AID JUSTICE CENTER 1000 Preston Avenue, Suite A Charlottesville, VA 22903 Telephone: (434) 977-0553 Facsimile: (434) 977-0558 E-mail: rmcfarland@justice4all.org marissa@justice4all.org jasony@justice4all.org - and - Carol Brooke, Esq. Clermont Ripley, Esq. NORTH CAROLINA JUSTICE CENTER Raleigh, NC 27611 Telephone: (919) 856-2144 Facsimile: (919) 856-2175 E-mail: carol@ncjustice.org clermont@ncjustice.org - and - Patricia Kakalec, Esq. KAKALEC LAW PLLC 80 Broad Street, Suite 703 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 705-8730 Facsimile: (646) 759-1587 E-mail: Patricia@KakalecLaw.com LASKO PRODUCTS: Wins Summary Judgment in Velez Consumer-Fraud Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Jennifer L. Rochon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the Defendant's motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit titled JUAN VELEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LASKO PRODUCTS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-08581-JLR (S.D.N.Y.). The Defendant, a manufacturer, marketer, and seller of low-profile portable space heaters, manufactures a low-profile portable baseboard heater in two product models, Product Model 5622 and Product Model 5624, which are identical except in color. The Product uses natural convection to circulate warm air throughout a room. It is meant to be used as a supplemental heat source. In October 2021, the Plaintiff purchased a low-profile portable baseboard space heater produced by Lasko. The Plaintiff brings this putative class action on Oct. 7, 2022, against the Defendant based on alleged defects with that space heater, asserting that the Defendant (1) violated the New York General Business Law (GBL), N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law Sections 349-350, (2) violated nine other states' consumer-fraud statutes, (3) breached an express warranty, (4) breached the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, (5) breached the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act, (6) committed common law fraud, and (7) was unjustly enriched. The Amended Complaint alleges that the Plaintiff was "stymied" by the Defendant's warranty process, was "placed on hold for upwards of half an hour," and was thereafter "disconnected from phone calls" with customer service. However, Judge Rochon says, the evidence developed during discovery squarely contradicts these allegations. After using the Product in his sons' room, the Plaintiff never considered making a claim under the Product's limited warranty, nor did he review the warranty information for the Product. He admits that he never tried to contact Lasko customer service and never experienced issues with long hold times or getting disconnected from customer service. The Court previously dismissed all but the GBL and other state consumer-fraud claims for failure to state a claim (Velez v. Lasko Prods., LLC, 706 F. Supp. 3d 444, 464 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) (Velez I)). The Defendant now moves for summary judgment on the Plaintiff's remaining claims, or, in the alternative, to exclude the opinions of the Plaintiff's proffered experts. The Defendant moves for summary judgment on the Plaintiff's remaining claims under GBL sections 349 (prohibiting deceptive acts or practices) and 350 (prohibiting false advertising), and his claims on behalf of a putative multistate class under the consumer-fraud statutes of Alabama, Idaho, Montana, Alaska, West Virginia, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Utah. Because the Plaintiff has withdrawn his claims on behalf of the multistate class and represents that he will proceed only with his GBL claims, the Court dismisses the Plaintiff's multistate consumer-protection claims. The Plaintiff pleads that he was injured under a price-premium theory, namely that he paid a higher price for the Product than the price for which it would otherwise be sold absent the misleading representations and omissions. The Defendant moves for summary judgment, arguing that the Plaintiff has not provided any evidence that (1) the Product suffers from the defect the Plaintiff alleged, (2) the Defendant's statements about the Product were misleading, or (3) the Plaintiff was injured. The Court need reach only the Defendant's last argument, that is, that there is no evidence of injury. Since the outset of this action, the Plaintiff has advanced a price-premium theory of injury. However, Judge Rochon opines, he has not identified any evidence that the Product commanded a price premium. The only evidence the Plaintiff points to, albeit in his opposition brief rather than in disputing the Defendant's Rule 56.1 Statement, is the evidence of his proposed expert, Dr. Ingersoll. Dr. Ingersoll's expert report outlines the expert methodology he would use if requested to conduct a price premium analysis on the value customers would place on the Product if it did not suffer from the defects the Plaintiff alleges. Dr. Ingersoll proposes using a conjoint analysis survey to measure a price premium. However, Dr. Ingersoll's report did not actually conduct such an analysis. Judge Rochon points out that the Plaintiff identifies no other evidence of a price premium, and thus, no reasonable factfinder could conclude that the Plaintiff has established he was injured by paying a price premium for the Product. Because the evidence in the record indicates the Plaintiff bought the Product without seeing or relying on any of the Defendant's purportedly misleading statements, Judge Rochon holds that the Plaintiff fails to present a triable issue of fact that he relied to his detriment on the allegedly materially misleading claims on the Product's packaging or in its advertising when he purchased the Product. For all of these reasons, Judge Rochon says no reasonable trier of fact could conclude on this summary judgment record that the Plaintiff suffered an actual injury, an element he must prove to succeed on either of his GBL claims. The Court, therefore, need not reach the alternative arguments that the Plaintiff has not provided evidence that the Product is defective (or the related Daubert motion seeking to exclude the testimony of proposed expert Boyell regarding defects in the Product), or that the challenged statements are misleading (or the related Daubert motion seeking to exclude the testimony of proposed expert Dr. Matthews regarding customer confusion). The Defendant is, thus, entitled to summary judgment. Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendant's motion for summary judgment. The Defendant's Daubert motion is denied as moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at Dkt. 52 and close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3hddk5ny from PacerMonitor.com. LESLIE GIORDANI: Hid Martorello's Personal Assets, Cofy Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- DOWIN COFFY, LULA WILLIAMS, GEORGLE HENGLE, GLORIA TURNAGE AND MARCELLA SINGH AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF FELIX GILLISON, JR., for themselves and for all others similarly situated v. LESLIE GIORDANI, GIORDANI & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, LAUREN FITTE, BRAVIANT HOLDINGS, LLC, STEPHANIE KLEIN, AND ANTHONY TASSONE, Case No. 3:25-cv-00579 (E.D. Va., July 25, 2025) revolves around the Plaintiffs' independent claims against the Defendants, who have created, developed, implemented, aided, abetted, and facilitated a scheme designed to hide Martorello's personal assets from Virginia consumers' anticipated judgment in the Williams matter. According to the complaint, the scheme began on March 9, 2018, about nine months after Plaintiffs commenced their case against Martorello. On this date -- and as expressly confirmed by Martorello's privilege log from January 2024 -- Martorello sent an e-mail to Defendant Leslie Giordani with the subject line "Transfer of my Braviant Equity" for the express purpose of furthering his "objective of protecting personal assets from multiple claims by transferring them into a trust." Martorello sent this e-mail to Giordani because she and her firm touted themselves as specialists in helping "to preserve individual wealth from threats" such as "litigation," including through the "settling offshore trusts and forming various foreign entities that provide clients with a comfortable balance of control and protection of assets, allowing clients to manage their family's wealth risk." On March 12, 2018, the Court denied Martorello's motion to dismiss and rejected his primary legal defense, i.e., his argument that the "the Supreme Court of Virginia's holding in Settlement Funding, LLC, v. Von Neumann-Lillie, requires that the Plaintiffs' claims, in their entirety, [to] be dismissed" because of the tribal choice-of-law provision in the loan contracts. In rejecting this argument, the Court found that the plaintiffs adequately alleged that "the choice-of-law and forum-selection provisions of the agreements at issue are void and unenforceable under Virginia law," says the suit. LESLIE GIORDANI, GIORDANI & ASSOCIATES, PLLC is a law firm based in Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq. Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq. KELLY GUZZO PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7572 Facsimile: (703) 591-0167 E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com LESLIE'S CLOSET: Bowman Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ TANISIA BOWMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. Leslie's Closet, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08390 (N.D. Ill., July 22, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate it website, https://www.mygregorys.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff Bowman has made an attempt to complete a purchase on Mygregorys.com for heeled shoes. When she visited the website, she noticed that it contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by her and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inadequate focus order, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, lack of alt-text on graphics, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse, says the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Leslie's Closet's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Leslie's Closet, Inc. operates the website that offers a range of clothing, shoes, and accessories, such as jackets, tops, pants, dresses, footwear, bags, and sunglasses,.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law LIME ROCK: Court Strikes Class Allegations in Colton ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gregg B. Colton, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated persons, v. Lime Rock Resources GP V, L.P., Lime Rock Resources III-A GP, LLC, Lime Rock Resources III-A, L.P., Lime Rock Resources IV-A GP, LLC, Lime Rock Resources IV-A, L.P., Company, a North Dakota corporation; Lime Rock Resources Operating Company, Inc., and Lime Rock Resources V-A, L.P., Case No. 1:22-cv-00123-DLH-CRH (D.N.D.), the Hon. Judge Daniel L. Hovland entered an order granting the Defendants' motion to strike class allegations. The individualized issues in this case predominate over the common claim for relief by the proposed class. Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendants' motion to strike the Subclass I class allegations. The individualized issues in Subclass II predominate over the common claim for relief by the proposed class. Subclass II lacks the cohesion necessary to warrant class certification. Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendants' motion to strike the class allegations as to Subclass II. The second amended complaint alleges Lime Rock made untimely payments to Colton and the class members of Subclass I without paying 18% interest as required by N.D.C.C. § 47-16 39.1. Colton defines Subclass I as: "All persons and entities owning mineral interests in North Dakota wells operated by Lime Rock who, at any time since July 19, 2016, have: (1) received one or more royalty payments or other mineral interest payments from Lime Rock on a date which was more than one hundred fifty days after the oil or gas produced by Lime Rock from a North Dakota well subject to the mineral owner's interest was marketed; and (2) as to any such payment, Lime Rock did not pay the eighteen percent per annum interest required under N.D.C.C. section 47-16-39.1. Excluded from the Class are: (1) Lime Rock, its affiliates, predecessors, employees, officers, and directors; (2) the United States of America; (3) persons who own mineral interests only in wells operated by Lime Rock in North Dakota which are managed by the board of university and school lands; (4) persons who have been members of the board of university and school lands at any time since July 19, 2016; (5) mineral owners who elected to take their proportionate share of production from an Lime Rock operated well in kind; (6) mineral owners who did not receive royalties from Lime Rock because such mineral owners could not be located after reasonable inquiry; (7) mineral owners to whom Lime Rock furnished with written notice of a title dispute pursuant to N.D.C.C. section 47-16-39.4, and whose payments were suspended as a result of such title dispute; and (8) overriding royalty interests and working interests. The second amended complaint alleges Lime Rock violated oil and gas leases by reducing royalties owed to Colton and the class members of Subclass II by offsetting the negative value of excess natural gas expenses against royalties attributable to the production of oil. Colton defines Subclass II as: "All persons and entities to whom Lime Rock has paid, or was obligated to pay, royalties on oil or natural gas produced from wells located in the State of North Dakota since July 19, 2016, pursuant to an oil and gas lease where Lime Rock's post- production expenses for natural gas were deducted from a royalty owner's oil royalties." Excluded from the Class are: (1) Lime Rock, its affiliates, predecessors, employees, officers, and directors; and (2) agencies, departments, or instrumentalities of the United States of America or the State of North Dakota; and (3) mineral interest owners or their assignees whose leases expressly authorize Lime Rock to deduct post-production costs for natural gas in Lime Rock's calculation of royalty payments on oil. Lime produces and markets oil, gas, and related hydrocarbons. A copy of the Court's order dated July 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=x5T5bk at no extra charge.[CC] LINDA SOUTHERN: Bid for Class Action Status Tossed -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES E. WENNERSTEIN v. LINDA SOUTHERN, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00084-BSM (E.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge Brian Miller entered an order denying petition for class action status. Accordingly, after de novo of the record and the underlying cases that Wennerstein asserts cannot be counted as strikes so as to render him a three-striker, United States Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney's recommended disposition is adopted, the Defendants' motion to revoke IFP status is granted, Wennerstein's in forma pauperis status is revoked, and his complaint is dismissed without prejudice. If Wennerstein wishes to continue this case, he is required to submit the statutory filing and administrative fee of $405 to the clerk, noting the above case style and number within fifteen days of this order together with a motion to reopen the case. Upon receipt of the motion and full payment, the case will be reopened. It is certified, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from this order and accompanying judgment would not be taken in good faith. IT IS SO ORDERED this 23rd day of July, 2025. A copy of the Court's order dated July 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AVThqD at no extra charge.[CC] LOCAL ECLECTIC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Davis Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE DAVIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Local Eclectic, Inc, Case No. 1:25-cv-08629 (N.D. Ill., July 25, 2025) sues the Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Navitas provides to their non-disabled customers through Navitasorganics.com. The Plaintiff has made an attempt to complete a purchase on Localeclectic.com. On Feb. 26, 2025, she was searching for a gold charm- something meaningful she could wear daily, either on a bracelet or necklace. She was not interested in mass-produced jewelry and wanted something unique and personalized. She took time to find a reliable company, and discovered Local Eclectic, renowned for its curated collections of demi-fine and fine jewelry, often featuring limited-edition pieces crafted by small studios. The Defendant controls and operates Localeclectic.com in the State of Illinois and throughout the United States. Localeclectic.com is a commercial website that offers products and services for online sale. The online store allows the user to view fashion jewelry, make purchases, and perform a variety of other functions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (630) 478-0856 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law LOEWS HOLLYWOOD: Hearing on Class Cert Bid Vacated -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC CARDENAS, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, and the general public, v. LOEWS HOLLYWOOD HOTEL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; LOEWS HOTELS & CO., a business entity of unknown form; and LOEWS CORPORATION, a business entity of unknown form; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-06342-GW-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge George Wu entered an order granting the Parties' joint stipulation to vacate hearing on plaintiff’s motion for class certification and related dates as follows: 1. Hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for his class certification shall be vacated; and 2. All related dates, including the Plaintiff's reply to the Defendants' opposition brief set by the Court for Aug. 21, 2025 shall be vacated accordingly. 3. The Court sets a status conference for Sept. 29, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. The parties shall file a joint status report by noon on Sept. 25, 2025. Loews operates as a hotel. A copy of the Court's order dated July 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tOIw9g at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Yeremian, Esq. David Keledjian, Esq. Enoch J. Kim, Esq. David Arakelyan, Esq. Norayr Zakaryan, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N. Brand Blvd. Ste. 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 962-6465 Facsimile: (818) 962-6469 E-mail: d.yeremian@d.law d.keledjian@d.law d.arakelyan@d.law e.kim@d.law; n.zakaryan@d.law The Defendants are represented by: Ryan C. Bykerk, Esq. Joseph M. Dietrich, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 732-6500 Facsimile: (949) 732-6501 E-mail: bykerkr@gtlaw.com joe.dietrich@gtlaw.com LOS ANGELES, CA: Roelling Seeks to Recover Back Pay & Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- JASON ROELLING, a California resident, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a California public entity, Case No. 2:25-cv-06832 (July 25, 2025) is a collective action on behalf of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees of Defendant who work or worked for LACOFD during the Collective Period to recover back pay and overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs from Defendant, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant has a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees of Defendant who work or worked for LACOFD to work for an hour, and sometimes more, past the end of their shifts, without paying them any wages for that work time. The Defendant's failure to pay proper wages and overtime is deliberately engrained in the LACOFD culture, and it is done in willful and/or reckless disregard for the protections provided for by the FLSA. The Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) on behalf of himself and other similarly situated persons who are or were employed by Defendant and work or worked for LACOFD at any time within three years prior to this action's filing date through the date of trial of this action in one or more of at least the following job positions: Fire Fighter; Fire Fighter Specialist; Fire Fighter Trainee; Fire Fighting Construction Equipment Operator; Fire Suppression Aid; Forestry Assistant; Pilot, Fire Services; Senior Fire Fighting Construction Equipment Operator; and Senior Fire Suppression Aid (the FLSA Collective). The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant as a LACOFD Firefighter since March of 2008. In 2009, he also became a Paramedic, and, in 2022, he was promoted to his current role as Fire Captain.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Paul Gignac, Esq. Claire K. Mitchell, Esq. EXCELLO LAW U.S. LLP 17 El Paseo Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 317-6402 E-mail: jpgignac@excellolaw.com cmitchell@excellolaw.com - and - Steven H. Haney, Esq. Michael Sobel, Esq. HANEY & SHAH LLP 915 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2125 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 228-6500 E-mail: shaney@haneyshah.com msobel@haneyshah.com MAC COSMETICS: $300K Settlement in Maciel Suit Gets Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as IGNACIO MACIEL, et al., v. M.A.C. COSMETICS INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-03718-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge ARACELI MARTÍNEZ-OLGUÍN entered an order granting motion for preliminary approval: 1. The Court preliminarily certifies the proposed class for settlement purposes pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3). A class member is defined as: "A person employed by M.A.C. in California as an hourly paid, non-exempt employee, at any time from April 27, 2018, to July 24, 2025." The Court appoints Ignacio Maciel and Ruth Torres as representatives for the Class and appoints Righetti Glugoski, P.C. and Nathan & Associates, APC as counsel for the Class. 2. The Court approves the text of the settlement notice, which is the proposed form of notice regarding the Settlement for mailing to class members. 3. The Court appoints ILYM Group, Inc. to serve as the Settlement Administrator. The case is about M.A.C.'s alleged failure to compensate its employees for time and expenses incurred to comply with M.A.C.'s dress code. The Settlement allocates $300,000 to the PAGA penalty claims, resulting in a payment of $225,000 to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency and $75,000 to be distributed among class members who worked during the PAGA period. After accounting for these fees, costs, and awards, the net settlement amount will be distributed to the 5,282 class members with an estimated payment of $2,271.86 each and average net recovery of $1,378.45. No funds will revert to M.A.C. Settlement ¶ 45(b). MAC is a Canadian cosmetics manufacturer. A copy of the Court's order dated July 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JIXarM at no extra charge.[CC] MANAGED CARE: Seeks Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal in Crowe -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONNA CROWE et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MANAGED CARE OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., d/b/a MCNA DENTAL, MCNA INSURANCE COMPANY d/b/a MCNA DENTAL, and HEALTHPLEX INC., Case No. 0:23-cv-61065-AHS (S.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting leave to file under seal Exhibits. Pursuant to Local Rule 5.4 of the Southern District of Florida and the Stipulated Protective Order and Qualified HIPAA Protective Order, the Defendants move for leave to file under seal certain exhibits appended to the Defendants' contemporaneously filed Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion For Class Certification; to apply redactions to the limited portions of the Opposition that quote those exhibits or other documents that the Court already has determined could be filed under seal, and to apply redactions to the limited portions of certain additional exhibits appended to the Opposition that quote those exhibits or other documents that the Court already has determined could be filed under seal and/or that contain references to Plaintiffs' personally identifiable information. These exhibits were each designated by the Defendants as Confidential or Highly Confidential pursuant to the Protective Order and/or contain highly sensitive and nonpublic information regarding the Defendants' investigation into and response to the cyberattack at the heart of this litigation, the information potentially impacted by the Cyberattack, and the Named Plaintiffs' personally identifiable information and security practices. Managed provides dental plans. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bdHfo4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Mark R. Cheskin, Esq. Allen P. Pegg, Esq. Allison Holt Ryan, Esq. Alicia J. Paller, Esq. Abby Walter Gray, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 459-6500 Facsimile: (305) 459-6550 E-mail: mark.cheskin@hoganlovells.com allen.pegg@hoganlovells.com allison.holt-ryan@hoganlovells.com alicia.paller@hoganlovells.com abby.waltergray@hoganlovells.com MARKETSOURCE INC: Must File Class Cert Opposition by August 11 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brum, et al., v. MarketSource, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00241 (E.D. Cal., Filed Feb. 3, 2017), the Hon. Judge Dale A. Drozd entered an order as follows: The Defendants shall file their opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion no later than Aug. 11, 2025. The Plaintiffs shall file their reply no later than Aug. 21, 2025. The nature of suit states Diversity-Employment Discrimination. MarketSource is a sales solutions and marketing company.[CC] MEDUSIND INC: $5MM Class Settlement in Owings Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHLEY OWINGS, et al., on behalf of themselves, and all others similarly situated, v. MEDUSIND, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-20117-RAR (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Rodolfo Ruiz II entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement as follows: (i) granting Preliminary Approval of the Settlement; (ii) provisionally certifying the Settlement Class for settlement purposes; (iii) appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; (iv) appointing Class Counsel for the Settlement Class; (v) approving the form of Notices and the Notice Program; (vi) approving the Claim Form and the Claim process; (vii) appointing the Settlement Administrator; (viii) establishing procedures for members of the Settlement Class to opt-out of or object to the Settlement; and (ix) scheduling a Final Approval Hearing on whether to grant Final Approval of the Settlement and Class Counsel's Application for Attorneys' Fees and Costs. The Court provisionally certifies the following Settlement Class: "All living individuals residing in the United States who were sent a notice of the Data Incident indicating their Private Information may have been impacted in the Data Incident." The Parties filed a Notice of Settlement with the Court on June 12, 2025. [ECF No. 47]. Over the next five weeks, the Parties worked diligently to finalize the terms of the Agreement and ancillary documents. They signed the agreement on July 11, 2025. The Parties did not discuss attorneys’ fees and costs until after they reached agreement on all material Settlement terms. Specifically, the Settlement provides monetary relief that includes a non-reversionary all cash Settlement Fund of $5,000,000. The Settlement Fund will be fully funded by Defendant within 40 days of Preliminary Approval. The Defendant is a medical and dental billing and software company that provides services to providers throughout the country. S A copy of the Court's order dated July 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QJ6RMc at no extra charge.[CC] MICHAEL MCDONALD: Court Narrows Claims in ACLS Suit --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as American Council of Learned Societies et al., v. Michael McDonald et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-03657-CM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge McMahon entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss. McDonald's is an American multinational fast food chain. A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jIoA1s at no extra charge.[CC] MICHAELS MANAGEMENT: Seeks to Stay Class Cert Proceedings --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LESLIE DAMARE, CYNTHIA SCOTT DAY, BRADY DVORAK, NOAH CARTER, CARLOS MATUS, SABRINA HARRIS, CHRISTIAN HEALY, ELENA WARD, ROBERT RADUCHEL, THOMAS BUTLER, ROSE BRIENZA, MELISSA SHAPCOTT, SETH KOREN, EVAN REINER, KAYLA BALENTINE, JORDAN BOILEAU, GIZELLE MENENDEZ, & MATAKALA KALUWE, JAQUELYN SLOAN, v. MICHAELS MANAGEMENT AFFORDABLE, LLC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00554-PPS-AZ (N.D. Ind.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting request to stay all proceedings related to the Plaintiff's second motion for class certification until such time as the Court rules on the Defendants' pending motion to dismiss. Alternatively, the Defendants request that the Plaintiff be required to amend the second motion for class certification to remove all references to The LaSalle Apartments and, should the Court permit such amendment, that Defendants be granted twenty-one (21) days from the date of their filing to respond. The Defendant has spoken with counsel for the Plaintiffs who has agreed to staying the motion for class certification. Proceeding with class certification at this stage would be premature. Furthermore, judicial economy strongly favors resolving pleading issues before engaging in the extensive process of class certification. Proceeding with class certification before the Court has had an opportunity to rule on the motion to dismiss could result in an unnecessary expenditure of both judicial and party resources. If the Court intends for Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Class Certification prior to resolving the pending motion to dismiss, Defendants submit that Plaintiff should first amend the motion to reflect the current posture of the case and formally remove The LaSalle Apartments from the motion and all associated arguments. 18. Should the Court direct Plaintiff to file an amended motion for class certification, Defendants request that they be afforded twenty-one (21) days from the date of that filing to submit their response, in order to prepare an appropriate and tailored opposition based on the operative class allegations. On June 23, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint and dismissed The LaSalle Apartments as a Defendant. On July 11, 2025, the Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim pursuant to 12(b)(6). Michaels is a property management company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=A88ujd at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Megan P. Keane, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 325 W. Main Street Waterfront Plaza – West Tower, Suite 2300 Louisville, KY 40202 Telephone: (615) 371-1255 E-mail: mkeane@grsm.com MICROSTRATEGY INC: Faces DGCL Violation Class Suit in Delaware -------------------------------------------------------------- MicroStrategy Incorporated disclosed in its Form 8-K Report for the July 21, 2025 Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2025, that the Company faces a Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL) violation class suit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. On July 21, 2025, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company and its board of directors (the "Board") alleging violations of the Delaware General Corporation Law, and asserting a claim against its Board for breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the purported DGCL violation. The plaintiff, David Dodge (the "Plaintiff"), purports to assert claims on behalf of himself and similarly situated holders of its common stock alleging that pursuant to Section 242 of the DGCL ("Section 242"), the holders of its common stock were entitled to vote on the filing of a Certificate of Amendment (the "Amendment") to the Certificate of Designations for its 8.00% Series A Perpetual Strike Preferred Stock, $0.001 par value per share (the "STRK Stock"), which modified certain terms of the STRK Stock so that, together with other conforming changes, the liquidation preference per share of the STRK Stock generally approximates its trading price with a floor of $100, as described in greater detail in its Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 7, 2025. The complaint seeks, among other things, an order (i) finding, determining and declaring that it violated Section 242; (ii) finding, determining and declaring that the Board has breached its fiduciary duties; (iii) deeming the Amendment ineffective and requiring that it files a certificate of correction with the Delaware Secretary of State invalidating the Amendment; (iv) awarding unspecified damages to the Plaintiff and class, including interest, attorneys' fees, costs; and (v) granting other relief. At this time, the Company cannot predict the outcome or provide a reasonable estimate or range of estimates of the possible outcome or loss, if any, in this matter. Microstrategy Inc. is a financial services company focusing on crypto assets, based in Virginia. MR. COOPER: Class Cert. Scheduling Order Entered in Cabezas Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER CABEZAS, et al., v. MR. COOPER GROUP INC, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-02453-N (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge David C. Godbey entered a class certification scheduling order as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs must serve on defendants (but NOT file with the Court) their motion for class certification within 45 days of this Order. The motion must comply with Local Rule 23.2 (except paragraph (f)), and must be accompanied by all supporting evidence, including expert testimony, if any, and supporting brief. The Court will consider class certification on written submission on March 13, 2026 (the "Submission Date"). The Court may, at its discretion, by separate order set a hearing on class certification. 2. Any motions for leave to join additional parties must be filed within 30 days of the date of this Order. 3. All discovery except regarding class certification is stayed. 4. The parties may by written agreement alter the deadlines and limitations in this paragraph, without the need for court order. No continuance of the Submission Date will be granted due to agreed extensions of these deadlines. Mr. Cooper is an American home loan servicer. A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Fk2DVz at no extra charge.[CC] MULLOOLY JEFFREY: General Pretrial Management Entered in Hubbuch ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD B. HUBBUCH, v. MULLOOLY, JEFFREY, ROONEY & FLYNN LLP et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-05547-JHR-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management as follows: All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses. Parties and counsel are cautioned: 1. Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set by the Court. 2. Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. 3. For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion conferences are not required, but may be requested where counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues. 4. Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court proceeding (including a telephonic court conference), or to extend a deadline, must be made in writing and in compliance with section 2(a) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. 5. If you are aware of any party or attorney who should receive notice in this action, other than those currently listed on the docket sheet, please notify Courtroom Deputy Tamika Kay at (212) 805-0228 immediately. To receive limited-scope assistance from the project, parties may complete the clinic's intake form on their computer or phone at: https://www.citybarjusticecenter.org/projects/federal pro-se-legal-assistance-project/. If parties have questions regarding the form or they are unable to complete it, they may leave a voicemail at (212) 382-4794. A copy of a flyer with details about the project is attached to this Order. Mullooly is a law firm operating out of Syosset, New York that engages in debt collection. A copy of the Court's order dated July 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sG2yvW at no extra charge.[CC] NESTLE HEALTHCARE: Horti Seeks to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Horti et al., v. Nestle Healthcare Nutrition, Inc. (RE: NESTLE BOOST NUTRITIONAL DRINK LITIGATION), Case No. 3:21-cv-09812-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order allowing the filing under seal of portions of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, appointment of class representatives and class counsel, and the joint declaration of Trenton R. Kashima and Laurence D. King and the declaration of Colin Weir. The Plaintiffs seek to seal the testimony of the Defendant's key employees (Kashima Declaration, Exhibits B, G, and K) and the confidential documents discussed in these depositions (Exhibits C-E, H I, CCCC), as these witnesses discussed confidential documents involving Defendant's product formulas, advertising strategies, internal marketing reports and emails, internal testing protocols, sales strategies, internal pricing and sales data, and other sensitive materials. The substance of these documents has already been found to be so sensitive that the potential harm of their disclosure outweighs any public's interest in their disclosure. The same is true of the Defendant's interrogatory responses. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to Seal is necessary to protect and preserve the confidentiality of the information contained within the above listed documents and to comply with the Protective Order. Plaintiffs only seek to seal the portions of these documents that contain sensitive information, as designated by Defendant, the producing party. Nestle provides nutritional solutions for people with specific dietary needs related to illnesses, diseases, and, age. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=loageW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Trenton R. Kashima, Esq. Nick Suciu III, Esq. J. Hunter Bryson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 402 West Broadway, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 810-7047 E-mail: tkashima@milberg.com nsuciu@milberg.com hbryson@milberg.com - and - Laurence D. King, Esq. Matthew B. George, Esq. Blair E. Reed, Esq. Clarissa Olivares, Esq. Joel B. Strauss, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 772-4700 Facsimile: (415) 772-4707 E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com mgeorge@kaplanfox.com breed@kaplanfox.com colivares@kaplanfox.com jstrauss@kaplanfox.com - and - Michael D. Braun, Esq. KUZYK LAW, LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: 213-401-4100 E-mail: mdb@kuzykclassactions.com - and - Ross B. Rothenberg, Esq. THE ROTHENBERG LAW FIRM LLP 450 7th Avenue, 44th Floor New York, NY 10123 Telephone: (212) 563-0100 E-mail: ross@injurylawyer.com NESTLE HEALTHCARE: Horti Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Horti, et al., v. Nestle Healthcare Nutrition, Inc. (RE: NESTLE BOOST NUTRITIONAL DRINK LITIGATION), Case No. 3:21-cv-09812-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying classes for the following claims asserted in the Consolidated Class Action Complaint: California Class "All persons in the State of California who purchased the Products, from Dec. 20, 2017, to the date of the order certifying the class, for personal use and not for resale." New Jersey Class "All persons in the State of New Jersey who purchased, from Dec. 20, 2017, to the date of the order certifying the class, the Products for personal use and not for resale." The Plaintiffs move for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) of two classes of purchasers of the Products, during the indicated class periods. "Products" are defined as the BOOST Glucose Control and BOOST Glucose Control High Protein Nutritional Drinks. The Plaintiffs seek certification of the following Classes for purchasers of the relevant products in California and New Jersey, under each state's respective consumer protection statutes and the claims set forth in the accompanying memorandum: In addition, the Plaintiff Horti seeks to be appointed as class representative for the California Class and Plaintiff Owen also seeks to be appointed as class representative for the New Jersey Class. The Plaintiffs also move for an order appointing Nick Suciu III, J. Hunter Bryson, Trenton R. Kashima of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC and Laurence D. King and Matthew B. George of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP as class counsel, pursuant to Rule 23(g). Nestle provides nutritional solutions for people with specific dietary needs related to illnesses, diseases, and, age. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=G4dfoV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Trenton R. Kashima, Esq. Nick Suciu III, Esq. J. Hunter Bryson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 402 West Broadway, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 810-7047 E-mail: tkashima@milberg.com nsuciu@milberg.com hbryson@milberg.com - and - Laurence D. King, Esq. Matthew B. George, Esq. Blair E. Reed, Esq. Clarissa Olivares, Esq. Joel B. Strauss, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 772-4700 Facsimile: (415) 772-4707 E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com mgeorge@kaplanfox.com breed@kaplanfox.com colivares@kaplanfox.com jstrauss@kaplanfox.com - and - Michael D. Braun, Esq. KUZYK LAW, LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: 213-401-4100 E-mail: mdb@kuzykclassactions.com - and - Ross B. Rothenberg, Esq. THE ROTHENBERG LAW FIRM LLP 450 7th Avenue, 44th Floor New York, NY 10123 Telephone: (212) 563-0100 E-mail: ross@injurylawyer.com NEW YORK: Faces Class Suit Over Unlawful Contract Restrictions -------------------------------------------------------------- CEMENT AND CONCRETE WORKERS DC BENEFIT FUND, on its own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE NEW YORK AND PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL, Case No. 1:25-cv-06140 (S.D.N.Y., July 25, 2025) seeks damages and an injunction forbidding NYP from using unlawful contract restrictions that prevent New York health plans and insurers from incentivizing patients to use higher-value healthcare services offered by NYP's competitors under the Sherman Act. According to the complaint, these unlawful restrictions restrain trade, reduce competition, and harm New York employers, unions, insurers, and consumers. The Plaintiff contends that NYP has market power in the market for acute inpatient hospital services. It abuses its market power in its dealings with self-funded employers, unions, health insurers, and their vendors. NYP's market power results from, among other things, its large size, significant barriers to entry in the market, the comprehensive range of healthcare services it offers, the nature of the market for hospital services, patient demand, and employers', unions' and insurers' need to include access to NYP's hospitals -- as well as its other facilities and providers -- in at least some of their provider networks in insurance plans that cover people who live and/or work in New York City, asserts the suit. NYP is a New York health system providing a comprehensive range of healthcare services across several campuses in New York City and its surrounding regions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yinka Onayemi, Esq. Jamie Crooks, Esq. Michael Lieberman, Esq. FAIRMARK PARTNERS, LLP 400 7th Street, NW, Suite 304 Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (619) 507-4182 E-mail: yinka@fairmarklaw.com jamie@fairmarklaw.com michael@fairmarklaw.com - and - Frank R. Schirripa, Esq. Scott Jacobsen, Esq. HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP 112 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 213-8311 E-mail: fschirripa@hrsclaw.com sjacobsen@hrsclaw.com NIKITA BAKER: Class Cert Bid Denied w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------- 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 as follows: The Plaintiffs' class certification motion shall be and is denied without prejudice. The Plaintiffs' PI motion shall be, and is denied as moot and without prejudice. The hearing on the PI motion scheduled for July 29, 2025, shall be, and is canceled. Within seven days of this order, the parties shall confer and submit three agreed-upon dates/time for an in-person, on-the-record status conference. A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lfGE8I at no extra charge.[CC] NIKITA BAKER: Plaintiffs Loses Class Status Bid ----------------------------------------------- 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 a memorandum denying the class certification motion and will deny the preliminary injunction motion as moot. D.N.N. is a national and citizen of Guatemala. She has lived in the United States for more than 10 years. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated July 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TeQkVp at no extra charge.[CC] NUTRICOST: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Cohen Due August 29 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cohen v. Nutricost, Case No. 2:23-cv-06387 (E.D.N.Y., Case Filed Aug. 25, 2023), the Hon. Judge Nusrat J. Choudhury entered an order modifying the class certification briefing schedule as follows: -- Plaintiff shall serve on Defendants Aug. 29, 2025 any motion for class certification by: -- The Defendants shall serve on Plaintiff Oct. 29, 2025 any opposition by: -- The Defendant shall serve any reply by: Nov. 26, 2025 The nature of suit states Contract -- Other Contract. Nutricost is an e-commerce platform that provides dietary supplements and sports nutrition products.[CC] OLYMPIAN LABS: Faces Suit Over Pea Protein Powder Deceptive Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ ARMANDO PLASCENCIA, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. OLYMPIAN LABS, INC., an Arizona corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-06841 (C.D. Cal., July 25, 2025) alleges that its Pea Protein powder (the Product), which are manufactured, packaged, labeled, advertised, distributed, and sold by the Defendant, is misbranded and falsely advertised because its features deceptive protein claims on the front label without presenting a Recommended Daily Value of protein contained in each serving that is corrected for protein digestibility. The Products use pea protein as their protein sources. The PDCAAS of such proteins is significantly less than 1.0. Because of the protein claim on the front label, Olympian is required under 21 C.F.R. section 101.9(c)(7) to report a PDCAAS-corrected %DRV in the Nutrition or Supplements Facts panels of the Products. It does not. Instead, the Nutrition or Supplement Facts panels on the Products reports a %DRV of 50 percent. A protein claim on a food or supplement is deceptive and misleading to consumers if it is not accompanied by a PDCAAS-corrected %DRV disclosure in the Nutrition Facts or Supplement Facts panel, because it gives reasonable consumers the impression that all of the protein in a product is high-quality protein that is bioavailable to consumers. Olympian makes a protein claim on the Products' front label that the Products contain 25 grams of protein per serving, the suit says. The Plaintiff tracks his protein intake and takes a daily protein powder supplement to ensure he gets enough protein in his diet. As part of this effort and to assist in meeting his protein consumption goals, the Plaintiff purchased the vanilla flavor of the Products from Amazon.com on April 25, 2025. OLYMPIAN LABS, INC. provides nutritional supplements and proteins.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles C. Weller, Esq. CHARLES C. WELLER, APC 11412 Corley Court San Diego, CA 92126 Telephone: (858) 414-7465 Facsimile: (858) 300-5137 E-mail: legal@cweller.com ON SEMICONDUCTOR: Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Claims --------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Jeffrey S. Lew, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ON Semiconductor Corporation, et al., Defendants, No. CV-24-00594-PHX-SMB (D. Ariz.), Judge Susan M. Brnovich of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint with leave to amend. The Court dismissed both the Section 10(b) claim and the derivative Section 20(a) claim, noting that Controlling persons liability under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act is derivative, such that there is no individual liability where there is no primary violation of securities law. Defendant ON Semiconductor manufactures and sells various silicon-based semiconductor products. The lawsuit concerns the company's agreements with customers that buy silicon-carbide semiconductors used in the automotive and electric vehicle industry. The customers often place orders up to fifty-two weeks in advance, creating a "backlog" of purchase orders for fulfillment based on the company's manufacturing capacity. The COVID-19 pandemic caused a chip shortage in the semiconductor industry due to the increase in at-home work and school and began to ease in 2023. The shortage led customers to place purchase orders with multiple suppliers, in which after the customer would receive an order from one supplier, it would cancel its order with the other suppliers. Semiconductor manufacturers began utilizing long-term supply agreements ("LTSAs") to curb the artificial market fluctuations and to create predictability in the supply chain. ON Semiconductor did not utilize LTSAs in 2019 and 2020. Instead, it utilized short-term contracts. Beginning in 2021, Defendants started to require LTSAs and informed its investors of utilizing the new agreements. The company's 2021 Form 10-K indicated: "Historically, a significant portion of our backlog was cancellable, however, under our current agreements, including orders subject to minimum purchase commitments under our longer-term supply arrangements, are not subject to cancellation." Chief Executive Officer Hassane El-Khoury represented at various times that the LTSAs were a "win-win" and intended to increase confidence in the company, add clarity and predictability to customer demand, and enable capital investments with support of the clearer outlook on customer demand. El-Khoury also made public statements ensuring that the LTSAs were legally binding and the customers were liable for the price and volume commitments. Plaintiff Jeffrey S. Lew alleges that these ironclad protections went unenforced and ON Semiconductor would allow customers to amend the agreements without conferring a benefit. In late-2022 to early 2023, an ON Semiconductor employee reported to his supervisor that a military customer was not placing orders according to its LTSA and he was concerned that there was no penalty for failing to meet significant purchase commitments worth about $6 or $7 million. At some point before October 30, 2023, one of ON Semiconductor's automotive customers reneged its commitment to purchase $200 million of silicone carbide products. Then on October 30, 2023, during the company's Q3 earnings call, it informed investors that it renegotiated LTSAs on a case-by-case basis, which could result in a benefit to the company over a "longer term" horizon. The news caused the common stock price to plunge 22% ($18.18 per share). Lew's Second Amended Complaint alleges two claims: (1) violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against all Defendants (2) violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Individual Defendants. The Court noted that complaints alleging securities fraud are subject to heightened pleading requirements under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA") and Rule 9(b). The PSLRA requires that complaints alleging falsity "specify each statement alleged to have been misleading, the reason or reasons why the statement is misleading, and, if an allegation regarding the statement or omission is made on information and belief, the complaint shall state with particularity all facts on which that belief is formed. The Court analyzed statements the Individual Defendants made at four events: (1) the Q1 2023 Earnings Call (2) the May 23, 2023 JPMorgan Chase Conference (3) the August 30, 2023 Deutsche Bank Conference (4) the September 7, 2023 Citi Conference. During the Q1 2023 Earnings Call, El-Khoury stated: "Absolutely, no changes. It's actually very, very predictable, and that's really the benefit that we've been talking about with the LTSAs that have us really, with our customers, align on pricing and volume through the duration of the LTSAs." The Court found that whether something is very, very predictable fits squarely within classic feel-good monikers and is inactionable puffery and incapable of objective verification. The Court stated: Whether the LTSAs provide predictability based on aligned pricing and volumes appears inherently aspirational and used to provide an optimistic view of the quarterly outlooks. The Court analyzed Trent's statement about creating win--win scenarios with customers and found that "what constitutes a 'win--win' is subjective and so broad and ambiguous that it is incapable of objective verification." The Court noted that Lew has not alleged that ON Semiconductor did not receive calls from its customers prior to changes in demand or that the company would not "try and help" the customers to find win--win. The Court found similar issues with El-Khoury's statements at these conferences regarding win--win scenarios and "ironclad" agreements. The Court determined that these statements were either puffery or forward-looking statements protected by safe harbor provisions. The Court found that Lew failed to adequately allege a strong inference of scienter. The Court stated: "The only basis that Lew offers to infer that Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that the LTSAs did not afford the predictability that El-Khoury represented lies in El-Khoury and Trent's involvement in negotiation and executing the LTSAs, removal of a risk warning from the 2022 Form 10-K and their involvement in approving that form, and that the military customer not placing orders in early 2023." The Court found these allegations insufficient, noting that "involvement in negotiating the LTSAs and removing risk warnings related to short-term cancellations in Form 10-Ks does not provide a basis to infer that El-Khoury intentionally or was deliberately reckless in touting the predictability that the LTSAs provided." Lew alleged that the LTSAs are integral to ON Semiconductor's core operations and it would be absurd to suggest that the executives were not aware that the LTSAs were subject to the risk of amendment or cancellation. The Court rejected this theory, stating: "The core operations theory based on absurdity requires the falsity of a fact to be patently obvious. By conflating projected revenues and whether renegotiations achieve a 'win-win,' Lew bases his theory on a subjective belief of what constitutes a 'win,' and not on any patently obvious fact." The Court granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss with leave to amend. The Court ordered that Plaintiff shall file a Third Amended Complaint, if he so chooses, no later than 30 days after this Order is filed. The Court further ordered that Plaintiffs fail to file an amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this Order, the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment dismissing the entire case without prejudice. The Court provided guidance for any future amended complaint, stating: Should Lew choose to file an amended complaint, he should add clarity to his falsity allegations to discern between an affirmative misstatement of fact and a material omission and the reasons supporting each theory separately. The Court cautioned that it will not be left putting together the pieces of Lew's puzzle as he hides under a cloud of vagueness and imprecision. A copy of the Court's decisions is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9K1yH8 PACIFIC MARITIME: Fowler Seeks to Certify Class of Dockworkers -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEREMY FOWLER, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION (PMA); SSA TERMINALS, LLC; and SSA CONVENTIONAL, INC., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Case No. 2:24-cv-00974-TL (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion to certify a Plaintiff Class of Dockworkers and a Defendant Class of Employers. The "Plaintiff Class" of Dockworkers is defined as follows: "All hourly-paid exempt employees who are covered by a Collective Bargaining Agreement between ILWU and PMA and have worked on a PMA Member jobsite located in the State of Washington at any time since May 29, 2021." "PMA Member" includes the Member's subsidiaries and affiliates. The Defendant Class is defined as follows: "PMA and PMA Members who have employed one or more members of the Dockworker Class in the State of Washington at any time since May 29, 2021." Mr. Fowler satisfies the Rule 23(a) criteria, as his claims center on the Defendants' shared and uniform practice of denying paid sick leave as required by Washington law to over two-thousand Dockworkers, the suit says. Pacific is a multi employer organization made up of over 70 ocean carrier lines, stevedoring companies, and marine terminal operators. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jb3UOa at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lindsay L. Halm, Esq. Hong (Chen-Chen) Jiang, Esq. Andrew D. Boes, Esq. Adam J. Berger, Esq. SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER 401 Union Street, Suite 3400 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 622-8000 E-mail: halm@sgb-law.com PLAYSTUDIOS INC: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Opposition ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYLER KUHK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PLAYSTUDIOS INC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00460-TL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Tana Lin entered an order granting the Defendant's motion to extend deadline for Playstudios's opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for class certification: (1) The deadline for the submission of the Defendant's response to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is July 29, 2025. (2) The deadline for the submission of the Plaintiff's reply in support of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is Aug. 19, 2025. Playstudios develops and publishes free-to-play casual games for mobile and social platforms. A copy of the Court's order dated July 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=C6FFSs at no extra charge.[CC] PLAYSTUDIOS INC: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert. Bid ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYLER KUHK, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. PLAYSTUDIOS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:24-cv-00460-TL (W.D. Wash.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to extend deadline for Playstudios's opposition to the Plaintiffs motion for class certification. On July 24, 2025, counsel for the parties filed a Stipulation as to Chain of Custody to direct said inspection by defense counsel, which will occur promptly on July 24, 2025. In order to allow Counsel for Defendant to complete said inspection before the filing and service of Defendant's opposition to motion for class certification, the Defendant Playstudios Inc. requests an Order from the Court extending the current deadline for the opposition to class certification from July 25, 2025, two business days to July 29, 2025. The relief sought herein does not present any issues of prejudice to Plaintiff Tyler Kuhk or to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. Playstudios develops and publishes free-to-play casual games for mobile and social platforms. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4P0Xg5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lindsay L. Halm, Esq. Hong (Chen-Chen) Jiang, Esq. Adam J. Berger, Esq. Mary Dardeau, Esq. Andrew Boes, Esq. SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER 401 Union Street, Suite 3400 Seattle, WA 98101 E-mail: halm@sgb-law.com jiang@sgb-law.com berger@sgb-law.com dardeau@sgb-law.com boes@sgb-law.com The Defendant is represented by: Todd A. Bowers, Esq. Whitney I. Kohler, Esq. Jeremy Richter, Esq. W. Sean Hornbrook, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2100 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 695-5100 Facsimile: (206) 689-2822 E-mail: tbowers@grsm.com wkohler@grsm.com jrichter@grsm.com shornbrook@grsm.com PRICE LITTLE: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Nov. 14 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Price Little Rapids Corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-00330 (E.D. Wisc., Filed March 5, 2025), the Hon. Judge Byron B. Conway entered an order granting the Parties' Stipulated Motion to Amend Scheduling Order. To allow the parties additional time to engage in settlement discussions, the scheduling order is amended as follows: the plaintiff's motion for conditional certification is due on Nov. 14, 2025. The plaintiff's motion for class certification and the defendant's motion for decertification are due on June 19, 2026. Discovery closes on Sept. 25, 2026 dispositive motions are due by Nov. 20, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Little is a manufacturer of specialty paper products serving the medical, beauty, and food service markets. [CC] PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Loses Summary Judgment Bid v. Curran -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL CURRAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-00878-SKC-TPO (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge S. Kato Crews entered an order denying Progressive's request for summary judgment. A Final Pre-trial Conference is set for Sept. 4, 2025, at 9:00 A.M. in Courtroom C201. No later than Aug. 28, 2025, the Parties shall file the proposed final pretrial order. A WORD version of the proposed final pretrial order should also be emailed to crews_chambers@cod.uscourts.gov. The Parties shall refer to this Court's Standing Order for Civil Cases when preparing the proposed final pretrial order. The Parties should be prepared to set a trial date within one to two months out from this conference. Lead counsel who will try the case must be in attendance. Because the Court concludes there are issues of material fact that must be determined by a jury, the Court denies Progressive’s request for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class, asserts a claim for breach of contract and bad faith breach of an insurance contract. A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JXwNcp at no extra charge.[CC] PROSPERENTRUST & LLC: Pothineni Sues Over Investment Fraud ---------------------------------------------------------- Pranav Pothineni and Venkateshwar Rao Prasanna Ganta, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pavan Varenya Chagarlamudi and Blanca Aguilar, Case No. 4:25-cv-00800-ALM-BD (E.D. Tex., July 25, 2025) is a class action lawsuit arising out of a fraudulent cryptocurrency investment scheme orchestrated by Defendants. Beginning in or around May 2023, the Defendant solicited investments via emails, calls, WhatsApp, Facebook messenger, claiming to offer high-return crypto investment opportunities. The Defendant falsely claimed to represent or operate through ProsperEntrust & LLC, signing investment agreements on its behalf without authorization. In fact, one of the LLCs used was owned by Plaintiff Pothineni, and Defendants exploited this to defraud other investors, the suit asserts. The Defendants knowingly misrepresented the nature, risk, and legality of the investment to induce Plaintiffs and numerous others to contribute significant funds. As a result, Plaintiff and class members suffered substantial financial harm, alleges the suit. Plaintiff Ganta resides in San Diego, California and invested $130,000. Plaintiff Pothineni a resident of Grapevine, Texas invested $290,000 based on Defendants' misrepresentations. Additional class members are individuals from multiple states -- Illinois, Missouri, Texas -- who were allegedly defrauded. The Defendants falsely claimed to represent or operate through ProsperEntrust & LLC, signing investment agreements on its behalf without authorization. The Defendants received cryptocurrency and wire transfers totaling over $1,000,000, then converted the funds for personal use. ProsperEntrust & LLC is a crypto investment firm.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. PURCHASE POINT: Cole Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------- MORGAN COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Purchase Point, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08382 (N.D. Ill., July 22, 2025) is a civil rights action against Purchase Point for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.tiege.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On June 2, 2025, the Plaintiff was planning to replenish his skincare products. He turned to Google, searched for skincare for men, and found suggested products featuring a skincare set from the Defendant. The Plaintiff asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by him and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inadequate focus order, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, lack of alt-text on graphics, the lack of adequate labeling of form fields, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Purchase Point's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Purchase Point, LLC operates the website that offers skincare products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Telephone: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law PURDUE PHARMA: Morales Class Action Closed ------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA MORALES, v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P., et al., Case No. 7:25-cv-00484-CS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Cathy Seibel entered an order directing the Clerk of Court to close the case. The Court sympathizes with Appellant for what happened to her father, and understands why she regards his experience as different from that of those who were addicted to OxyContin. The Court expresses no opinion on that issue or as to whether she is entitled to relief against Debtors-Appellees. It holds only that Judge Lane did not err in concluding that Appellant cannot proceed via a class action. On Dec. 12, 2024, the Bankruptcy Court held a hearing and denied the motion because "a pro se party such as Ms. Morales can’t act as a class representative." On Jan. 9, 2025, the Bankruptcy Court issued a written Order denying the request for class certification for the reasons stated at the December 12 hearing. Purdue was an American privately held pharmaceutical company. A copy of the Court's opinion & order dated July 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MnYVel at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff appears pro se: The Defendant is represented by: Marshall S. Huebner, Esq. Benjamin S. Kaminetzky, Esq. James I. McClammy, Esq. Eli J. Vonnegut, Esq. DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP New York, NY RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Cabonilas Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- LISA CABONILAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES OF RICHMOND, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00585 (E.D. Va., July 25, 2025) alleges that RAR failed to secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of over 834,000 people, including highly sensitive personal information. The PII includes full names, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers. The PHI at issue includes the PII together with personal medical information and personal health insurance information. On its computer network, RAR holds and stores certain highly Sensitive Information of the Plaintiff and the putative class members, who are patients of RAR. Accordingly, RAR voluntarily assumed and continues to assume a duty to comply with data privacy laws related to Class Members' Sensitive Information in at least two ways. First, RAR's own website tells patients that their protected information will only be used or disclosed "in compliance with the law and will be limited to the relevant requirements of the law." It also tells patients that they "will be notified, as required by law, of any such uses or disclosures." Such laws include, but are not limited to, certain statutes, such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, the Federal Trade Commission Act, and the Virginia Consumer Protection Act. Second, RAR claims that it "take[s] significant measures to protect information." Despite these assurances, at some time between April 2, 2024, and May 2, 2025, RAR determined that a breach had occurred between April 2, 2024, and April 6, 2024. Instead of immediately notifying Plaintiff and Class Members so that they could take immediate action to mitigate the risks associated with the potential and, later, verified disclosure of their information, RAR unreasonably delayed notifying them, the suit adds. RAR is a healthcare facility that provides imaging services including general diagnostic, musculoskeletal, interventional, neuro-interventional, vascular, breast imaging, neuroradiology, cardiothoracic, pediatric, and nuclear medicine.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth Tripodi, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 1101 Vermont Avenue, NW Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 524-4291 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: etripodi@zlk.com - and - Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq. Casey C. DeReus, Esq. BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C. 810 Seventh Avenue, Suite 620 New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 308-5858 Facsimile: (212) 486-0462 E-mail: fortunato@bespc.com dereus@bespc.com RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT: Court Junks Bid to Stay Venet Case ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NIK VENET, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT, INC., a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-03772-MWC-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michelle Williams Court entered an order denying the Parties' stipulation to stay case pending mediation and continue deadline to file motion for class certification and dates for trial for lack of good cause. Recreational is an American retail and outdoor recreation services corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SjdQCe at no extra charge.[CC] RICE DRILLING: Class Settlement in Gregor Suit Gets Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY GREGOR, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similar situated, v. RICE DRILLING D, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-03999-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers entered an order granting motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement: 1. The Court conditionally certifies the Settlement Class in this matter means: "All Persons or entities, including their affiliates, predecessors and successors-in-interest, and any other persons who are, or were, lessor parties to a Smith Goshen Lease and received royalty payments from the Defendants during the period from Jan. 1, 2018, through Dec. 31, 2024, according to the business records maintained by EQT Production Company." The Settlement Class excludes: (a) any person or entity who is currently asserting Settled Claims in any action other than Gregor against the Defendants; (b) any person or entity who receives royalty in kind pursuant to a Smith Goshen Lease; (c) any person or entity who has previously released EQT Production Co. and/or its affiliates from liability concerning or encompassing any or all Settled Claims; (d) the federal government; (e) the State of Ohio; (f) legally- recognized Indian Tribes; and (g) any person who serves as a judge in this civil action and his/her spouse. 2. The Plaintiffs Dorothy Bowman, Maple Ridge Farm LLC, and OK Ridge Farm LLC are designated and appointed as the Class Representatives. The Court finds that the following counsel is experienced and adequate counsel and is provisionally designated as Settlement Class Counsel: Matthew R. Wilson of Meyer Wilson Co., LPA; Sean E. Jacobs of Emens Wolper Jacobs & Jasin Law Firm Co., LPA; and Scott K. Jones of Scott K. Jones Law, LLC. 3. A Final Approval Hearing shall be held on Jan. 22, 2026, at 1:30 P.M. A copy of the Court's order dated July 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lSW5MA at no extra charge.[CC] RICHARD DAUVAL: Plaintiffs Seeks Judicial Class Notice ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as FLSA Plaintiffs, v. Richard Dauval, Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Trustee (Re: Florida Structural Group, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-00632-JES (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting the FLSA Plaintiffs request the Court take judicial notice in their FLSA Lawsuit and the Bankruptcy Case as necessary to determine or rule upon the FLSA Plaintiffs' pending motion for withdrawal of the automatic bankruptcy reference. The FLSA Plaintiffs are hourly wage security guards who brought a collective action lawsuit in this district seeking to collect unpaid FLSA and common law wages and earnings from their employers in a case styled: "Emmanuel Pimentel, et al., v. Florida Structural Group, Inc., et al., Case No.: 23-00544-JLB/KCD." After about two years of litigation, one of the Defendants, filed a voluntary Chapter 7 proceeding in this district in a bankruptcy case styled: In re: Florida Structural Group, Inc., Case No.: 2:25 bk-00684-FMD. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OqUmJX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony F. Sanchez, Esq. ANTHONY F. SANCHEZ, P.A. 6701 Sunset Drive, Suite 101 Miami, FL 33143 Telephone: (305) 665-9211 E-mail: afs@laborlawfla.com The Defendant is represented by: Robert F. Elgidely, Esq. FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP One Biscayne Tower 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2750 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 442-6543 Facsimile: (305) 442-6541 E-mail: relgidely@foxrothschild.com ROBERT LUNA: Class Cert Hearing in Stewart Suit Set for August 5 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kevin Stewart, et al., v. Robert Luna, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-04641-ODW-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis Wright II entered an order that on Aug. 5, 2025, the Court will hold a hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion to renew for class certification. On July 23, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a notice, stating that they intend to present evidence, including testimony, at the hearing. The Aug. 5, 2025, hearing is not an evidentiary hearing so the parties will not be permitted to present new evidence, including testimony, at the hearing. A copy of the Court's order dated July 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=k5OqFP at no extra charge.[CC] SALLY BEAUTY: Faces Edwards Class Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------------ AUDRA EDWARDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SALLY BEAUTY SUPPLY LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00797-JCB (E.D. Tex., July 25, 2025) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, beginning at least in 2023, the Defendant sent or caused to be sent multiple telemarketing text messages to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in 3600, from Defendant's short code telephone number 72559. On May 30, 2025, the Plaintiff to responded to Defendant's 72559 number with the messages "Stop" and "STOP", using standard opt out language, in an attempt to opt-out of any further text message communications with Defendant. Despite the Plaintiff's unequivocal opt-out request and Defendant confirmation of receipt of Plaintiff's opt out request, the Defendant ignored Plaintiff’s opt-out request and continued to bombard Plaintiff with more unwanted telemarketing text messages, beginning on June 2, 2025. The Defendant is a consumer retailer of beauty supply products, based out of Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com SHEVAUN HARRIS: Plaintiffs Allowed Leave to Amend Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHIANNE D.; C.D., by and through her mother and next friend, Chianne D.; A.V., by and through her mother and next friend, Jennifer V.; KIMBER TAYLOR; and K.H., by and through his mother and next friend, Kimber Taylor, v. SHEVAUN HARRIS, in her official capacity as Secretary for the FLORIDA AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, and TAYLOR HATCH, in her official capacity as Secretary for the FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Case No. 3:23-cv-00985-MMH-LLL (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Marcia Morales Howard entered an order as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for leave to amend the complaint is granted. 2. The Plaintiffs shall file the Second Amended Complaint as a separate docket entry no later than July 31, 2025. 3. Given the limited nature of the amendment, the Defendants shall file an answer to the Second Amended Complaint no later than Aug. 7, 2025. 4. The Class Certification Order is amended insofar as the Class and Subclass are certified only with respect to Count I of the forthcoming Second Amended Complaint. The Court also finds it appropriate to amend the Class Certification Order (Doc. 122) to limit the class claim to Count I only. The Court has carefully considered the interests of the absent Class Members and finds no prejudice to the Class by this amendment. Thus, to the extent the Plaintiffs' decision to drop the Medicaid Act claim by amendment is subject to Rule 23(e), the Court approves the decision and determines that notice to the Class of this change is unnecessary. A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rwSAIN at no extra charge.[CC] SHOE SHOW: Harris Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BENJAMIN HARRIS, et. al., v. SHOE SHOW, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00398-MOC-SCR (W.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying and approving notice to the following Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective: "All hourly-paid and overtime-eligible Store Managers ("SMs"), who worked over 40 hours in any workweek for the Defendant in the United States of America from Nov. 14, 2021 to the date of judgment of this action and who have performed off-the-clock work during overtime hours." Shoe is an American footwear retailer. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TazNIu at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Palitz, Esq. Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Marilyn Linares, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 477 Madison Avenue, 6th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (800) 616-4000 E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com mlinares@shavitzlaw.com - and - Jean S. Martin, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700 Tampa, FL 33601 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 E-mail: jeanmartin@forthepeople.com - and - Andrew Frisch, Esq. MORGAN AND MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Road, 4th Floor Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 318-0268 E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com SIG SAUER: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA GLASSCOCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SIG SAUER, INC. Case No. 6:22-cv-03095-MDH (W.D. Mo.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order extending the deadline for Sig Sauer to respond to Trace Media, Inc.'s motion to intervene for the limited purpose of moving to unseal exhibits from July 31, 2025 to Aug. 14, 2025. On July 17, 2025, Trace filed its Motion. Counsel for Sig Sauer and Trace have met and conferred twice regarding the Motion. Counsel for Trace agreed that Sig Sauer’s deadline to respond shall be extended by two weeks from July 31, 2025 to August 14, 2025. Sig is a manufacturer of firearms, electro-optics, ammo, airguns, suppressors, and training. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZFSe1V at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Colleen Carey Gulliver, Esq. Jason E. Kornmehl, Esq. Connor D. Rowinski, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 335-4500 E-mail: colleen.gulliver@us.dlapiper.com jason.kornmehl@us.dlapiper.com connor.rowinski@us.dlapiper.com - and - Cara Rose, Esq. FRANKE SCHULTZ & MULLEN, P.C. 1919 E. Battlefield, Suite B Springfield, MO 65804 Telephone: (417) 863-0040 E-mail: crose@fsmlawfirm.com - and - Robert L. Joyce, Esq. B. Keith Gibson, Esq. LITTLETON JOYCE UGHETTA & KELLY LLP 4 Manhattanville Road, Suite 202 Purchase, NY 10577 Telephone: (914) 417-3400 E-mail: robert.joyce@littletonjoyce.com keith.gibson@littletonjoyce.com SIMPLE TIRE: Faces Martines Suit Over Illegal Trackers ------------------------------------------------------ MURPHY MARTINES, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. SIMPLE TIRE LLC, a Pennsylvania limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-06703 (C.D. Cal., July 22, 2025) arises from the Defendant's violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the California Business and Professions Code. According to the complaint, when users visit Defendant's website, www.simpletire.com, the Defendant causes tracking technologies to be installed, executed, embedded, or injected in visitors' browsers. These include, but are not limited to, the following Google Ads/DoubleClick Tracker; Facebook PixelTracker; and Bing/Microsoft Ads Tracker. The third parties who operate the trackers use pieces of user information collected via the website for their own independent purposes tied to broader advertising ecosystems, profiling, and data monetization strategies that go beyond Defendant's direct needs for their own financial gain, says the suit. 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. By installing and using the Trackers without prior consent and without a court order, the Defendant violated the state laws, the suit alleges. Simple Tire LLC is an online tire retailer in the U.S. operating its main consumer platform through its website.[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 SIMPLETIRE LLC: Faces Pham Class Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages ----------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD PHAM, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. SIMPLETIRE LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-01887-AGS-AHG (S.D. Cal., July 25, 2025) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Between April 24, 2024, and April 9, 2025, the Defendant made telephone solicitations to Plaintiff's cellular telephone. Overall, the Defendant sent Plaintiff five marketing text messages before the hour of 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m., asserts the suit. The Plaintiff is the regular user of the telephone number that received the solicitations. The Plaintiff utilizes the cellular telephone number that received Defendant's telephone solicitations for personal purposes and the number is Plaintiff's residential telephone line and primary means of reaching Plaintiff at home, the suit adds. The Defendant operates an online tire retailer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com SIRIUS XM: Horoschak Bid for Conditional Collective Status Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID HOROSCHAK, et al., v. SIRIUS XM RADIO, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-08177-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jesse M. Furman entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of a collective action. The Plaintiffs fail to meet their "low" burden of making a "modest factual showing" that they and the members of their proposed collective "were victims of a common policy or plan that violated the law," the Court says. The Plaintiffs move for conditional certification of a collective action, with the collective defined in one instance as "all" Sirius XM "employees over 40 years of age whose employment separated (either because of layoff, discharge, or potential constructive discharge (i.e. resignation)) since Feb. 12, 2024," and in another as "employees over the age of 40 who have been terminated or otherwise separated from employment since 2022." The Plaintiffs David Horoschak, Michael Harris, and Mills Staylor -- all former employees of Defendant -- bring this action, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, alleging unlawful age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), and the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"). Sirius operates as a satellite radio broadcasting company. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion and order dated July 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5aSK3r at no extra charge.[CC] SKOPOS FINANCIAL: Bid to Extend Class Cert Filing Tossed -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXANDER PHILIPSON, v. SKOPOS FINANCIAL, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02105-WMR (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge William Ray II entered an order denying without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion for extension of LR 23.1 class certification deadline. The Plaintiff's motion for extension of time is premature. Where a Rule 12 motion to dismiss has been filed, a motion for class certification is not due until "within 30 days after all the defendants have filed an answer to the complaint." The Defendant has filed a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss in lieu of an answer, meaning a deadline for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification has not been set. Therefore, there is no need to grant an extension of time at this juncture. The Plaintiff may renew their motion, should it be necessary, after adjudication of the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff seeks to proceed on a class-wide basis for two claims that Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Skopos is a specialty auto finance company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4rERvO at no extra charge.[CC] TC HEARTLAND: Class Cert Hearing in Garcia 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 Hon. Judge Noel Wise entered 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 TC provides packaged food products. A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EeQ2XP 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 TODD SANFIELD: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Martinez Says --------------------------------------------------------------- JUDITH ADELA FERNANDEZ MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE TODD SANFIELD COLLECTION, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06031 (S.D.N.Y., July 22, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.toddsanfield.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on July 18, 2025, in an attempt to purchase a Swim Brief from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. She was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, says the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Todd Sanfield Collection, LLC operates the website that offers underwear and swimwear products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal TOMMY FORD: Tripp Bid for Class Certification Tossed ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTINA TRIPP, THOMAS McFATTER, et al., v. TOMMY FORD, SHERIFF OF BAY COUNTY, FLORIDA, Case No. 5:23-cv-00112-AW-MJF (N.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Allen Winsor entered an order denying the motion for class certification. The parties must confer and, within fourteen days, file a joint report setting out a proposed litigation schedule. If the parties disagree about an appropriate schedule, the report should set out each side's position. In sum, the Plaintiffs have not shown predominance, which means they have not met their burden to show entitlement to a Rule 23(b)(3) class. The Plaintiffs sued the Bay County Sheriff, alleging negligence and section 1983 claims. They allege they faced unsafe conditions after Hurricane Michael while detained in the Bay County Jail. A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eGSDsL at no extra charge.[CC] TOPEKA, KS: Plaintiff's Bid to Proceed w/o Fee Prepayment OK'd -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VAL G. MOORE, et al., v. CITY OF TOPEKA, KANSAS, et al., Case No. 6:25-cv-01150-DDC-BGS (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Brooks Severson entered an order that Plaintiff's motion to proceed without prepayment of fees is granted. The Plaintiff may commence this action without prepayment of fees. The Clerk shall not, however, prepare and issue summons at this time. The Court further entered an order that: -- the Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel is denied. -- the Plaintiff's motions to exceed page limits are denied as moot as set forth above. -- the Plaintiff's motion to stay is denied. The Plaintiffs filed this action pro se. Based on the financial information provided in the Plaintiff Val Moore's affidavit of financial status, the Court finds that Plaintiff Val Moore has shown an inability to pay the filing fee and a belief of entitlement to relief. Thus, the Court grants Plaintiff's motion to proceed without prepayment of fees. Topeka is the capital city of the U.S. state of Kansas and the county seat of Shawnee County. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated July 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=m3mj1d at no extra charge.[CC] TOURO COLLEGE: Yodice Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Yodice v. Touro College and University System, Case No. 1:21-cv-02026-DLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting requests to extend the deadlines for the Plaintiff's filing of Class Certification and the disclosure of experts from July 25, 2025, until Sept. 5, 2025 (a period of six weeks). Specifically, the parties are in the process of scheduling Plaintiff’s deposition and Defendant has advised Plaintiff that it intends on supplementing its discovery responses in short order. As such, both sides agree that additional time is necessary to comply with certain deadlines, and suggest a corresponding six-week extension of the following deadlines: New Proposed Deadline Motion to Certify Class: Sept. 5, 2025 Opposition to Motion to Certify Class: Oct. 3, 2025 Reply in Support of Motion to Certify Oct. 17, 2025 Class: Motion for Summary Judgment: Nov. 21, 2025 Opposition to Motion for Summary Dec. 12, 2025 Judgment: Reply in further support of motion Dec. 30, 2025 for summary judgment Counsel for the parties have conferred and agree on these deadlines. This is the parties’ first request for an extension. Accordingly, the parties request that the foregoing deadlines be extended by six (6) weeks. A proposed revised scheduling order with all impacted deadlines is attached. On July 22, 2025, the parties attended the Settlement Conference with Chief Magistrate Judge Netburn, as planned. Unfortunately, this effort did not result in a resolution of the matter. Touro was established in 1970 to focus on higher education for the Jewish community. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kPx4pM at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul Doolittle, Esq. ANASTAPOULO LAW FIRM, LLC 32 Ann St, Charleston, SC 29403 TOYOTA OF BOARDMAN: Class Cert Filing in Shafer Due March 1, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICK SHAFER, v. TOYOTA OF BOARDMAN, Case No. 4:25-cv-00941-BMB (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Bridget Meehan Brennan entered a case management order: The Case Management Conference (CMC) in this matter was held on July 23, 2025. Attorney Christopher Berman participated on behalf of Plaintiff. Attorney Matthew Ries participated on behalf of Defendant. The parties and counsel of record agreed to the following, and IT IS SO ORDERED that: 1. The parties do not consent to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636(c). 2. The pleadings shall be amended and new parties shall be joined on or before Nov. 18, 2025. 3. The parties agreed to the form protective order set forth in Appendix L to the Local Rules and will submit the proposed order to the Court no later than July 25, 2025. 4. Non-expert discovery shall be completed by May 16, 2026. 5. The deadline for a motion for class certification is March 1, 2026. 6. The dispositive motion deadline is July 17, 2026. 7. A telephonic status conference with lead counsel is set for Dec. 17, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. Toyota offers new Toyota cars in Boardman, along with used cars, trucks and SUVs. A copy of the Court's order dated July 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lIFuB7 at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Bid to Extend Class Cert. Briefing Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LD, et al., v. United Behavioral Health, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-02254 (N.D. Cal., Filed April 02, 2020), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order as follows: The request extending compliance until Aug 14, 2025, is granted. The request to extend briefing on the renewed class certification is denied. The schedule has been in place for a significant period and the Court has reserved resources to address the issue promptly before they expire. Briefing shall be completed by Sept. 1, 2025. The parties may propose a different schedule. The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (E.R.I.S.A.). United provides 24-hour, 7-day access to county mental health services and county alcohol and drug services.[CC] WGM PAINTING: Caseres Seeks Unpaid Regular Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- Florencia A. Caseres, and other similarly situated individuals v. WGM Painting, Inc, and Wayne G. Mello, Individually, Case No. 1:25-cv-00214-MW-MJF (N.D. Fla., July 25, 2025) seeks to recover monetary damages for unpaid regular wages and retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff asserts she worked for the Defendants during one or more weeks on or after August 2024, without being adequately compensated. WGM is a general contractor specializing in painting.[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 WUNDERKIND CORP: Systematically Tracks Web Visitors, Balogun Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- TOSIN BALOGUN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. WUNDERKIND CORPORATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-06113 (S.D.N.Y., July 25, 2025) alleges that Wunderkind operates a sprawling surveillance enterprise, tracking individuals across the internet and linking their behaviors, devices, and identities into enduring profiles. According to the complaint, the tracking occurs without consent; users do not opt in. And in most cases, it happens silently; users do not even know they are being tracked. The mechanism of this surveillance is Wunderkind's proprietary code, deployed across "thousands" of consumer-facing websites operated by its business clients. As users browse, Wunderkind captures behavioral signals like mouse movements, page views, scroll patterns, and purchase activity, combining them with identifiers such as email addresses and phone numbers, the suit adds. The Plaintiff contends that the the core of this system is the "PrivacyID" data point. PrivacyID is a unique identifier assigned to each individual based on signals like IP address, browser version, and device type. Unlike cookies, the PrivacyID does not expire or reset when the user switches devices or clears their browser. It is engineered to persist as the collection point for a given user's data from across the internet. The Plaintiff seeks monetary and injunctive relief on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated against Defendant for violating common law prohibitions on unjust enrichment and intrusion upon seclusion, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the New York General Business Law, the California Constitution; and the California Invasion of Privacy Act. Plaintiff Tosin Balogun is a resident of California. She uses the internet in the regular course of life and has held accounts with, and has in the past year, visited the websites of numerous Wunderkind Clients, including but not limited to Macy's, Fashion Nova, Vogue, Shutterfly, Hertz, Tarte, HelloFresh, Belk, and Vista Print. Wunderkind operates as a software company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Janove, Esq. JANOVE PLLC 500 7th Ave., 8th Floor New York, NY 10018 Telephone (646) 347-3940 E-mail: raphael@janove.law Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Inc. Has $665MM Total Liabilities at June 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dow Inc., has recorded $665 million and $713 million in total asbestos-related liabilities - noncurrent at June 30, 2025 and December 31, 2025, respectively, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kdwEX5 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mass. Family Wins $42.6M in Lawsuit Against J&J ---------------------------------------------------------------- Phil Tenser writing for msn.com, reports that Johnson & Johnson is promising to "immediately appeal" a Boston jury's $42.6 million award to a family that sued the company over claims that baby powder caused a Massachusetts man's mesothelioma. The judgment in favor of Paul and Kathryn Lovell of Melrose is believed to be the largest mesothelioma verdict in Massachusetts history, according to the couple's legal team. Erik Haas, worldwide vice president of litigation for Johnson & Johnson, said he expects the ruling to be reversed on appeal. “This decision is predicated on 'junk science' that is refuted by decades of studies demonstrating Johnson's Baby Powder is safe, does not contain asbestos and does not cause cancer," Haas wrote in a statement. "The plaintiff lawyers' business model is to roll the dice in search of jackpot verdicts, fueled by litigation-funded junk science, without regard to the fact that most claimants recover nothing in the tort system." Haas also said the company is pursuing its own lawsuit against the expert cited in the case. In 2024, Massachusetts received a $14.5 million share of a $700 million settlement with J&J to resolve allegations related to the marketing of Johnson & Johnson's talc-containing baby powder and body powder products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Tech. Faces Over 700 Exposure Cases ------------------------------------------------------------- Minerals Technologies Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries are among numerous defendants in over seven hundred cases seeking damages for alleged exposure to asbestos-contaminated talc products sold by its subsidiary Oldco, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company's position is that these cases are meritless and all talc products sold by Oldco are safe. On October 2, 2023 (the "Petition Date"), notwithstanding the Company's confidence in the safety of Oldco's talc products, Oldco and Barretts Ventures Texas LLC ("BVT" and together with Oldco, the "Chapter 11 Debtors") filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas (the "Chapter 11 Cases") to address and comprehensively resolve Oldco's liabilities associated with talc. Minerals Technologies Inc. and the Company's other subsidiaries were not included in the Chapter 11 filing. In the first quarter of 2025, the Company recorded a provision to establish a reserve of $215 million for estimated costs to fund a trust to resolve all current and future talc-related claims as well as fund the Chapter 11 Cases and related litigation costs (including the aforementioned $30 million increase to the maximum principal amount of the DIP Credit Agreement). The parties have not yet reached a final resolution of all matters in the Chapter 11 Cases, and the Company is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss beyond the amount accrued. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GVrY3X ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has 5,434 Pending Claims at June 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Union Carbide Corporation has reported 5,434 claims pending individual claimants at June 30, 2025, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Union Carbide states, "Each quarter, the Corporation reviews asbestos-related claims filed, settled and dismissed, as well as average settlement and resolution costs by disease category. The Corporation also considers additional quantitative and qualitative factors such as the nature of pending claims, trial experience of the Corporation and other asbestos defendants, current spending for defense and processing costs, significant appellate rulings and legislative developments, trends in the tort system, and their respective effects on expected future resolution costs. UCC management considers these factors in conjunction with the most recent actuarial study and determines whether a change in the estimate is warranted. Based on the Corporation's review of 2025 activity, it was determined that no adjustment to the accrual was required at June 30, 2025. "The Corporation's total asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims and defense and processing costs was $745 million at June 30, 2025 ($791 million at December 31, 2024). At June 30, 2025, approximately 26 percent of the recorded claim liability related to pending claims and approximately 74 percent related to future claims. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=deDKdY ********* 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 ***