250811.mbx

250811.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, August 11, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 159 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Ploppert Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Weixeldorfer Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Wilcox Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Yeaman Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals AAA LIFE: Overcharges Life Insurance, Amador Suit Alleges ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Court Grants Partial Sealing of Documents ABLE C&C: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hampton Says AHOLD DELHAIZE: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Sease Says ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Court Tosses Aaland Suit Without Prejudice ALLIANZ LIFE: Fails to Secure Customers' Personal Data, Taylor Says ALLY FINANCIAL: Sheridan Suit Over Pay-to-Pay Fees Goes to Trial ANNE ARUNDEL DERMATOLOGY: Mattigan Files Suit in D. Maryland ANNE ARUNDEL: Faces Erickson Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ANNE ARUNDEL: Faces Gale Suit Over Privacy Law Violations ARUNS INDIAN KITCHEN: Fernandez Sues Over Disability Discrimination BAKER HUGHES: Continues to Defend Reckstin Family Trust Class Suit BE ROOTED: Faces Richards Suit Over TCPA Breach BEGGARS PIZZA: Hampton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BONDI: Faces Sanganza Suit Over Unfair Prisoners' Condition BUGABOO NORTH: Faces Sturtz Fraud Class Action Suit in S.D.N.Y. CHARLES SCHWAB: Corrente Seeks $8.25MM Atty's Fees CHOBANI LLC: To Appeal Court Ruling on Yogurt Ingredients Suit CHRISTINE WORMUTH: Case Management Conference Set for Oct. 9 CLARIS VISION: Faces Jandron Suit Over Private Data Breach COMPASS INC: Cribier Suit Transferred to S.D. California CORELLE BRANDS: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website COSTAR GROUP: Continues to Defend Burdi-Dumas Class Suit CRE ONLINE: Gianne Sues Over Deceptive Protein Claims DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Court Denies Hopkins' Motion to Intervene DOTHOUSE HEALTH: Keough Sues Over Unprotected Private Information DOTHOUSE HEALTH: Reyes & Parilla Sue Over Unprotected Private Data EAGLE COUNTY, CO: Lewis Sues Over Worker Misclassification EB5 GLOBAL: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Class Action EDGEWOOD CENTER: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Malsack Alleges EURO SUBSTRATED: Standing Order Entered in FloraFlex Class Suit FASHION NOVA: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts, Johnston Says FCA US: Goldsmith Appeals Suit Dismissal Order to 9th Circuit FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE: Thomason Files Suit in N.D. Georgia FINASTRA TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Murray Says FISERV INC: Mislead Investors, City of Hollywood Suit Police Says FLORIDA POWER: Continues to Defend Federal Securities Class Suit FOX TELEVISION: Milanes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. FRITZ'S MARKETING: Property Has Architectural Barriers, White Says GEICO GENERAL: Parties Must Confer Class Certification Deadlines GENERAL DYNAMICS: Continues to Defend Sherman Act-Related Suit GREAT AMERICAN: Faces Mills Class Suit Over Labor Law Breaches HERSHEY COMPANY: Vaughn Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages HOLLAND MANUFACTURING: Underpays Workers, Guerrero Says INDEBTED USA: Faces Garnett Suit Over Illegal Debt Collection INGRAM MICRO HOLDING: Rodden Files Suit in C.D. California INTEGRATED ONCOLOGY: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Hotter Says INTEGRATED ONCOLOGY: Spears Sues Over Unprotected Health Info IOVANCE BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Farberov Seeks Consolidation of Suit JAGUAR LAND: Faces Zats Suit Over Defective Vehicle Braking System JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Continues to Defend ERISA Class Suit in N.J. JOHNSON CONTROLS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Kaprelian Says JOHNSON CONTROLS: Flower Sues Over Data Security Failures JP MORGAN: Coulter Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Bid JP ORLANDO: Initial Case Order Entered in Johnson Class Suit KASKAID HOSPITALITY: Hall Sues Over Wage and Hour Violations KROGER CO: Must Face Leyman Suit over Deceptive Fruit Juice Label L COZY: Montero Seeks Conditional Collective Certification LANSING COMMUNITY: Court Nixes Bid to Appeal Settlement Order LG ELECTRONICS: Valdez Sues Over Illegal Biometric Data Collection LOCKHEED MARTIN: Faces Khan Class Suit Over Share Price Drop MCCORMICK & CO: Urges Court to Adopt Dismissal Recommendation MI BUENOS AIRES: Fernandez Sues Over Disability Discrimination MIDWESTERN COMPANIES: Faces White Suit Over Property Barriers MONROE CAPITAL: Faces Keller Over Robocalling Schemes & Web Ads MONSANTO COMPANY: Faces Martin Class Suit Over Defective Roundup MR. COPPER: Continues to Defend Cabezas Class Suit in Texas MURTAGH'S LANDSCAPE: Marcellus Seeks to Recover OT Under FLSA NARWAL ROBOTICS: Lopez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website NATIONAL AUTO: Violates Labor Laws, Molina Suit Claims NDN FM1960: Commercial Property Inaccessible to Disabled, Suit Says NEW ASIA: Li Appeals Wage-and-Hour Suit Order to 8th Circuit NINTENDO OF AMERICA: J.A. Files Bid to Compel Production of Docs NORDSTROM INC: Pinckney Sues Over Unlawful Tobacco Surcharges NURSEFINDERS LLC: Gooch Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. NYRSTAR US: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Francis Says OCUCO INC: Fails to Protect Private Info, Monsoor and Porras Say OMID AGHAZADEH: Court Finds No TCPA Solicitation in Texts R.D.G. ENTERPRISES: Gonzalez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Prasad Says RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT: Venet Wage Suit to Remain in Federal Court RESERVEBAR HOLDINGS: Aguirre Files TCPA Suit in C.D. Calif. REWARDSTYLE INC: Lopez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ROASTING SOLUTIONS: Evans Sues Over Blind Inaccessible Website RXSIGHT INC: Makaveev Sues Over Misleading Business Statements SABLE OFFSHORE: Faces Johnson Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop SAN DIEGO, CA: Eulitt Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action SAXX UNDERWEAR: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Martinez Says SD BULLION: Vickery Files False Ad Suit Over Precious Metal Coins SIRIUS XM: Court Narrows Claims in Balmores Suit SJS GROUP LLC: Cruz Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida SKIN APEEL: Fernandez Sues Over Disability Discrimination SMART ERP: Wright Bid to Appoint Interim Class Counsel Tossed SMOKE HOUSE: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Mellenthin Says STATE FARM: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Pitkin Suit to 9th Circuit SYNGENTA CROP: Paraquat Products Allegedly Unsafe, Roy Alleges TALLAHASSEE MEMORIAL: Bell Transferred to W.D. Missouri TAYLOR MORRISON: Mundel Class Suit Trial to Begin in 2026 TEA DATING: Faces Reyes Suit Over Compromised Personal Info TOUCHETTE REGIONAL: Tate Sues Over Disability-Based Discrimination TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Braun Files FDCA Suit in S.D.N.Y. TRI CITY FOODS: Aigner Sues Over Discriminative Property TSG PERSIMMON: Baldwin Sues Over Physical Barriers ULTA SALON: Bonezzi Wage Lawsuit to Remain in Federal Court UNITED STATES: Appeals Injunctive Relief Order in Du Class Suit UNITED STATES: Appeals Revised Adjudication Plan Order to D.D.C. UNITED STATES: Brutus Files Prisoner's Civil Rights Suit in D.D.C. US HEALTHWORKS: Settlement Class Gets Provisional Certification VILLAGES AT NOAH'S: Murphy Gets More Time to File Class Cert Bid VISION SERVICE: Hann Must File Consolidated Complaint by August 28 VISION SERVICE: Tash Must File Consolidated Complaint by August 28 WAYFAIR LLC: Rodriguez Consumer Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. WESTROCK SERVICES: Acu Suit Removed to C.D. California WILSHIRE LAW: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Ryan Due April 24, 2026 WIZARDS OF THE COAST: Martinez Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website ********* 3M COMPANY: Ploppert Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ---------------------------------------------------------- Jamie Ploppert, 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-06249-RMG (D.S.C., June 26, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use and was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Phone: 540-672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com 3M COMPANY: Weixeldorfer Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals -------------------------------------------------------------- Edward Weixeldorfer, 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-06251-RMG (D.S.C., June 26, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or the Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use and was diagnosed with thyroid cancer 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: Wilcox Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams ------------------------------------------------------------ Earl Wilcox, 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-06291-RMG (D.S.C., June 26, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with thyroid cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products and/or PFAS chemicals. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 3M COMPANY: Yeaman Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals -------------------------------------------------------- Shani Yeaman, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba, Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successorin interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; and WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-06214-RMG (D.S.C., June 26, 2025), is brought for damages stemming from personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during their firefighting career and diagnosed with Thyroid Disease as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Y. Shenkar, Esq. MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS, LLP 101 West Elm St., Suite 520 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: (803) 315-3357 Fax: (610) 941-9880 Email: jshenkar@bernllp.com AAA LIFE: Overcharges Life Insurance, Amador Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- JUAN AMADOR; ELMA AMADOR, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AAA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 25STCV19983 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of the California's Unfair Competition Act. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful conduct in overcharging for universal life insurance, and underpaying interest credits. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to factor in improving mortality, resulting in inflated cost of insurance charges for the policies at issue. Furthermore, the Defendant has failed to credit the Plaintiffs' and Class members' interest at a rate consistent with expectations of future interest earnings, suit says. The Plaintiffs bring this action for compensatory and other damages, restitutionary disgorgement, and injunctive relief. AAA Life Insurance Company is an insurance firm based in Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua H. Haffner, Esq. Trevor Weinberg, Esq. John N. Sipp, Esq. HAFFNER LAW PC 15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1520 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (213) 514-5681 Facsimile: (213) 514-5682 Email: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com tw@haffnerlwyers.com js@haffnerlawyers.com ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Court Grants Partial Sealing of Documents -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Condalisa LeGrand, Plaintiff, v. Abbott Laboratories, Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-05815-TSH (N.D. Cal.), Judge Thomas S. Hixson of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part multiple administrative motions to file documents under seal in this putative class action. The Court applied the "compelling reasons" standard when "considering motions to seal, recognizing that a strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point. The Court noted that "parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to motions that are more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure." On January 23, 2025, the Plaintiff "filed an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be Sealed, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5, in connection with her Motion for Class Certification." The Plaintiff moved to file 16 documents under seal on the basis that they were designated as Confidential or Highly Confidential by Abbott. Abbott responded on January 30, 2025, requesting sealing of 13 documents Monroe Declaration, Exhibit 2, Monroe Declaration, Exhibit 7, Monroe Declaration, Exhibit 8, Monroe Declaration, Exhibit 9, Monroe Declaration, Exhibit 10, Monroe Declaration, Exhibit 11, Monroe Declaration, Exhibit 19, Monroe Declaration, Exhibit 20, Monroe Declaration, Exhibit 21, Monroe Declaration, Exhibit 26, Greger Declaration, and Weir Declaration. Abbott argued that sealing is required because public disclosure of Abbott's highly confidential and trade secret information would cause Abbott competitive harm. The documents contained information that reveal Abbott's business strategy related to the marketing and pricing of its Ensure products, Abbott's internal marketing research and analysis, and confidential financial data. The Court found compelling reasons to redact the portions requested by Abbott in most documents as they relate to confidential business documents. However, the Court agreed with LeGrand that compelling reasons do not exist to redact Monroe Declaration, Exhibit 7, at pages 4, 6, 14, because it contains general information and publicly available advertising information. Accordingly, the Court granted LeGrand's first Administrative Motion to seal the Motion for Class Certification, However, the Court denied LeGrand's first Administrative Motion to seal Monroe Declaration, Exhibit 23, Monroe Declaration, Exhibit 24, Monroe Declaration, Exhibit 25, Monroe Declaration, Exhibit 27, Monroe Declaration, Exhibit 29, and Monroe Declaration, Exhibit 31" because Abbott stated that it does not seek sealing of six documents. LeGrand's Second Administrative Motion On June 23, 2025, the Plaintiff filed an "Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be Sealed" in connection with her Reply in Support of her Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiff sought sealing of portions of one document on the basis that it was designated as Confidential by another party. According to the Court, under Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3), "Abbott had seven days to file a statement or declaration justifying the sealing. Abbott did not do so." Therefore, the Court denied LeGrand's second Administrative Motion to seal and directed the Plaintiff to file the item at issue in the public record no sooner than three days and no later than seven days from the date of this order. Abbott's Administrative Motions The Defendant filed three separate administrative motions to seal documents. For the first motion, filed April 24, 2025, Abbott sought to seal documents designated as "Confidential" by the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff failed to file the required statement justifying the sealing within seven days as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3). Consequently, the Court denied Abbott's first Administrative Motion. For the second motion, also filed April 24, 2025, Abbott moved to seal its own confidential business documents. The Court found compelling reasons to redact the requested portions as they relate to confidential business documents and granted Abbott's second Administrative Motion to seal the specified exhibits. Abbott's third motion, filed June 20, 2025, sought sealing of documents in connection with its Reply in Support of its Motion to Exclude. Like the first motion, the Plaintiff failed to provide the required justification, so the Court denied Abbott's third Administrative Motion. Throughout the order, the Court emphasized that supporting declarations may not rely on vague boilerplate language or nebulous assertions of potential harm but must explain with particularity why any document or portion thereof remains sealable under the applicable legal standard." The Court noted that reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qTwgHr ABLE C&C: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hampton Says --------------------------------------------------------- PHYLLIS HAMPTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Able C&C US, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08418 (N.D. Ill., July 23, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff. According to the complaint, the Defendant's website contains significant access barriers that make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to complete a transaction on the website. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Based in Englewood, NJ, Able C&C US, Inc. owns and operates the website, Misshaus.com, which offers skincare and makeup products for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 (630) 478-0856 E-mail: achan@ealg.law AHOLD DELHAIZE: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Sease Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dione Sease, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Ahold Delhaize USA Services, LLC, and The GIANT Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-00586-TDS-LPA (M.D.N.C., July 10, 2025) arises out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendants (the Data Breach), which held in their possession certain personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and Class Members. The Defendants owe Plaintiff and Class Members 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, asserts the suit. On Nov. 6, 2024, Ahold became aware of a cybersecurity incident involving unauthorized access to some of its internal U.S. business systems. Ahold then "launched an investigation with the assistance of leading cybersecurity experts, coordinated with U.S. federal law enforcement and began taking steps to contain the issue." The investigation identified that an unauthorized third party obtained certain files from one of our internal U.S. file repositories between November 5, and November 6, 2024. Ahold is a food retail groups which provides support services to various Ahold grocery brands, including Food Lion, Giant Food, The Giant Company, Hannaford, and Stop & Shop. Ahold is headquartered in Salisbury, North Carolina. GIANT is a regional supermarket chain headquartered in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. GIANT is a subsidiary of Defendant Ahold.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jean S. Martin, Esq. Francesca K. Burne, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 559-4908 Facsimile: (813) 223-5402 E-mail: jeanmartin@forthepeople.com fburne@forthepeople.com - 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 ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Court Tosses Aaland Suit Without Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Michelle L. Peterson of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted in part and denied in part Albertsons Companies Inc. and Safeway Inc.'s motion to dismiss the case captioned as MICHAEL AALAND, Plaintiff, v. ALBERTSONS COMPANIES INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 25-cv-00637-MLP (W.D. Wash.). The dismissal of Mr. Aaland's complaint is without prejudice. This matter is before the Court on Albertsons and Safeway's motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, to strike Mr. Aaland's class allegations. Mr. Aaland alleges that on Dec. 21, 2024, he received an unsolicited commercial text message from Albertsons advertising promotional sales from Safeway. He then filed this putative class action in King County Superior Court on behalf of himself and similarly situated persons, asserting that Defendants' transmission of this commercial text message violates Washington's Commercial Electronic Mail Act, RCW 19.190.010, and, accordingly, Washington's Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86.010. On April 9, 2025, Defendants removed the case to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, invoking diversity jurisdiction. Defendants argue that Mr. Aaland's Complaint lacks sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory and move to dismiss with prejudice. In response, Mr. Aaland contends that he initially filed this action in King County Superior Court, citing Washington's liberal "notice pleading" standards, which require only a short, plain statement of his claim: that he received an unsolicited text message advertising promotional sales for which he never consented. Mr. Aaland requests leave to amend his complaint to conform to federal pleading standards. The Court finds in this case, Mr. Aaland's Complaint does not meet federal pleading standards. He alleges that Defendants sent him a commercial text promoting a sale, but fails to include any supporting facts. The Court therefore dismisses the Complaint. This dismissal is without prejudice, however, as Mr. Aaland originally filed in state court, where different rules and pleading standards apply. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yipQVs from PacerMonitor.com. ALLIANZ LIFE: Fails to Secure Customers' Personal Data, Taylor Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- Simeon Taylor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-03020-ECT-DTS (D. Minn., July 28, 2025) seeks to hold Defendant accountable for its inadequate security of Plaintiff and Class members' personal information that was stolen as a result of the data breach. Starting around July 16, 2025, hackers successfully exploited a vulnerability in a CRM system that Defendant used to store data of customers, financial professionals, and employees. This breach exposed over one million individuals' personal information, including financial and medical data. As a result of Defendant's inadequate security and breach of its duties and obligations, the Data Breach occurred and Plaintiff's and Class Members' Personal Information was accessed by, and disclosed to, unauthorized third-party actors, says the suit. The Defendant allegedly breached its duties and obligations by failing, in one or more of these ways: (1) failing to design, implement monitor, and maintain reasonable network safeguards against foreseeable threats; (2) failing to design, implement, and maintain reasonable data retention policies; (3); failing to adequately train employees on data security; (4) failing to comply with industry-standard data security practices; (5) failing to warn Plaintiff and Class Members of Defendant's inadequate security practices; (6) failing to encrypt or adequately encrypt the Private Information; (7) failing to recognize or detect that its network had been compromised and accessed in a timely manner to mitigate the harm; (8) failing to utilize widely available software able to detect and prevent this type of attach, and (9) otherwise failing to secure the hardware using reasonable and effective data security procedures free of foreseeable vulnerabilities and data security incidents. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America is a provider of annuities and life insurance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Shashi K. Gowda, Esq. Frances Mahoney-Mosedale, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 120 South Sixth Street #2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com sgowda@gustafsongluek.com fmahoneymosedale@gustafsongluek.com - and - Jon Tostrud, Esq. Anthony Carter, Esq. TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, PC 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 278-2600 E-mail: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com acarter@tostrudlaw.com ALLY FINANCIAL: Sheridan Suit Over Pay-to-Pay Fees Goes to Trial ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chief Judge Frank W. Volk of the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia granted in part Ally Financial, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment in the case captioned as MICHAEL C. SHERIDAN, on behalf of Himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ALLY FINANCIAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-00616 (S.D. W.Va.). Mr. Sheridan's motion for partial summary Judgment is denied. Mr. Sheridan, Plaintiff and class representative, executed a Retail Installment Sale Contract in October 2022 to purchase a used 2015 Ford Expedition from Greenbrier Ford, Inc. Ally, Defendant and lender, purchased Mr. Sheridan's RISC from the Dealer, thereby binding itself to the interests and obligations contained therein. Ally provides its customers with various ways to make payments on their loans, including third-party payment processor vendors. Ally's TPPPs collect payments online or by telephone. Specifically, Ally uses ACI Pay as its TPPP for telephone payment transactions and CheckFreePay as its TPPP for internet payment transactions. The RISC's contract terms contain no provisions entitling Ally or its TPPPs to assess service fees for any related transactions, be they scheduled, electronic, online, or telephone payments. In addition, there is no controlling statute authorizing Ally to collect these Pay-to-Pay fees, either directly or indirectly, from its borrowers. Nonetheless, Mr. Sheridan -- and 15,021 West Virginians -- paid service fees when making requisite monthly payments to Ally via internet and telephone. On Sept. 18, 2023, Mr. Sheridan instituted this action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. The Second Amended Class Action Complaint alleges Ally is an industry-leading automobile lender, who regularly passes its collection costs for monthly loan payments to borrowers when they make their payments by telephone or online. Mr. Sheridan points to an express prohibition against service fees of this nature contained in the West Virginia Consumer Credit Protection Act. Plaintiffs contend Ally's practice of assessing these Pay-to-Pay fees absent statutory or contractual permission constitutes an unfair or unconscionable means of debt collection under West Virginia debt collection law. As a result, Mr. Sheridan asserts a non-exhaustive list of various, repeated violations under Article 2 of the WVCCPA as follows: 1. Using unfair or unconscionable means to collect a debt from Plaintiff in violation of West Virginia Code Sec. 46A-2-128; 2. Collecting or attempting to collect collection fees or charges, in violation of West Virginia Code Sec. 46A-2-128(c); 3. Collecting or attempting to collect fees, which are neither expressly authorized by any agreement creating or modifying the obligation or by statute or regulation, in violation of West Virginia Code Sec. 46A-2-128(d); 4. Representing that an existing obligation of the consumer may be increased by the addition of attorney's fees, investigation fees, service fees or any other fees or charges when in fact such fees or charges may not legally be added to the existing obligation in violation of West Virginia Code Sec. 46A-2-127(g); 5. Falsely representing or implying the character, extent, or amount of a claim against a consumer in violation of West Virginia Code Sec. 46A-2-127(d); and 6. Threatening to take any action prohibited by Chapter 46A of the West Virginia Code or other law regulating the debt collector's conduct in violation of West Virginia Code Sec. 46A-2-124(f). Ally seeks summary judgment and Mr. Sheridan seeks partial summary judgment. It maintains the TPPPs are not engaged in debt collection and the WVCCPA does not apply to mere payment processing fees. Additionally, Ally contends there is no agency relationship between Ally and the TPPPs, and it receives no portion of the payment processing fees. Finally, Ally contends Mr. Sheridan's Section 46A-2-124(f) and 46A-2-127 claims must fail inasmuch there is no evidence supporting the essential elements required to sustain them. Conversely, Mr. Sheridan contends he is a "natural consumer" obligated to pay a debt, that Ally -- through its TPPPs -- is a debt collector engaged in debt collection, and an agency relationship exists between Ally and its TPPPs. Mr. Sheridan further contends Ally's representations were false and misleading in violation of Section 46A-2-127 inasmuch as it had no legal right to assess the fees against consumers. The pending cross-motions renew the following fundamental questions raised during the motion to dismiss stage: (1) whether Ally and the TPPPs are engaged in debt collection, (2) whether there is an agency relationship between Ally and the TPPPs, and (3) whether Ally made fraudulent, deceptive, or misleading representations. According to the Court, there remains a clear, genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the TPPPs are engaged in debt collection and whether an agency relationship exists between Ally and the TPPPs. The cross-motions are denied as to the Section 46A-2-128 claims. Mr. Sheridan maintains that Ally's representations to consumers regarding the ways they can pay their loans are false and misleading inasmuch as it has no legal right to assess payment processing fees assessed when utilizing the TPPPs. Such a claim, Mr. Sheridan admits, hinges upon the illegality of the processing fees as alleged under Section 46A-2-128. Accordingly, summary judgment is inappropriate, and the cross-motions are denied as to the Section 46A-2-127 claims, the Court finds. A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated July 22, 2025, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FakQRn from PacerMonitor.com. ANNE ARUNDEL DERMATOLOGY: Mattigan Files Suit in D. Maryland ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Anne Arundel Dermatology, P.A. The case is styled as Paul Mattigan, Heidi Shell, Jacqueline Ramsey, on behalf of themselves and a class of all others similarly situated v. Anne Arundel Dermatology, P.A., Case No. 1:25-cv-02476 (D. Md., July 28, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Anne Arundel Dermatology -- https://aadermatology.com/ -- is committed to providing exceptional dermatologic care throughout the Mid-Atlantic and Southeastern regions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1200 17th Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (516) 477-8339 Fax: (202) 540-7201 Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com - and - Steven M. Nathan, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (646) 357-1100 Fax: (212) 202-4322 Email: snathan@hausfeld.com ANNE ARUNDEL: Faces Erickson Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- BATHSHEBA ERICKSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANNE ARUNDEL DERMATOLOGY, P.A., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02396-GLR (D. Md., July 23, 2025) arises out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant which held in its possession certain private information of Plaintiff and Class members. On May 13, 2025, the Defendant "identified an intrusion on certain of its systems by an unauthorized third party" between February 14, 2025, and May 13, 2025. On May 20, 2025, Defendant learned "that some of the files contained certain personal or health information when the unauthorized third party had access to them. The Defendant notified affected individuals of the breach on or around July 16, 2025 that cybercriminals gained unauthorized access to highly sensitive private information, including date of birth, patient ID, medical record number, health history, financial information, insurance information, and appointment history. Accordingly, Plaintiff now alleges claims of (1)negligence, (2) negligence per se, (3) breach of implied contract; and (4) unjust enrichment. Plaintiff also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. Anne Arundel Dermatology, P.A. owns and operates dermatology clinics in the Mid-Atlantic and Southeastern US. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew B. Kaplan, Esq. 1100 N Glebe Road, Ste 1010 Arlington, VA 22201 Telephone: (703) 665-9529 E-mail: Mbkaplan@thekaplanlawfirm.com - 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 ANNE ARUNDEL: Faces Gale Suit Over Privacy Law Violations --------------------------------------------------------- PAUL GALE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANNE ARUNDEL DERMATOLOGY, P.A., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02406 (D. Md., July 23, 2025), seeks to hold Defendant responsible for its reckless failure to use statutorily required or reasonable industry cybersecurity measures to protect Class members' personal information. On or around May 13, 2025, Anne Arundel Dermatology recently became aware of suspicious activity on its computer systems, indicating a data breach. Based on a subsequent forensic investigation, Anne Arundel Dermatology determined that cybercriminals infiltrated its inadequately secured computer network in which cybercriminals involved a wide variety of personally identifiable information and protected health information, including names, dates of birth, addresses, medical treatment information, health insurance information, and other personal information. As a result of the data breach, the Plaintiff and Class members have already suffered damages. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of the Class and seeks actual damages and restitution. Plaintiff also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, including significant improvements to Defendant’s data security systems and protocols, future annual audits, Defendant-funded long-term credit monitoring services, and other remedies as the Court sees necessary and proper. Based in Anne Linthicum, MD, Anne Arundel Dermatology provides dermatological services in various locations across the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sonjay Singh, Esq. Tyler Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Ave. Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: ssingh@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com - and - A. Brooke Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Wills Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Telephone: (405) 389-4989 E-mail: abm@murphylegalfirm.com ARUNS INDIAN KITCHEN: Fernandez Sues Over Disability Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------------- Nelson Fernandez, on behalf of others similarly situated v. ARUNS INDIAN KITCHEN FLORIDA LLC, d/b/a ARUN'S INDIAN KITCHEN BOCA RATON, a Florida limited liability company, Case No. 9:25-cv-80937-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 28, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant owns, controls, maintains, and/or operates an adjunct website, https://arunsboca.com (the "Website"). One of the functions of the Website is to provide the public information on the locations of Defendant's physical restaurants. Defendant also sells to the public its food and beverage products through the Website, which acts as a critical point of sale and ordering for Defendant's food and beverage products that are made in and also available for ordering and purchase in, from, and through Defendant's physical restaurants. The Plaintiff utilizes available screen reader software that allows individuals who are blind and visually disabled to communicate with company websites. However, Defendant's Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by blind and visually disabled individuals using keyboards and available screen reader software. These access barriers, one or more of which were experienced by Plaintiff, are severe and pervasive and, as confirmed by Plaintiff's expert, include the following (with reference to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines ("WCAG"), says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and at all relevant times has been a visually and physically disabled person. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls a chain of three restaurants selling food and beverage products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rodenck V. Hannah, Esq. RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A. 4800 N. Hiatus Road Sunrise, FL 33351 Phone: 954/362-3800 Facsimile: 954/362-3779 Email: rhannah@rhannahlaw.com - and - Pelayo Duran, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO 6355 NW. 36th Street, Suite 307 Virginia Gardens, FL 33166 Phone: 305/266-9780 Facsimile: 305/269-8311 Email: duranandassociates@gmail.com BAKER HUGHES: Continues to Defend Reckstin Family Trust Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Baker Hughes Co. 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 Company continues to defend itself from the Reckstin Family Trust class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On or around February 15, 2023, the lead plaintiff and three additional named plaintiffs in a putative securities class action styled The Reckstin Family Trust, et al., v. C3.ai, Inc., et al., No. 4:22-cv-01413-HSG, filed an amended class action complaint (the "Amended Complaint") in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Amended Complaint names the following as defendants: (i) C3.ai., Inc. ("C3 AI"), (ii) certain of C3 AI's current and/or former officers and directors, (iii) certain underwriters for the C3 AI initial public offering (the "IPO"), and (iv) the Company, and its President and CEO (who formerly served as a director on the board of C3 AI). The Amended Complaint alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with the IPO and the subsequent period between December 9, 2020 and December 2, 2021, during which BHH LLC held equity investments in C3 AI. The action seeks unspecified damages and the award of costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees. On February 22, 2024, the Court dismissed the claims against the Company. However, on April 4, 2024, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, reasserting their claims against the Company under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act. On or around February 14, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a further amended complaint, once again reasserting their claims against the Company under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act. At this time, the Company is not able to predict the outcome of these proceedings. Baker Hughes Company is an energy technology company with a diversified portfolio of technologies and services that span the energy and industrial value chain. BE ROOTED: Faces Richards Suit Over TCPA Breach ----------------------------------------------- WARREN RICHARDS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BE ROOTED LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-547 (W.D.N.C., July 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant routinely violates the law by delivering, or causing to be delivered, more than one advertisement or marketing text message to residential or cellular telephone numbers registered with the National Do-Not-Call Registry without prior express invitation or permission required by the TCPA. The Plaintiff suffered actual harm as a result of the subject text messages in that he suffered an invasion of privacy, an intrusion into his life, and a private nuisance, asserts the complaint. Be Rooted LLC is a limited liability company that is based in North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Duffy, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RYAN P. DUFFY, PLLC 1213 W. Morehead Street Suite 500, Unit #450 Charlotte, NC 28208 Telephone: (704) 741-9399 E-mail: ryan@ryanpduffy.com - and - Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com BEGGARS PIZZA: Hampton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Phyllis Hampton, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Beggars Pizza Franchise, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-08732 (N.D. Ill., July 28, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services the Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through https://www.beggarspizza.com (hereinafter "Beggarspizza.com" or "the website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's website, Beggarspizza.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Beggars Pizza Franchise provides to the public a website known as Beggarspizza.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to order Italian and American foods, such as pizza, sandwiches, pasta dishes, and salads, as well as restaurant services including dine-in, carry-out, and delivery.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (844) 731-3343 Email: achan@ealg.law BONDI: Faces Sanganza Suit Over Unfair Prisoners' Condition ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against BONDI. The case is captioned as THEMBA BERNARD SANGANZA v. BONDI, Case No. 1:25-cv-02301-UNA (D.D.C., Filed July 10, 2025). The Nature of suit states Prisoner Petition: General (Habeas Corpus). Petitioner THEMBA BERNARD SANGANZA, as Founder and President of World Intelligence Organization JUSTICE4ALL Movement, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, appears as pro se.[BN] BUGABOO NORTH: Faces Sturtz Fraud Class Action Suit in S.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bugaboo North America, Inc. The case is captioned as Ryan Sturtz individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bugaboo North America, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-05688-VM (S.D.N.Y., July 10, 2025). The nature of suit states fraud demanding $5,000,000 in damages. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Victor Marrero. Bugaboo is a company based in Calgary, Alberta, engaged in the business of outdoor recreational equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel C. Levin, Esq. Nicholas Elia, Esq. Michael M. Weinkowitz, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street, Ste. 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Facsimile: (215) 592-4663 E-mail: dlevin@lfsblaw.com nelia@lfsblaw.com mweinkowitz@lfsblaw.com CHARLES SCHWAB: Corrente Seeks $8.25MM Atty's Fees -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jonathan Corrente, et al., v. The Charles Schwab Corporation, Case No. 4:22-cv-00470-ALM (E.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order for: (i) an award of attorney's fees in the amount of $8,250,000; (ii) payment of the Plaintiffs' counsel's litigation expenses in the amount of $686,492.60; and (iii) service awards of $5,000 to class representatives Jonathan Corrente, Charles Shaw, and Leo Williams (the "Class Representatives"). On June 2, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint challenging the merger between Schwab and TD Ameritrade (the "Merger") under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, seeking damages and injunctive relief. Charles provides a full range of brokerage, banking and financial advisory services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ynkC97 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Yavar Bathaee, Esq. Andrew Wolinsky, Esq. Brian J. Dunne, Esq. Edward M. Grauman, Esq. BATHAEE DUNNE LLP 445 Park Avenue, 9th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (332) 322-8835 E-mail: yavar@bathaeedunne.com awolinsky@bathaeedunne.com bdunne@bathaeedunne.com egrauman@bathaeedunne.com - and - Christopher M. Burke, Esq. BURKE LLP 402 West Broadway, Suite 1890 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 369-8244 E-mail: cburke@burke.law - and - Elizabeth L. DeRieux, Esq. S. Calvin Capshaw, Esq. CAPSHAW DERIEUX LLP 114 E. Commerce Gladewater, TX 75647 Telephone: (903) 236-9800 Facsimile: (903) 236-8787 E-mail: ederieux@capshawlaw.com ccapshaw@capshawlaw.com - and - Chad E. Bell, Esq. KOREIN TILLERY P.C. 205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1950 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 641-9750 E-mail: cbell@koreintillery.com CHOBANI LLC: To Appeal Court Ruling on Yogurt Ingredients Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Chobani LLC has asked the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California to certify for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(b) its appeal from a recent court order in the case captioned as Laura Willis Albrigo, et al, Plaintiffs, v. Chobani, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-01418-BJC-KSC (S.D. Cal.). Chobani also has asked the court to stay the proceedings in the case pending appeal. Separately, Chobani filed its answer to the complaint. Meanwhile, Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford entered a Notice and Order for Early Neutral Evaluation Conference; Rule 26 Compliance; and Case Management Conference. The Early Neutral Evaluation and Case Management Conference is set for Sept. 15 at 9:30 a.m. before Judge Crawford. The Joint Discovery Plan is due Sept. 8. In July, the Hon. Judge Benjamin J. Cheeks granted in part and denied in part Defendant's motion to dismiss in this putative class action regarding allegedly misleading "Only Natural Ingredients" labeling on Greek yogurt products. The Court: -- denied Defendant's motion to dismiss regarding stevia leaf extract, monk fruit extract and Manufactured Citric Acid; -- granted Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims regarding artificial coloring; -- denied Defendant's motion to dismiss on the basis of a substantiation claim; -- denied Defendant's motion to dismiss finding Plaintiff has asserted an injury-in-fact based on overpayment; and -- denied as moot Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to assert standing for injunctive relief. The Court also granted both parties' Motions for Judicial Notice. Defendant Chobani manufactures and sells Greek yoghurt products in various flavors, including Vanilla, Black Cherry, Cookie Dough, Bananas Foster, High Protein, Less Sugar, and Zero Sugar. Defendant advertises that its zero--sugar Greek yoghurts are made with "Only Natural Ingredients." According to Plaintiff, reasonable consumers, including Plaintiff Albrigo, interpret "Only Natural Ingredients" to mean the Products are not made with, and do not contain, any synthetic ingredients. Plaintiff alleges that the labels on the Products are misleading or false because the Products contain stevia leaf extract, monk fruit extract, and manufactured citric acid, which Plaintiff asserts are processed using industrial processes rendering them artificial. Plaintiff also alleges that the labels are deceptive because some of the Products contain artificial coloring that is not naturally occurring. On July 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed the Complaint raising claims for: (1) violation of the Unfair Competition Law, California Business & Professional Code Section 17200, et seq.; (2) violation of the False Advertising Law, California Business & Professional Code Section 17500, et seq.; and (3) unjust enrichment based on Defendant's conduct. UCL and FAL claims are governed by the "reasonable consumer" test. Under this standard, a plaintiff must show that members of the public are likely to be deceived." The test requires showing it is probable that a significant portion of the general consuming public or of targeted consumers, acting reasonably in the circumstances, could be misled. The Court noted that dismissal for failure to state a claim in this context is "rare" and California courts have "recognized that whether a business practice is deceptive will usually be a question of fact not appropriate for decision on demurrer." Defendant contended the Complaint must be dismissed for the following reasons: (1) Plaintiff has not alleged a claim that is plausible on its face pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 (2) Plaintiff's fraud claims are deficient under Rule 9(b) because she has not alleged them with particularity (3) a reasonable consumer would not be misled by the "Only Natural Ingredients" statement on the product label; (4) Plaintiff's substantiation claim is impermissible; and (5) Plaintiff lacks standing. The Court found that Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged under Rule 9(b) that the Products contain stevia leaf extract and monk fruit extract that have undergone transformative manufacturing processes that would cause a reasonable consumer to consider them not "natural." The allegations in the Complaint outline how stevia root and monk fruit begin as natural foods, but the manufacturing processes required to produce the concentrated powder or final powder product used in the Products does not comport with a reasonable consumer's understanding of what constitutes a "natural" ingredient. The Complaint describes in detail the eleven-step manufacturing process required to transform stevia leaves into stevia leaf extract. Plaintiff explains that one step of the process requires "liquid extract [to be] clarified by either chemical- or electro-coagulation and filtering in an industrial tank." Another step requires "a water-immiscible solvent, such as pure ethanol," to pass through a column and "take up steviol glycoside from resin." The final step consists of "hot, decolorized alcoholic TSG syrup [being] spray dried in industrial equipment." Defendant's reliance on Vitort v. Kroger was unavailing. The Court distinguished Vitort, noting that there the "Just Fruit" label described a product that contained ingredients which were of like kind, derived only from "fruit," and therefore not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. In contrast, Plaintiff here has pled facts showing that the Products contain manufactured ingredients originally derived from plants but that a reasonable consumer would not expect to be included in yogurt that assertedly contains Only Natural Ingredients. Although Defendant contended that the ingredients can be minimally processed under U.S. Department of Agriculture guidance for "natural" labels, the USDA guidance upon which Defendant relies refers to "meats and poultry products," not fruit or vegetable extracts. The Court noted that whether the described processes are perceived as more than "minimal" by the reasonable consumer is a question better suited for a later stage in the proceedings, after discovery has been completed. The Court found that Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that Defendant used industrially manufactured citric acid in some Products, resulting in the "Only Natural Ingredients" label being misleading to consumers. The Complaint alleges that the citric acid utilized by Chobani in the [Products] was industrially manufactured, and not the kind found in nature." The allegations contend that "the manufacturing process for food-grade citric acid, like in the Products, utilizes synthetic industrial chemicals to render the ingredient from mold (Aspergillus niger), including n-octyl alcohol and isoparaffinic petroleum hydrocarbons." The Court noted that FDA warning letters state that the use of the term "all natural" on products containing citric acid is "inappropriate" because the FDA "policy regarding the use of 'natural' means nothing artificial or synthetic has been included in, or has been added to, a food that would not normally be expected to be in the food." Defendant claimed that the FDA letters are unavailing because they concern an "All Natural" label, which is substantively different than an "Only Natural Ingredients" label. The Court disagreed, stating "If the Products contain only natural ingredients, it follows that the result is an all-natural finished product." The Court distinguished Valencia v. Snapple, noting that, in that case the plaintiff made only generalized statements about citric acid, whereas here, Plaintiff contends that the "citric acid utilized by Chobani in the [Products] was industrially manufactured," linking the two together. However, the Court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss regarding claims about vegetable juice concentrate coloring. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant's use of vegetable juice coloring to artificially color most flavors of the Products is false and misleading based on FDA guidance that limits the use of the word "natural" on packaging to products that do not contain "color additives regardless of source." The Court found that Plaintiff does not assert any facts demonstrating that reasonable consumers relied on the representation, and instead, only cites FDA guidance. The Court noted that while some district courts have held FDA's 2009 industry guidance relevant to deceptive labeling claims, others have found that "FDA guidance alone is insufficient to show that 'members of the public are likely to be deceived.'" Crucially, the Court applied the Ninth Circuit's rule that "qualifiers in packaging, usually on the back of a label or in ingredient lists, 'can ameliorate any tendency of the label to mislead.' The back ingredient label clearly states that the product includes "vegetable juice concentrate (for color)." Therefore, a reasonable consumer is on notice about the source of the color and is not likely to be deceived by Defendant's "Only Natural Ingredients" labeling on the Products. The Court found that Plaintiff has standing because she alleged that she relied on the "Only Natural Ingredients" representation on the label and would not have been willing to pay as much as she did if she knew the Products contained manufactured or unnatural ingredients. The Complaint states that the Products cost more than similar products without misleading labeling and that the Products were worth less than they cost. The Court distinguished Horti v. Nestle HealthCare Nutrition, Inc., where plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient detail about premium pricing. Here, the Complaint asserts that Plaintiff was looking for foods that contain only natural ingredients because she considers such foods to be healthier alternatives than foods made with and containing artificial and synthetic ingredients. Regarding Defendant's substantiation argument, the Court noted that there is no private cause of action under the UCL to enforce the substantiation provisions of California's unfair competition or consumer protection laws. However, Plaintiff does not assert that the Only Natural Ingredients claims are not properly substantiated. Despite Defendant's argument to the contrary, Plaintiff provides factual support for her allegations in the Complaint that the ingredients are not natural and inconsistent with the "Only Natural Ingredients" label. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=n8cYYH from PacerMonitor.com. CHRISTINE WORMUTH: Case Management Conference Set for Oct. 9 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KARIO HARRIS, v. SECRETARY CHRISTINE E. WORMUTH, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-04456-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge James Donato entered a reassignment order setting a Case Management Conference (CMC) on October 9, 2025, at 10:00 A.M., in Courtroom 11, 19th Floor, United States Court House, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. The Counsel shall meet and confer as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) prior to the CMC with respect to the subjects set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c). For all other matters pertaining to the CMC, including who must attend and how the parties may make a request to reschedule the date, the parties are directed to this Court's Civil Standing Order. Parties are expected to be familiar with that order, and to comply with it fully. Wormuth is an American defense official and career civil servant. A copy of the Court's order dated July 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iFXCT7 at no extra charge.[CC] CLARIS VISION: Faces Jandron Suit Over Private Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- PAUL JANDRON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLARIS VISION HOLDINGS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-12073 (D. Mass., July 23, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personally identifiable information. On or about January 1, 2025, the Defendant identified unusual network activity. In response, Defendant launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the data breach. On or about June 6, 2025, Defendant's investigation determined that an unauthorized individual acquired and may have accessed certain information contained in Defendant's IT Network. On or about July 3, 2025, Defendant issued a notice of public disclosure and began sending notice letters to impacted individuals. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other Class members, now asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment, and seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, monetary damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, equitable relief, and all other relief authorized by law. Headquartered in North Dartmouth, MA, Claris Vision Holdings, LLC operates as a healthcare organization specialized in vision care services. [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 COMPASS INC: Cribier Suit Transferred to S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL CRIBIER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. COMPASS, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-02815-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick entered an order transferring action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California for all further proceedings. In this nationwide class action, the Plaintiff Michael Cribier alleges that defendant Compass, Inc. violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the "TPCA") by "cold-calling" potential clients whose numbers were on the National Do Not Call Registry. On March 26, 2025, Cribier filed this putative class action alleging that Compass, through its agents, violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA"). On May 23, 2025, Compass filed a Motion to Change Venue or to Dismiss. Compass is a national real estate brokerage company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HgXW0O at no extra charge.[CC] CORELLE BRANDS: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Corelle Brands LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-03008-ECT-DTS (D. Minn., July 28, 2025), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.corelle.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers kitchenware and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, dishes, bowls, dinnerware sets, serveware and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com COSTAR GROUP: Continues to Defend Burdi-Dumas Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- CoStar Group Inc. disclosed in its Form10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Burdi-Dumas class suit. On September 16, 2024, Kimberly Burdi-Dumas, a former Matterport employee, filed a putative class action complaint on behalf of all persons or entities who were stockholders of Legacy Matterport as of July 21, 2021, and who, pursuant to the Gores Transaction, were thereafter issued and held Matterport shares that were improperly restricted from being sold until January 18, 2022. On November 26, 2024, Schmitt amended his complaint to bring a class action on behalf of former members of Matterport who did not receive their shares immediately following the closing of Gores Transaction. On December 6, 2024, the Burdi-Dumas complaint was amended to include a second plaintiff, Janet Day, and additional claims. These cases have now been consolidated and coordinated. The Company monitors developments in these legal matters that could affect the estimate the Company may have previously accrued. As of June 30, 2025, there were no amounts accrued that the Company believes would be material to its financial position, except as noted above. Further, the range of reasonably possible losses in excess of accrued liabilities currently cannot be reasonably estimated, except as noted above. Headquartered in Washington, DC, CoStar provides industry-leading data benchmarking and analytics services to the hospitality industry. [BN] CRE ONLINE: Gianne Sues Over Deceptive Protein Claims ----------------------------------------------------- NATALIE GIANNE, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CRE ONLINE VENTURES LLC dba THE TRU-NUT COMPANY, a Georgia corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-06727 (C.D. Cal., July 23, 2025), asserts claims for unjust enrichment, breach of implied warranty, and for violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's Peanut Butter Powder (chocolate, cinnamon, coconut, maple, and original flavors is misbranded and falsely advertised because it 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. Headquartered in Atlanta, GA, CRE Online Ventures LLC manufactures and sells peanut products including powdered peanut butter, peanut flour and peanut protein powder. [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 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Court Denies Hopkins' Motion to Intervene --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Steve Pappas, et al., Plaintiffs, v. District of Columbia, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 19-2800 (RC) (D.D.C.), Judge Rudolph Contreras of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied Vincent Hopkins's motion to intervene in this certified class action lawsuit. According to the Court, "Hopkins failed to comply with [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 24(c)'s requirements and failed to provide sufficient information to allow the Court to analyze whether intervention is appropriate and whether his claims were exhausted." The Court granted Hopkins leave to file an amended motion on or before August 18, 2025, that cures the deficiencies identified by the Court in this Memorandum Opinion. The Plaintiffs represent a certified class of current and former D.C. Metropolitan Police Department officers who bring this action against the District of Columbia and Pamela A. Smith, in her official capacity as Chief of Police, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Court previously certified the following class: All current and former employees of Defendants who were employed as MPD sworn law enforcement officers at any time between December 9, 2014, and the date that class certification is granted who developed a physical or mental disability and were referred to the Police and Firefighters' Retirement Relief Board for disability retirement even though Defendants never determined their suitability for extended leave, job restructuring, and reassignment and who were disability retired or whose Retirement Board decision remains pending. Vincent Hopkins served in the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department until he was retired due to disability in March 2022. According to the exhibit Hopkins attached to his motion, Hopkins began working for Defendants on March 22, 2004. On August 11, 2020, Defendants placed Hopkins on sick leave due to a family member testing positive for COVID-19. Hopkins tested positive for COVID-19 three days later. Over the following months, Hopkins experienced symptoms including "nausea," "body aches," "fatigue," and "general body pain," and on October 8, 2020, Hopkins was diagnosed with post viral COVID syndrome. On August 19, 2021, the Retirement Board received a memorandum from the Police and Fire Clinic recommending that Officer Hopkins be considered for disability retirement because he had been in a less than full duty status for more than 172 days. On January 13, 2022, the Retirement Board held a disability retirement hearing for Hopkins, which resulted in a decision to retire Officer Hopkins on disability due to ongoing symptoms related to Post-COVID Syndrome. The Court entered a minute order on October 28, 2024, directing that motions to intervene in this matter should be filed by January 23, 2025. Hopkins, proceeding pro se, filed his motion to intervene on January 22, 2025. The Court noted that Hopkins has not specified whether he seeks to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a) or whether he seeks permissive intervention under Rule 24(b). Under Rule 24, a motion for intervention must state the grounds for intervention and be accompanied by a pleading that sets out the claim or defense for which intervention is sought. The Court found that Hopkins's motion does not state his grounds for intervention and is not accompanied by any pleading. While other courts have permitted a degree of flexibility with technical requirements of Rule 24(c) where the position of the movant is apparent from other filings, the Court determined that Hopkins's position is not so apparent, even when considering all of Hopkins's filings together. The Court concluded that Hopkins failed to meet the requirements for intervention as of right, noting that Hopkins does not claim an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, as required under Rule 24(a)(2). For permissive intervention, the Court found that Hopkins does not identify an independent ground for subject matter jurisdiction or make any claim that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact, both of which are required for permissive interventions under Rule 24(b). The Court explained that plaintiffs suing under the ADA in federal court must exhaust their administrative remedies by filing an EEOC charge and giving the relevant agency a chance to act on it. While the vicarious exhaustion exception allows non-filing parties to join the suit of another similarly situated plaintiff who did file an administrative complaint against the same defendant, the Court found that Hopkins's filings do not support that he administratively exhausted his claims or that his claims are sufficiently similar to Plaintiff Pappas's claims such that vicarious exhaustion applies. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mZFkfl DOTHOUSE HEALTH: Keough Sues Over Unprotected Private Information ----------------------------------------------------------------- FRANCES KEOUGH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DOTHOUSE HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case No. ______ (Mass. Super., Suffolk Cty., July 23, 2025) seeks monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory relief arising Defendant's failure to safeguard the personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and the Class members, including, without limitation: full name, address, date of birth, medical record number, diagnosis/conditions, medications, other treatment information, and claims information. In approximately October 31, 2022, an intruder gained entry to Defendant's database accessed Plaintiff's and the Class members' PII, and exfiltrated information from Defendant's systems. However, Defendant did not notify Plaintiff and the Class members of the incident until July 14, 2025--nearly three years after the incident, says the suit. Dothouse Health is a healthcare organization based in Massachusetts that offers primary, dental, eye, behavioral heath, nutrition, cardiology and acupuncture. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason R. J. Campbell, Esq. The Schrafft's Center Power House 529 Main Street, Suite P200 Charlestown, MA 02129 Telephone: (617) 872-8652 E-mail: jasonrcampbell@ymail.com - and - Rachel Dapeer, Esq. DAPEERLAW, PA. 520 South Dixie Hwy, # 240 Hallandale Beach, FL 30090 Telephone: (786) 963-5165 E-mail: rachel@dapeer.com - and - Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com DOTHOUSE HEALTH: Reyes & Parilla Sue Over Unprotected Private Data ------------------------------------------------------------------ ERIC REYES and LYDIA PARILLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DOTHOUSE HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-12065-MJJ (D. Mass., July 23, 2025), arises out of a recent cyberattack and data breach resulting from Defendant's failure to implement reasonable and industry-standard data security practices to protect its patients’ personal identifying information. An unauthorized actor gained access to Defendant's systems in a cybersecurity incident that occurred between October 31, 2022 and November 27, 2022. Defendant sent letters to its affected individuals, including Plaintiffs, on or about July 14, 2025, advising them of a the data breach. However, the Defendant did not state why it was unable to prevent the data breach or which security features failed. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs now seek redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and assert claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. Based in Dorchester, MA, DotHouse Health, Inc. provides primary care services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tucker Merrigan, Esq. SWEENEY MERRIGAN 268 Summer Street, LL Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (413) 424-1511 E-mail: tucker@sweeneymerrigan.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 Facsimile: (513) 345-8294 - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com - and - Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com EAGLE COUNTY, CO: Lewis Sues Over Worker Misclassification ---------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW LEWIS, on behalf of himself, and similarly situated employees, Plaintiff v. EAGLE COUNTY GOVERNMENT, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02269 (D. Colo., July 23, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant has allegedly misclassified a group of employees, including those performing aircraft rescue and firefighting, airport operations and maintenance duties, as exempt from overtime pay, despite the fact that firefighting duties do not comprise more than 80% of their job responsibilities. Moreover, the Defendant failed to properly compensate these employees for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Eagle County is a political subdivision of the State of Colorado. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sara A. Green, Esq. Hardin Thompson, P.C. 2301 Blake Street, Suite 100 Denver, CO 80205 Telephone: (813) 940-8118 E-mail: sgreen@hardinlawpc.net EB5 GLOBAL: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Nan Liu, Hao Liu, and Guangxiang Xu, Plaintiffs, v. EB5 Global SF, LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 24-564 (D. Del.), Judge Joel H. Slomsky of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware granted Defendants' motions to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint and denied as moot Defendants' motion to strike. This case arises from Plaintiffs' dissatisfaction with their investment in the EB-5 SF Investment LP (the "EB-5 Fund"), which was used to purchase a hotel named the Renoir Hotel. The Hotel was owned by MiMa Real Estate Partners I, LLC. In 2012, MiMa sold the Hotel to SF Hotel Investors, LLC, a company owned primarily by the EB-5 Fund and co-managed by EB5 Global SF, LLC, the general partner of the EB-5 Fund, and MiMa. EB5 Global funneled Plaintiffs' investments in the EB-5 Fund to SF Hotel Investors to purchase the Hotel. Through this sale, Plaintiffs became investors in the Hotel. SF Hotel Investors purchased the Hotel to renovate it and operate it as a modern hotel. Prior to Plaintiffs' investments, the EB-5 Fund provided Plaintiffs and other potential investors a Confidential Private Offering Memorandum ("CPOM"), which detailed SF Hotel Investors' plan for the Hotel, including management and branding as well as the estimated renovation costs and deadlines. At that time, as reflected in the CPOM, SF Hotel Investors intended to enter into a franchise agreement with Marriott to "soft brand" the Hotel under Marriott's Autograph Collection. To finance SF Hotel Investors' purchase of the Hotel, EB5 Global, through its role as general partner of the EB-5 Fund, offered potential investors the opportunity to purchase one of 84 available limited partnership interests in the EB-5 Fund. Each limited partnership interest cost $500,000. Potential EB-5 Fund investors were provided promotional materials and a Confidential Private Offering Memorandum ("CPOM"). Included in the promotional materials was a letter from the mayor of San Francisco, welcoming investment in the San Francisco neighborhood where the Hotel was located and indicating approval of the plans for the Hotel. Based on the promotional materials and CPOM, Plaintiffs Nan Liu, Hao Liu, and Guangxiang Xu each purchased a limited partnership interest in the EB-5 Fund. Plaintiff Hao Liu executed these documents on December 7, 2012, while Plaintiff Nan Liu executed them on December 11, 2012, and Plaintiff Guangxiang Xu executed them on December 31, 2012. Despite the initial plan, SF Hotel Investors ultimately elected not to enter into the agreement with Marriott, reporting to its investors in a March 2015 letter that the terms offered by Marriott were unfavorable. In addition, the Hotel's renovation took three years longer than the CPOM predicted and the total renovation cost exceeded the estimated budget by approximately $40 million. Initially, it estimated that the total cost would be $62.9 million, of which $17.6 million was characterized as "land, net of pre-development expenses," and $9.9 million was characterized as "building and shell" expenses. However, in addition to a three-year renovation delay, the renovation costs increased significantly, with the "land, net of pre-development" expenses increasing to $18.1 million and the "building and shell" expenses increasing to $47.4 million. In total, the cost for the Hotel's acquisition and renovation increased by approximately $40 million, from almost $63 million to $110.5 million. On August 4, 2014, while the Hotel was undergoing renovation, a fire broke out at the Hotel causing $1 million in damage to the building and destroying $200,000 worth of the Hotel's contents. To finance the Hotel's renovation cost overrun, SF Hotel Investors obtained additional loans and refinanced existing ones. SF Hotel Investors is now reportedly in default on these loans, putting Plaintiffs' investments at risk. On May 8, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Complaint against Defendants. On December 10, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action Complaint against Defendants, asserting the following counts: (1) breach of contract against EB5 Global; (2) breach of fiduciary duty against EB5 Global; (3) breach of contract against EB5 Global and the Kor Defendants; (4) breach of fiduciary duty against EB5 Global and the Kor Defendants; and (5) violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(b) of the Securities Exchange Act against all Defendants. Counts I and V are direct claims brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of a class consisting of the EB-5 Fund investors, while Counts II, III, and IV are derivative claims brought on behalf of the EB-5 Fund and SF Hotel Investors. The Court found that this case does not qualify as a valid class action under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). First, the Court lacks jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA") over Count I because the numerosity requirement is not met. Under CAFA, a district court has original jurisdiction over class actions where "the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000." But in order for a district court to have jurisdiction under CAFA, the number of proposed class members cannot be less than 100 members (the "numerosity requirement"). Because the proposed class contains less than 100 members, CAFA does not confer subject matter jurisdiction over the class action claim in Count I. In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs describe the class as totaling "approximately 90 individuals," but specifies that they believe the class to be "no less than 84 individuals." Thus, because Plaintiffs only allege there to be, at most, 90 members of the instant class, CAFA's numerosity requirement is not met. The Court also lacks diversity of citizenship jurisdiction over Counts I through IV because the parties are not completely diverse. Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332, diversity of citizenship jurisdiction exists where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens of different States or citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state. For a federal court to exercise original jurisdiction, there must be complete diversity of citizenship between the parties, meaning no plaintiff may be a citizen of the same state as any defendant. Here, because Plaintiffs have not carried their burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the parties are completely diverse, the Court does not have diversity of citizenship jurisdiction over Counts I through IV. Notably, the allegations regarding the individual Plaintiffs and Defendants refer only to where these parties reside rather than where they are domiciled. But the crucial inquiry when assessing the citizenship of an individual is their domicile rather than their residence. Without allegations concerning the individual parties' domiciles, Plaintiffs fail to properly allege diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. In addition to the Court lacking subject matter jurisdiction over Counts I through IV, each of the claims asserted by Plaintiffs are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations and repose. Because the breach of contract claims and breach of fiduciary duty claims asserted in Counts I through IV accrued more than three years ago, they are barred by the statute of limitations. In Delaware, both breach of contract claims and breach of fiduciary duty claims are subject to a three-year statute of limitations. The statute of limitations begins to run at the time the cause of action accrues, which is generally when there has been a harmful act by a defendant. Here, Plaintiffs' breach of contract claims (Counts I and III) and breach of fiduciary duty claims (Counts II and IV) are barred by the statute of limitations because they are untimely and the tolling doctrines of fraudulent concealment, inherently unknowable injury, and equitable tolling do not apply. The most recent allegation giving rise to these claims is the March 16, 2015 letter sent by EB5 Global to Plaintiffs communicating that the Hotel would not be entering into a franchise agreement with Marriott. Thus, at the latest, the three-year statute of limitations on these claims expired on March 16, 2018. And Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on May 8, 2024. According to the Court "Plaintiffs' claim alleging violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(b) of the Securities Exchange Act (Count V) is also time barred. Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(b) prohibit "the misrepresentation or omission of material facts in connection with the purchase or sale of any securities." To be timely, these claims must be brought not later than the earlier of: (1) 2 years after the discovery of the facts constituting the violation; or (2) 5 years after such violation. The five-year limit imposed by the statute of repose is measured from the date of the last culpable act or omission of the defendant. Because the alleged misrepresentations by Defendant in connection with Plaintiffs' investments in the EB-5 Fund occurred well over five years ago, the Securities Act claim is barred by the statute of repose. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants made the following misrepresentations in violation of the Exchange Act when sourcing investors for the EB-5 Fund: (1) stating that the Hotel would be managed by Marriott; and (2) representing through a letter from the San Francisco mayor that the Hotel was an "approved project" of the City of San Francisco. But these misrepresentations would have been made at some point prior to Plaintiffs' investing in the EB-5 Fund in December 2012.Therefore, the five-year statute of repose required any claims under the Exchange Act stemming from these alleged misrepresentations to be brought no later than December 2017. Accordingly, because Plaintiffs did not file their Complaint until May 8, 2024, the claim is time barred by the statute of repose. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pOR9Dp EDGEWOOD CENTER: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Malsack Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ DARRIN MALSACK v. EDGEWOOD CENTER, LLC, Case No. 2:25-CV-01088 (S.D. Fla., July 28, 2025) is a class action seeking injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant owns, operates and/or oversees the commercial property; to include its general parking lot, parking spots, and entrance access and path of travel specific to the tenant business therein and all other common areas open to the public located within the commercial property. The Plaintiff contends that the he found the commercial property and commercial mini mart business located within the commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. He encountered architectural barriers at the commercial property and commercial mini mart business located within the commercial property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises, says the Plaintiff. The Defendant owned and/or operated a coffee shop located at 4818 South 76th Street, Greenfield, Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfredo Garcia-Menocal,Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 553-3464 E-Mail: aquezada@lawgmp.com jacosta@lawgmp.com. - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Telephone: (305) 350-3103 E-Mail: rdiego@lawgmp.com ramon@rjdiegolaw.com EURO SUBSTRATED: Standing Order Entered in FloraFlex Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FloraFlex Corp., v. Euro Substrated PVT, Ltd., et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-06327-JFW-AJR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John Walter entered a standing order as follows: The plaintiff shall promptly serve the Complaint in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 and shall file the proof(s) of service pursuant to the Local Rules. Lead trial counsel shall attend all proceedings before this Court and all Local Rule 7-3, scheduling, status, and settlement conferences. Motions for Class Certification shall be filed within 120 days after service of a pleading purporting to commence a class action (or if applicable 120 days after service of the Notice of Removal), unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Ex parte applications are solely for extraordinary relief. Euro is an exporter and importer based in Sri Lanka. A copy of the Court's order dated July 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8H3b4L at no extra charge.[CC] FASHION NOVA: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts, Johnston Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ BIANCA JOHNSTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FASHION NOVA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-01699-SSS-SP (C.D. Cal., July 8, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of sending telemarketing text messages to the telephone numbers of consumers, including the Plaintiff, in an attempt to promote its goods and services without prior consent. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers suffered damages. Fashion Nova, LLC is an owner or operator of an online fashion store for women, headquartered in Vernon, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq. IJH LAW 1100 Town & Country Road, Suite 1250 Orange, CA 92868 Telephone: (657) 200-1403 Email: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com - and - Seth Lehrman, Esq. LEHRMAN LAW 6501 Park of Commerce Blvd., Ste. 253 Boca Raton, FL 33487 Telephone: (754) 778-9660 Email: seth@lehrmanlaw.com FCA US: Goldsmith Appeals Suit Dismissal Order to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID GOLDSMITH, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled David Goldsmith, et al., on behalf of themselves and a class of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FCA US, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-01341-TJH-JPR, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The suit is brought against the Defendant for design, production, marketing, and sale of vehicles with defective "Monostable" gear shifter. On Feb. 7, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. On same day, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend the class definition pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C). On Mar. 7, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to strike the Plaintiffs' motion to alter or amend the class definition. On June 27, 2025, Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr. entered an Order dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs' motion to alter or amend the class definition and the Defendant's motion for summary judgment and motion to strike are denied as moot. The appellate case is entitled Goldsmith, et al. v. FCA US, LLC, Case No. 25-4715, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 28, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on August 4, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on September 8, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on October 8, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants DAVID GOLDSMITH, et al., on behalf of themselves and a class of others similarly situated, are represented by: Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP 301 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 920 Pasadena, CA 91101 - and - Steve Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP 1301 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 - and - E. Powell Miller, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, PC 950 W. University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 - and - Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 - and - Greg Frederic Coleman, Esq. Mark E. Silvey, Esq. Adam A. Edwards, Esq. William A. Ladnier, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK, PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 600 W. Broadway San Diego, CA 92101 Defendant-Appellee FCA US, LLC is represented by: Brandon L. Boxler, Esq. KLEIN THOMAS LEE & FRESARD 1051 E. Cary Street, Suite 1430 Richmond, VA 23219 - and - Fred J. Fresard, Esq. KLEIN THOMAS LEE & FRESARD 101 W. Big Beaver Road, Suite 1400 Troy, MI 48084 - and - Stephen A. D'Aunoy, Esq. KLEIN THOMAS LEE & FRESARD 100 N. Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE: Thomason Files Suit in N.D. Georgia -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The case is styled as Steven Clayton Thomason, Norcisse Thomason, Bre Thomason, and others similarly situated v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), First Citizens Bank, Eva Bank, PHH Mortgage Corporation, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (DBNTC), Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS), Case No. 1:25-cv-04189-WMR-RDC (N.D. Ga., July 28, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Real Property Foreclosure for the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation -- https://www.fdic.gov/ -- is a United States government corporation supplying deposit insurance to depositors in American commercial banks and savings banks.[BN] The Plaintiffs appears pro se. FINASTRA TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Murray Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT MURRAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FINASTRA TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-01406 (M.D. Fla., July 28, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class of persons impacted by Defendant's failure to safeguard, monitor, maintain and protect their highly sensitive personally identifiable information which was impacted in a data breach that Defendant disclosed in June 2025. As part of its business, and in order to gain profits, Finastra obtained and stored the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members. By taking possession and control of Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII, the Defendant assumed a duty to securely store and protect it. However, the Defendant breached this duty and betrayed the trust of Plaintiff and Class Members by failing to properly safeguard and protect their PII, which allowed cybercriminals to access, acquire, appropriate, compromise, disclose, encumber, exfiltrate, release, steal, misuse, and view Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and Class Members bring this action to recover for the harm they suffered and assert the following claims: (i) negligence, (ii) negligence per se, (iii) invasion of privacy, (iv) breach of implied contract, (v) unjust enrichment, and (vi) breach of fiduciary duty. Finastra Technology, Inc. is a financial software company that provides solutions to banks, lenders, and other financial institutions. It offers a broad range of software and services for retail banking, lending, payments, treasury and capital markets, and universal banking.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua R. Jacobson, Esq. JACOBSON PHILLIPS 2277 Lee Road, Suite B Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (321) 447-6461 E-mail: joshua@jacobsonphillips.com - and - David S. Almeida, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Ave. Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (708) 437-6476 E-mail: david@almeidalawgroup.com - and - Elena Belov, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 157 Columbus Avenue, 4th Floor New York, NY 10023 Telephone: (347) 395-5666 E-mail: elena@almeidalawgroup.com FISERV INC: Mislead Investors, City of Hollywood Suit Police Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF HOLLYWOOD POLICE OFFICERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FISERV, INC., FRANK J. BISIGNANO, MICHAEL P. LYONS, ROBERT W. HAU, and KENNETH F. BEST, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-06094 (S.D.N.Y., July 24, 2025) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Fiserv common stock between July 24, 2024 and July 22, 2025, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. This case is about how Fiserv misled investors by artificially inflating its growth numbers through compelled migration of legacy customers using Payeezy, the Company's older point-of-sale platform, to Clover, its expensive and feature-heavy POS platform. As this forced migration increased Fiserv's headline growth numbers, Defendants falsely claimed that this growth was being driven by new customers organically signing up for Clover. The market learned that this growth was unsustainable when a substantial portion of these migrated customers abandoned Fiserv altogether in favor of less-expensive competing products like Square and Toast. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants misled investors by failing to disclose that: (a) due to cost issues and other problems with its Payeezy platform, Fiserv forced Payeezy merchants to migrate to its Clover platform; (b) Clover's revenue growth and gross payment volume growth were temporarily and unsustainably boosted by these forced conversions, which concealed a slowdown in new merchant business; (c) shortly after these conversions, a significant portion of former Payeezy merchants switched to competing solutions due to Clover's high pricing, inadequate customer service, and other issues; (d) as a result of these merchant losses, Clover's GPV growth was significantly slowing, and its revenue growth was unsustainable; and (e) based on the foregoing, Fiserv's positive Class Period statements about Clover's growth strategies, competition, attrition, GPV growth, and business prospects were materially false and misleading. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the significant declines in the market value of the Company's common stock pursuant to the revelations of the fraud, the Plaintiff and other members of the Class have suffered significant damages, asserts the complaint. Fiserv is a global provider of transaction processing software for banks and retail merchants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis P. McConville, Esq. Connor C. Boehme, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: fmcconville@labaton.com cboehme@labaton.com - and - Robert D. Klausner, Esq. Stuart A. Kaufman, Esq. KLAUSNER KAUFMAN JENSEN & LEVINSON 7080 NW 4th Street Plantation, FL 33317 Telephone: (954) 916-1202 Facsimile: (954) 916-1232 E-mail: bob@robertdklausner.com stu@robertdklausner.com FLORIDA POWER: Continues to Defend Federal Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Florida Power & Light Co. 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 Company continues to defend itself from a federal securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. XPLR, NEE and certain NEE executives are the named defendants in a purported federal securities class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in July 2025 that seeks unspecified damages alleging that the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding XPLR's business model, XPLR distributions, and its arrangements relating to noncontrolling Class B members' interests under certain limited liability company agreements to which XPLR and certain of its subsidiaries are or were a party. The alleged class includes all persons or entities other than the defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired XPLR securities between September 27, 2023 and January 27, 2025. NEE plans to vigorously defend against the claims in this proceeding. Florida Power & Light Company is the largest power utility in Florida. It is a Juno Beach, Florida-based power utility company serving roughly 5 million customers and 11 million people in Florida. FOX TELEVISION: Milanes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fox Television Stations, LLC. The case is styled as MAXIMILIANO on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and the general public v. Fox Television Stations, LLC, Case No. 25CV132673 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 28, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Fox Television Stations, LLC -- https://www.foxcorporation.com/ -- is a group of television stations in the United States owned-and-operated by Fox Corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Keledjian, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N. Brand Blvd., Ste. 840 Glendale, CA 91203-2920 Phone: 818-962-6465 Email: d.keledjian@d.law FRITZ'S MARKETING: Property Has Architectural Barriers, White Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOHNNY WHITE IV, an individual, Plaintiff v. FRITZ'S MARKETING GROUP, INC., a limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-01122 (E.D. Mo., July 28, 2025) arises from the Defendant's failure to remove physical barriers and its violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff is disabled as defined by the ADA; however, is sui juris. He is paralyzed and is substantially limited in performing one or more major life activities, including but not limited to: walking and standing. On January 8, 2024, the Plaintiff traveled to Fritz's Frozen Custard with the intention of being a customer; however, the Defendant's property had no sign indicating accessible parking, no van-accessible parking, no ADA compliant route for access, and no ADA compliant access route from the public sidewalk. The Plaintiffs ability to access Fritz's Frozen Custard and to fully and equally enjoy the goods, services, food, beverages, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations provided at the Subject Property, has been denied and/or restricted as a result of his disabilities. Absent intervention requiring the Defendant to eliminate the physical barriers to access and rectify the ADA violations detailed in this Complaint, the Plaintiff will continue to experience such denial and/or limitations in the future, says the suit. Fritz's Marketing Group, Inc. is the owner and operator of the businesses advertised as "Fritz's Frozen Custard," located in the State of Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michelle M. Funkenbusch, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MICHELLE M. FUNKENBUSCH 2901 Dougherty Ferry Rd, Suite 100 St. Louis, MO 63122 Telephone: (314) 338-3500 Facsimile: (314) 270-8103 E-mail: FunkenbuschADA@SaintLouisLegal.com GEICO GENERAL: Parties Must Confer Class Certification Deadlines ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nunez, et al., v. Geico General Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 6:25-cv-01403 (M.D. Fla., Filed July 25, 2025), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order directing the parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report. The deadlines should include a deadline for: (1) disclosure of expert reports - class action, plaintiff and defendant; (2) discovery - class action; (3) motion for class certification; (4) response to motion for class certification; and (5) reply to motion for class certification. The suit alleges violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Geico operates as an insurance company.[CC] GENERAL DYNAMICS: Continues to Defend Sherman Act-Related Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- General Dynamics Corp. 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 Company continues to defend itself from the Sherman Act class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. On October 6, 2023, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against General Dynamics Corporation, certain of its subsidiaries and various other companies alleging that they conspired, in violation of the Sherman Act, not to solicit naval architects and marine engineers from each other. The named plaintiffs purport to represent a class of individuals consisting of all naval architects and marine engineers employed by the shipyard and consultancy defendants, their predecessors, their subsidiaries and/or their related entities in the United States at any time since January 1, 2000. The plaintiffs allege that the conspiracy suppressed compensation paid to the putative class members, and the plaintiffs seek trebled monetary damages, attorneys' fees, injunctive and other equitable relief. The Company is defending the matter. On April 19, 2024, the District Court dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint. On May 9, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the decision of the District Court and remanded the case for further proceedings. Given the current status of this matter, the Company is unable to express a view regarding the ultimate outcome or, if the outcome is adverse, to estimate an amount or range of reasonably possible loss. Depending on the outcome of this matter, there could be a material impact on its results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. Additionally, various other claims and legal proceedings incidental to the normal course of business are pending or threatened against the Company. These other matters relate to such issues as government investigations and claims, the protection of the environment, asbestos-related claims and employee-related matters. The nature of litigation is such that it cannot predict the outcome of these other matters. However, based on information currently available, it believes any potential liabilities in these other proceedings, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a material impact on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. General Dynamics Corporation is a diversified defense company. The Company offers a broad portfolio of products and services in business aviation, combat vehicles, weapons systems, munitions, shipbuilding design and construction, information systems, and technologies. [BN] GREAT AMERICAN: Faces Mills Class Suit Over Labor Law Breaches -------------------------------------------------------------- AIASHA MILLS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE GREAT AMERICAN DREAM, INC., d/b/a PIN UPS, a Georgia Domestic Profit Corporation, and ASHLEY SHANNON FOWLER, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-04073-MHC (N.D. Ga., July 23, 2025) seeks for damages and other relief brought by Plaintiffs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act as amended by the Tip Income Protection Act of 2018. During their time being employed by Defendants, the Plaintiffs were denied minimum wage payments and overtime wage payments as part of Defendants' scheme to classify Plaintiffs and other bartenders as independent contractors. Among other things, the Defendants seized Plaintiffs' tips in violation of TIPA and the FLSA. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs now seek unpaid wages, including "kick-backs," liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The Great American Dream, Inc., d/b/a Pin Ups is a Georgia Domestic Profit Corporation headquartered in Decatur, GA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan P. Rose, Esq. Carlos V. Leach, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 N. Orange Ave., Suite 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 423-5864 E-mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com jrose@theleachfirm.com ppalmer@theleachfirm.com HERSHEY COMPANY: Vaughn Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- CODY VAUGHN and GLADYS COSTON-GIBSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE HERSHEY COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01394-KM (M.D. Pa., July 28, 2025) is a collective and class action brought by Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated employees of Defendant, arising from Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, and common law. The complaint alleges the Defendant's failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to timely pay all wages earned, breach of contract for not paying agreed hourly wages, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff Vaughn worked for the Defendant as an hourly production employee at Defendant's Robinson, Illinois facility from approximately September 2024 through March 2025. The Hershey Co. engages in the manufacture and market of chocolate and sugar confectionery products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: gary@lcllp.com - and - Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Telephone: (269) 250-7500 E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Paulina R. Kennedy, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: pkennedy@sommerspc.com HOLLAND MANUFACTURING: Underpays Workers, Guerrero Says ------------------------------------------------------- MARIO GUERRERO, on behalf of himself and all other laborers similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff v. HOLLAND MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08687 (N.D. Ill., July 25, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The complaint is brought by the Plaintiff for: a) Defendant's failure to pay its employees at time and a half their mandated regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 per week in violation of the FLSA and the IMWL; and b) Defendant's practice of making unauthorized deductions from Plaintiff's wages in violation of Section 9 of the IWPCA. The Plaintiff began working for Defendant approximately on calendar year 2005 as a general laborer. Holland Manufacturing Corporation is a manufacturing company specializing in the production of refractory shapes for use in a wide range of industries, including: glass, steel, aerospace, chemical, powdered metals, heat treatment, and general consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alvar Ayala, Esq. FARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT 77 West Washington, Suite 1100 Chicago, IL 60402 Telephone: (224) 522-3178 INDEBTED USA: Faces Garnett Suit Over Illegal Debt Collection ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Indebted USA Inc. The case is captioned as Chan Garnett, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Indebted USA Inc., Case No. 4:25-cv-00744-ALM (E.D. Tex., Filed July 10, 2025). The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act. The case is assigned to the Hon. Chief District Judge Amos L. Mazzant. InDebted is a third party debt collection agency located in O'Fallon, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zane Charles Hedaya, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th St Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (813) 340-8838 E-mail: zane@jibraellaw.com INGRAM MICRO HOLDING: Rodden Files Suit in C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ingram Micro Holding Corporation. The case is styled as Charles Rodden, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ingram Micro Holding Corporation, Case No. 8:25-cv-01642 (C.D. Cal., July 28, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Ingram Micro Holding Corporation -- https://www.ingrammicro.com/ -- is an American distributor of information technology products and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Dr. Beverly Hills, CA 92102 Phone: (858) 209-6941 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: jnelson@milberg.com INTEGRATED ONCOLOGY: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Hotter Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT HOTTER III, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTEGRATED ONCOLOGY NETWORK, LLC, CARDINAL HEALTH, INC. and DOES 1 through 20, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00755 (M.D. Tenn., July 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, declaratory judgment, invasion of privacy, and violations of the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act and the California Customer Records Act. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within their network systems following a data breach between December 13, 2024, and December 16, 2024. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Integrated Oncology Network, LLC is a provider of administrative services to oncology physician practices, headquartered in Tennessee. Cardinal Health, Inc. is a healthcare services company, headquartered in Dublin, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexandra M. Honeycutt, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON GROSSMAN PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Email: ahoneycutt@milberg.com - and - Jason M. Wucetich, Esq. WUCETICH & KOROVILAS LLP 222 North Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 2000 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 335-2001 Facsimile: (310) 364-5201 Email: jason@wukolaw.com INTEGRATED ONCOLOGY: Spears Sues Over Unprotected Health Info ------------------------------------------------------------- GARY SPEARS, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTEGRATED ONCOLOGY NETWORK, LLC; CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-06821 (C.D. Cal., July 25, 2025) is a class action arising out of the data breach involving the Defendants. On May 9, 2025, Defendant ION completed an investigation into the data breach incident, which determined that, between December 13 and December 16, 2024, there was unauthorized access to a number of email and SharePoint accounts containing patient data. The accessed data contained patient names alongside addresses, dates of birth, financial account details, medical diagnoses, lab results, medications, treatment information, health insurance and claims information, provider names and treatment dates, and Social Security numbers. The Plaintiff brings this Complaint against Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information that they collected and maintained as part of their regular business practices, including but not limited to, names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, health and medical treatment information, account information, and/or other personal information. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of himself and all similarly situated patients whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and which remains at risk due to Defendants inadequate data security practices. Integrated Oncology Network, LLC provides administrative services to oncology physician practices throughout the United States. Cardinal Health, Inc. is a global healthcare company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason M. Wucetich, Esq. Dimitrios V. Korovilas, Esq. WUCETICH & KOROVILAS LLP 222 N. Pacific Coast Hwy., Suite 2000 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 335-2001 Facsimile: (310) 364-5201 E-mail: jason@wukolaw.com dimitri@wukolaw.com IOVANCE BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Farberov Seeks Consolidation of Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIMITRY FARBEROV, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. IOVANCE BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC., FREDERICK G. VOGT, JEAN-MARC BELLEMIN, and IGOR P. BILINSKY, Case No. 5:25-cv-04199-EKL (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on a date and time as set by the Court, will move the Court, for an order: (1) consolidating securities class actions (Sundaram Action and Farberov Action) under Rule 42(a); (2) appointing Mr. van den Broek as lead plaintiff under the PSLRA for a putative class of all persons or entities that purchased Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc. ("Iovance" or the "Company") securities between May 9, 2024 and May 8, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period") (the "Class"); (3) approving Mr. van den Broek's selection of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP ("Kaplan Fox") as lead counsel; and (4) granting such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Mr. van den Broek believes he has the largest financial interest and that he meets the requirements of Rule 23 because his claims are typical of the claims of members of the Class and Mr. van den Broek will fairly and adequately represent the Class. Finally, Mr. van den Broek has selected and retained Kaplan Fox to serve as lead counsel, a law firm with substantial experience in prosecuting complex securities class actions. See 15 U.S.C. section 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v). Counsel for Mr. van den Broek is aware of the Court’s requirements that the parties meet and confer to identify proposed hearing dates that are amenable to all parties and counsel, however, because it is unknown which members of the proposed Class will seek to be appointed lead plaintiff by the July 14, 2025 deadline, a meet and confer is impracticable at this time, and counsel requests relief from this requirement. -- Class Definition Sundaram Action "All investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Iovance securities between August 8, 2024, to May 8, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws (the "Class")" Farberov Action "All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Iovance securities between May 9, 2024 and May 8, 2025, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby (the "Class")." Iovance is a biopharmaceutical startup based in San Carlos, California. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GSfAxd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence D. King, Esq. Jeffrey P. Campisi, 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 jcampisi@kaplanfox.com JAGUAR LAND: Faces Zats Suit Over Defective Vehicle Braking System ------------------------------------------------------------------ BORIS ZATS, AMIR GUPTA and FRANK RUFFOLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited Liability company, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-13709 (D.N.J., July 24, 2025) arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the New York General Business Law, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, the California Unfair Business Practices Act, and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act. According to the complaint, the braking system included electronic active differential with Torque Vectoring by Braking and cornering brake control. The way these systems were designed and/or manufactured creates excessive heat on the braking system components that compromises the wearability, functionality and safety of the vehicles' braking system. As a result of the excessive heat, the Class Vehicles manifest a brake squeal and vibration, which ultimately results in the failure of the brake pads and discs (rotors). If left unrepaired, the entire braking system will fail, says the suit. Specifically, the Plaintiffs' vehicles suffered the Braking System Defect, which required the replacement of the rear brake pad and rotors. Plaintiff Zats paid $2,476.77 plus tax to replace the brakes on his Range Rover after just 14,825 miles. Similarly, Plaintiff Gupta paid $2,509.43 plus tax for his replacement after little over a year of ownership and 16,601 miles. And Plaintiff Ruffolo has paid twice to have is brake pads and rotors replaced on his two Class Vehicles, first at 11,938 miles at a cost of $1,991.54, and then at 13,866 miles at a cost of $2,107.46. Despite its knowledge of the Braking System Defect, the Defendant refused to cover the cost of these repairs, which was necessary to avoid a complete failure of the braking system, the suit contends. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC is the U.S. subsidiary of Jaguar Land Rover Limited, a British multinational automotive manufacturer owned by Tata Motors.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Simon Bahne Paris, Esq. Patrick Howard, Esq. SALTZ, MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY, P.C. 8000 Sagemore Drive, Suite 8303 Marlton, NJ 08053 Telephone: (215) 496-8282 Facsimile: (215) 496-0999 E-mail: sparis@smbb.com phoward@smbb.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Continues to Defend ERISA Class Suit in N.J. --------------------------------------------------------------- Johnson & Johnson disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 29, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from ERISA class suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. In February 2024, a putative class action was filed against the Company and the Pension & Benefits Committee of Johnson & Johnson (Committee) in United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges that defendants breached fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by allegedly mismanaging the Company's prescription-drug benefits program. The complaint seeks damages and other relief. In January 2025, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss, with leave to replead. In March 2025, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. In April 2025, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' fiduciary duty claims. Johnson is an American multinational pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical technologies corporation. JOHNSON CONTROLS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Kaprelian Says --------------------------------------------------------------- PAUL KAPRELIAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-01091-BHL (E.D. Wisc., July 28, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to safeguard highly sensitive data. Accordingly, the Defendant stores highly sensitive personal identifiable information about its clients and its current and former employees. The Defendant's computer systems were breached by cybercriminals because of those systems were not sufficiently secure (the Data Breach). Cybercriminals had access to Defendant's computer systems for an unknown period of time before Defendant caught wind of the Data Breach. Defendant did not use adequate methods to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate this breach. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant did not train its employees on cybersecurity and did not implement or maintain reasonable security protocols to ensure the security of the sensitive PII it held. Because of these failures in basic cybersecurity, Defendant left the Class members' PII open to disclosure to unauthorized agents. 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 the Defendant's misconduct. The Defendant was formed in 1885 and bills itself as holding the "world's largest portfolio of building technology, software and services." As part of its operations, the Defendant collects and retains the personally identifiable information of tens of thousands of clients, as well as current and former employees. The Defendant provides "building technology and software as well as service solutions from some of the most trusted names in the industry." The Defendant maintains its headquarters in North America in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica N. Servais, Esq. Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq. Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq. Emma Ritter Gordon, Esq. Jacob E. Lanthier, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN, PLLP 100 Washington Ave. S, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: jnservais@locklaw.com khriebel@locklaw.com kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com erittergordon@locklaw.com jelanthier@locklaw.com JOHNSON CONTROLS: Flower Sues Over Data Security Failures --------------------------------------------------------- DENNY FLOWER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON CONTROLS INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01075-BHL (E.D. Wis., July 23, 2025), arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and protect Plaintiff's and Class members' personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's information network. The Plaintiff brings this Class action on behalf of himself and all other individuals whose PII was accessed, and taken by, unauthorized third parties during a data breach of the Defendant's system from February 1, 2023, through September 30, 2023. However, the Defendant only began providing data breach notices on or about July 4, 2025 despite the data breach impacted millions of individuals, and involved unauthorized access to internal business systems, including a file repository. Headquartered in Milwaukee, WI, Johnson Controls Inc. is engaged in engineering, manufacturing and servicing of building products and systems, including commercial HVAC equipment, industrial refrigeration systems, controls, security systems, fire detection systems and fire suppression solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick J. Schott, Esq. SCHOTT BUBLITZ & ENGEL s.c. 640 W. Moreland Blvd. Waukesha, WI 53188 Telephone: (262) 827-1700 E-mail: pschott@sbe-law.com - and - David A. Goodwin, Esq. Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Michael J. Warkel, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 120 South Sixth Street #2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 E-mail: dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com mwarkel@gustafsongluek.com JP MORGAN: Coulter Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Bid ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAMSEY COULTER, Individually, and on behalf of all other consumers, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA, Case No. 4:25-cv-00177-MW-MAF (N.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for extension of time to file motion for class certification. The Plaintiff remains unable to move for class certification because Defendant has refused to provide responsive answers to discovery on class size, i.e. confirmation that the violative emails at issue were sent to more than 40 consumers. Said responses posed impermissible objections, which the Plaintiff conferred over on July 23, 2025, and for which the Plaintiff will be filing a motion to compel contemporaneously. Provided that the Court deems to grant the Plaintiff's motion to compel, the Plaintiff requests that the motion for class certification deadline be extended to a date at least seven days following any deadline which may be ordered by the Court for the Defendant to comply with the Plaintiff's request for class size. The case is in its earliest stages. Discovery has barely begun, no depositions have been scheduled or taken, and the Scheduling Order is newly entered, thus, the Defendant will suffer no prejudice from a brief procedural delay. The Plaintiff's missed deadline was the result of an inadvertent calendaring error following removal— exactly the type of "inadvertent or negligent omission" the Supreme Court in Pioneer expressly recognized as falling within the scope of excusable neglect. Federal courts, including those in the Northern District of Florida, have consistently granted relief in similar or more egregious circumstances, particularly where, as here, the delay was short, unintentional, promptly addressed, and caused no disruption to the litigation or prejudice to the opposing party. Ultimately, the equities overwhelmingly favor the Plaintiff. The Eleventh Circuit has made clear that justice is best served when cases are resolved on their merits rather than on rigid adherence to technical deadlines—particularly where there is no strategic motive, no harm to the opposing party, and clear good faith. Any potential inconvenience is outweighed by the equities supporting Plaintiff's request. Thus, this factor strongly favors a finding of excusable neglect. The Plaintiff filed this action in the lower court in Florida on March 27, 2025, asserting claims on behalf of himself and a putative class. JPMorgan is an American national bank. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Y3n45u at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Zemel, Esq. ZEMEL LAW LLC 400 Sylvan Ave, Suite 200 Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632 Telephone: (862) 227-3106 E-mail: DZ@zemellawllc.com - and - Matthew Fornaro, Esq. MATTHEW FORNARO, P.A. 11555 Heron Bay Boulevard, Ste. 200 Coral Springs, FL 33076 Telephone: (954) 324-3651 E-mail: mfornaro@fornarolegal.com JP ORLANDO: Initial Case Order Entered in Johnson Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TARA JOHNSON, v. JP ORLANDO, LLC, et al., Case No. 6:25-cv-01310-JSS-NWH (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Julie Sneed entered an initial case order: No later than 14 days from the date of this Order, Lead Counsel and any pro se plaintiff shall file a notice as to whether a related action is pending in the Middle District or elsewhere as required under Local Rule 1.07(c). Accordingly, no later than 14 days from the date of this Order, each party, pro se party, governmental party, intervenor, non-party movant, and Rule 69 garnishee shall file the attached Disclosure Statement and Certification as required under Local Rule 3.03. Under Local Rule 2.0l(b)(l)(G), all attorneys appearing before this court are required to register for CM/ECF docketing within 14 days of their entry of appearance in any action pending before this court. A copy of the Court's order dated July 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mfRqzG at no extra charge.[CC] KASKAID HOSPITALITY: Hall Sues Over Wage and Hour Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ Storm Hall, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kaskaid Hospitality, Inc., Crave Hospitality LLC, Crave Restaurant, LLC, Crave Hospitality MOA, LLC, Crave Hospitality EP, LLC, Crave Maple Grove, LLC, Crave Hospitality Rochester, LLC, Crave Hospitality Roseville, LLC, Crave Hospitality WE, LLC, and Crave Restaurant Woodbury, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 27-CV-25-13750 (Minn. Dist., 4th Judicial, Jennepin Cty., July 23, 2025) accuses the Defendants of violating the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act, the Minnesota Payment of Wages Act, and the supporting regulations. Plaintiff Hall was employed by Defendants as a server at various times at Crave Restaurant in Woodbury from May 2015 through March 2025. Allegedly, the Defendants failed to adequately reimburse Plaintiff and the Proposed Class, which resulted in Plaintiff and Proposed Class Members being paid less than they were owed for the work they performed on behalf of Defendants. In addition, the Defendants allegedly applied a "surcharge" that does not satisfy the requirements of Minnesota regulations and thus illegally withheld gratuities to the Plaintiff and Proposed Class. Headquartered in Eden Prairie, MN, Kaskaid Hospitality, Inc. owns and operates a number of full-service restaurants operating in various cities in Minnesota. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amanda M. Williams, Esq. Danielle W. Fitzsimmons, Esq. 100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1500 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-3000 Facsimile: (612) 333-8829 E-mail: awilliams@bassford.com dfitzsimmons@bassford.com KROGER CO: Must Face Leyman Suit over Deceptive Fruit Juice Label ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable M. James Lorenz of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California denied The Kroger Co.'s motion to dismiss the case captioned as RAUCHELLE LEYMAN, and MIGUEL HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE KROGER CO., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-01001-L-VET (S.D. Cal.). Kroger is a national grocery store chain that sells branded and private label products. Among the private label products are four-packs of "Mixed Fruit in 100% Juice". Plaintiffs read the label and purchased the Product based on the representations on the packaging. They allege that the labelling is misleading because they took the label to mean only peaches, pears, and pineapples, in only fruit juice, without water, juice concentrates, or flavorings. They paid more for the product than they would have if they had known that the Product contained other ingredients than fruit in 100% fruit juice. Plaintiffs claim violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 1750 et seq., the Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Secs. 17200, et seq., and the False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Secs. 17500 et seq., on their own behalf as well as on behalf of a putative nationwide class. They seek monetary and injunctive relief, expenses, and attorneys' fees. The Court has jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d). Defendant moves to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Defendant moves to dismiss the Complaint, arguing that as a matter of law the Product's labeling is not deceptive and therefore none of the claims survive. Plaintiffs allege that that the Product label of "Mixed Fruit in 100% Juice" was deceptive because it contained other ingredients: water, juice concentrate, flavorings, seasoning, and/or synthetic preservatives. Defendant argues at length that a reasonable consumer would not be confused because the label "Mixed Fruit in 100% Juice" does not mean that the product contains only mixed fruit and juice. Defendant expects the Court to assume that a reasonable consumer would disregard prominent statements on the front and top of the Product package that the Product is "Mixed Fruit in 100% Juice" in favor of the contradictory ingredient statement in small print on the bottom of the package. According to the Court, this determination is inappropriate on a motion to dismiss because, based on the Product images included in the complaint, Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that a reasonable consumer would understand that the Product only contains fruit and actual juice rather than fruit in juice from concentrate and additional ingredients. Further, the accuracy of the ingredient statement does not preclude Plaintiffs' claims. While the ingredient statement discloses that the Product contains fruit, water, juice from concentrate, ascorbic acid, and citric acid, this does not necessarily absolve a defendant of liability for deceptive statements on the front label. The Court finds in this case, Plaintiffs plausibly alleged that a reasonable consumer would be misled by the repeated and prominent statements on the top and front of the Product label. Defendant also argues that the UCL claim under the unlawful prong fails because Plaintiffs did not adequately allege that a reasonable consumer would be deceived. Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged for purposes of their false advertising claims that a reasonable consumer would be deceived. This allegation is therefore adequate for purposes of Plaintiffs' UCL claim as well, the Court finds. Defendant further argues that Plaintiffs' claims are expressly preempted because federal regulations do not require fruit cocktail product labels to disclose that fruit juice is "from concentrate." The Court says this argument is unavailing. Plaintiff claims that the Product fails to comply with the FDA requirements for "Canned fruit cocktail." The Court finds to the extent that Plaintiffs' state law claims are based on the contention that Defendant failed to comply with FDA labeling requirements, the state law claims are not preempted by the FDCA. Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims to the extent they seek equitable relief. It argues that Plaintiffs fail to allege inadequacy of legal remedies. The Court finds while Plaintiffs must ultimately prove that legal remedies are inadequate to succeed on an equitable claim, at this stage, it is sufficient that they have pled in the alternative that adequate legal remedies may not exist. Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint for lack of specificity required by Rule 9(b). Plaintiffs' claims are premised on Defendant's alleged deceptive product labeling. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' claims are grounded in fraud and therefore subject to the Rule 9(b) heightened pleading requirement. Plaintiffs' claims are sufficient to meet this requirement. Plaintiffs allege that they purchased the Product from one of Defendant's stores, that the Product was sold under Defendant's store brand name, Plaintiffs read the label and decided to buy the product despite its premium price in reliance on the representations on the Product label. According to the Court, this is sufficient to give defendants notice of the particular misconduct. With the allegations in the complaint, Defendant is aware of what product Plaintiffs purchased and where, what statements were made on the Product label, which statements Plaintiffs contend to be false or misleading and why. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' complaint meets the particularity requirements of Rule 9(b), the Court concludes. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WQg3op from PacerMonitor.com. L COZY: Montero Seeks Conditional Collective Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARCIA CARMITA MONTERO FERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. L COZY NAILS BEAUTY, INC. d/b/a Cozy Nail & Spa, QIAN LU a/k/a Lucy Lu, and JUN ZHAO a/k/a Vanessa Zhao, Case No. 3:24-cv-01988-OAW (D. Conn.), the Plaintiff shall move the Court for an Order: (1) granting collective action status, under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); (2) directing the Defendants within 14 days of the entry of this Order to produce an Excel spreadsheet containing first and last name, last known address with apartment number (if applicable), the last known telephone numbers, last known e- mail addresses, WhatsApp, WeChat ID and/or FaceBook usernames (if applicable), and work location, dates of employment and position of all current and former non-exempt and non-managerial employees employed at any time from Dec. 28, 2017 (three years prior to the filing of the Complaint) to the date when the Court so-orders the Notice of Pendency and Consent to Join Form or the date when Defendants provide the name list, whichever is later; (3) authorizing that notice of this matter be disseminated, in any relevant language via mail, email, text message, website or social media messages, chats, or posts, to all members of the putative class within twenty-one (21) days after receipt of a complete and accurate Excel spreadsheet with affidavit from Defendants certifying that the list is complete and from existing employment records; (4) authorizing an opt-in period of 90 days from the day of dissemination of the notice and its translation; (5) authorizing the Plaintiff to publish the full opt-in notice on Plaintiffs’ counsel’s website; (6) authorizing the publication of a short form of the notice may also be published to social media groups specifically targeting the Spanish-speaking American immigrant worker community; (7) directing the Defendants to post the approved Proposed Notice in all relevant languages, in a conspicuous and unobstructed locations likely to be seen by all currently employed members of the collective, and the notice shall remain posted throughout the opt-in period, at the workplace; (8) directing the Plaintiffs to publish the Notice of Pendency, in an abbreviated form to be approved by the Court, at Defendants’ expense by social media and by publication in newspaper should Defendants fail to furnish a complete Excel list or more than 20% of the Notice be returned as undeliverable with no forwarding address to be published in English, Spanish, and Chinese; and (9) directing the equitable tolling on the statute of limitation on this suit be tolled for 90 days until the expiration of the Opt-in Period. Cozy offers a wide range of nail treatments. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gApsGB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 110 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 LANSING COMMUNITY: Court Nixes Bid to Appeal Settlement Order ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as In Re Lansing Community College Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 1:23-cv-738 (W.D. Mich.), Judge Paul L. Maloney of the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan denied an interested party's motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Judge Maloney ruled that GwanJun Kim's proposed appeal was not taken in good faith. He rejected Kim's motion to proceed with the appeal as an indigent person (in forma pauperis). The case stems from a data breach involving Lansing Community College. On January 24, 2025, Judge Maloney approved a class action settlement agreement in the matter. Following the settlement approval, Kim filed a motion seeking permission to appeal the decision without paying the required court fees. The motion was reviewed by a magistrate judge, who issued a report on July 1, 2025, recommending that the court deny Kim's request. The magistrate's report concluded that Kim's appeal lacked good faith merit. No parties filed objections to the magistrate's recommendations within the required time period. Judge Maloney adopted the magistrate's findings in full, effectively blocking Kim's attempt to challenge the settlement agreement through the appeals process. A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CFbvS7 LG ELECTRONICS: Valdez Sues Over Illegal Biometric Data Collection ------------------------------------------------------------------ ADRIEL VALDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC. Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08818 (N.D. Ill., July 28, 2025) seeks to put a stop to Defendant's alleged surreptitious collection, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiff's and the proposed Class members' sensitive biometric data, specifically, the "face templates" created from their unique facial geometry, in violation of Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act. According to the complaint, the LG Devices at issue are manufactured and sold with LG's high-powered camera, camera features, and default gallery app, all of which utilize facial processing and recognition technology and techniques before, during, and after images are captured. Unbeknownst to users, LG uses facial processing techniques and facial recognition technology on each photograph captured and saved by the LG Device's camera and smart features. LG's algorithm automatically scans and analyzes each image to determine whether a face is present. Once a face is detected, the algorithm analyzes and extracts the subject's unique facial landmarks, such as the distance between the eyes, chin shape, location of the mouth, ears and eyebrows, to create a unique digital representation known as a "face template" or "face map" based on the identified individual's geometric attributes such as distance between the eyes and the width of the nose, says the suit. Accordingly, this Complaint seeks an order: (i) declaring that LG's conduct violates BIPA, (ii) requiring LG to cease the unlawful activities alleged herein, and (iii) awarding statutory damages to Plaintiff and the proposed Class. Plaintiff Valdez is a natural person who, during the Class Period, owned an LG mobile device, took photographs on such device of himself, including photographs of his face and other physical attributes, and used LG's various camera features while residing in the State of Illinois. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. is the American subsidiary of LG Electronics, a South Korean multinational electronics company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark R. Miller, Esq. Matthew J. Goldstein, Esq. WALLACE MILLER 200 W. Madison St. Suite 3400 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 663-8282 E-mail: mrm@wallacemiller.com mjg@wallacemiller.com - and - Jonathan Gardner, Esq. Carol C. Villegas, Esq. Jonathan D. Waisnor, Esq. James M. Fee, Esq. Danielle Izzo, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway, 34th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: jgardner@labaton.com cvillegas@labaton.com jwaisnor@labaton.com jfee@labaton.com dizzo@labaton.com LOCKHEED MARTIN: Faces Khan Class Suit Over Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------------ MUHAMMAD KHAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, JAMES D. TAICLET, EVAN T. SCOTT, and JESUS MALAVE, Case No. 1:25-cv-06197 (S.D.N.Y., July 28, 2025) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Lockheed Martin securities between Jan. 23, 2024, and July 21, 2025, inclusive, pursing claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On October 22, 2024, before the market opened, Lockheed Martin announced it was forced to recognize losses of $80 million on a classified program at the Company's Aeronautics business segment "due to higher than anticipated costs to achieve program objectives." The Company also announced it had recognized a reach-forward loss in its Rotary and Mission Systems segment "as a result of additional quantity ordering risk identified on fixed-price options." On this news, the Company's share price fell $37.63 or 6.12% to close at $576.98 on October 22, 2024, on unusually heavy trading volume. Then, on Jan. 28, 2025, before the market opened, Lockheed Martin announced it was forced to record pre-tax losses of $1.7 billion associated with classified programs at its Aeronautics and Missiles and Fire Control business. The Company further reported additional losses of approximately $1.3 billion in its Missiles and Fire Control business due to, among other things, the "future requirements of the program, discussions with the customer and suppliers." As a result, the Company's net earnings in 2024 were $5.3 billion, or $22.31 per share, compared to $6.9 billion, or $27.55 per share, in 2023. On this news, the Company's share price fell $46.24 or 9.2% to close at $457.45 on Jan. 28, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume. Then, on July 22, 2025, before the market opened, Lockheed Martin disclosed it was forced to record an additional $1.6 billion in pre-tax losses on classified programs, including $950 million in losses related to its Aeronautics Classified program due to "design, integration, and test challenges, as well as other performance issues." As a result, the Company reported sharply lower net earnings of $342 million, or $1.46 per share, including $1.6 billion of program losses and $169 million of other charges. On this news, the Company's share price fell $49.79 or 10.8%, to close at $410.74 on July 22, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that Lockheed Martin lacked effective internal controls regarding its purportedly risk adjusted contracts including the reporting of its risk adjusted profit booking rate. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. Lockheed Martin is an aerospace and defense company principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rebecca Dawson, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Ave, Suite 358 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (213) 521-8007 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 E-mail: rdawson@glancylaw.com - and - Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Linehan, Esq. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 - and - Frank R. Cruz, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800 Century City, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 914-5007 MCCORMICK & CO: Urges Court to Adopt Dismissal Recommendation ------------------------------------------------------------- McCormick & Company, Inc., is urging the Hon. Jennifer L. Thurston of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California to adopt the recommendation by U.S. Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone granting the Company's motion to dismiss the case captioned as Darrnell McCoy, Plaintiff, v. McCormick & Company, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00231-JLT-SAB (E.D. Cal.), with leave to amend. The Plaintiff objected to the Court's recommendation. That objection, McCormick said, must be overruled. In July, Magistrate Judge Boone recommended granting Defendant's motion to dismiss with leave to amend. The Magistrate Judge also discharged an earlier order to show cause regarding venue, finding that since Plaintiff now resides in Tulare County and Defendant conducts business there, the case could proceed in the Eastern District of California. Case Background Plaintiff Darrnell McCoy brings this putative class action under various California consumer and common laws, alleging the label "Crafted and Bottled in Springfield, MO, USA," appearing at times with "American flavor in a bottle," on McCormick's packaging for French's mustard products is misleading because the products contain foreign-made components. On April 11, 2023, Plaintiff searched Walmart's mobile application from his smart phone looking to purchase various food products while physically present in his then-residence in Manteca, California. Plaintiff purchased French's Dijon Mustard for $3.42, relying on these representations and desiring to purchase a product that was made in the United States with ingredients from the United States. However, each of the Products Plaintiff purchased were allegedly made with and/or contained components that were sourced, grown, or made outside of the United States. Specifically, Plaintiff specifically alleges the primary substantive ingredient of the Products is mustard seed, which is sourced primarily, if not exclusively, from Canada. The Plaintiff brings claims under seven causes of action: 1) California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), 2) California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), 3) California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"), 4) breach of express warranty, 5) unjust enrichment, 6) negligent misrepresentation 7) intentional misrepresentation. Judge's Recommendation The Court addressed whether YouTube videos referenced in the complaint could be incorporated by reference. Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that Defendant's "Products are made with mustard seed, their primary substantive ingredient, which is sourced primarily, if not exclusively, from Canada." This allegation was supported by footnotes referencing two YouTube videos. The Court found the single reference to the YouTube videos in one footnote insufficient to incorporate the videos and every statement made within. The Court concluded that the YouTube links cited once in one footnote of the complaint are not alleged to form the basis of any of Plaintiff's claims. Furthermore, Defendant specifically questions the authenticity of the near-eight minute video from third party YouTube user "Worldnite Journey." The Court declined to consider the YouTube videos of unknown origins referenced once in the complaint that are not central to Plaintiff's claims under the incorporation by reference doctrine. Plaintiff argued that California's safe harbor provisions under Business & Professions Code Section 17533.7 are preempted by federal law. The federal standard provides that products may be labeled as "Made in the United States" only if the final assembly or processing of the product occurs in the United States, all significant processing that goes into the product occurs in the United States, and all or virtually all ingredients or components of the product are made and sourced in the United States. California's Section 17533.7 makes it unlawful to sell products as 'Made in U.S.A.,' or other similar words, if the product or 'any article, unit, or part thereof, has been entirely or substantially made, manufactured, or produced outside of the United States.'" However, California amended the statute in 2015 to include safe harbor provisions allowing "Made in the U.S.A." labeling if "no more than five percent of the final wholesale value of the manufactured product is obtained from outside the United States" or no more than ten percent under certain circumstances. The Court found that California's safe harbor provisions are not expressly preempted by federal law. The Court is not persuaded that California's safe harbor provisions -- which limit any Made in the U.S.A. label to products that contain foreign materials that make up less than 90-95% of a product's wholesale value -- are inconsistent with the FTC's "all or virtually all" standard. The Court noted that "the FTC has expressly declined to adopt a definition of 'all or virtually all' as recently as 2021 because 'adding further specificity also increases the risk the rule would chill certain non-deceptive claims.'" Similarly, the Court found no conflict preemption: for the same reasons the Court finds California's Section 17533.7 safe harbor provisions are not expressly preempted by the flexible federal "all or virtually all" standard, the Court found they are not conflict preempted. The Court's primary finding was that Plaintiff failed to adequately plead facts showing his claims fall outside California's safe harbor provisions. District courts have applied Section 17533.7's safe harbor provisions to claims under the CLRA, UCL, FAL, and other state law causes of action where the alleged violations are predicated upon conduct that is lawful under such provisions. Plaintiff argued that his complaint sufficiently alleges facts to plausibly show that a substantial portion of Defendant's mustard Products, which all contain foreign sourced mustard seed from Canada and, in some cases, foreign sourced turmeric, contain foreign ingredients that make up more than 10% of the final wholesale value of the Products." However, the Court disagreed. Although Plaintiff alleges the Products contain mustard seed from Canada and, at times, foreign-sourced turmeric, he fails to make any allegations related to the composition of each Product, including whether the amount of mustard seed and/or turmeric contained in the Products make up more than 90% (if unable to be produced domestically) or 95% of each Product's final wholesale value. The Court also rejected Plaintiff's argument that ingredient lists could support his claims, noting that the list of ingredients is itemized by greatest weight, not the ingredient's final wholesale value in proportion to the final Product. The Court explained that nothing about this ingredient order compels (or even supports) the conclusion that a particular ingredient constitutes any specific percentage of the product -- by value, weight, or any other metric. Plaintiff's complaint completely fails to plausibly allege that Section 17533.7's safe harbor thresholds do not apply under Rule 8 pleading standards, nonetheless Rule 9 pleading standards, where required. Accordingly, the Court shall recommend that Defendant's motion to dismiss be granted. Plaintiff requested he be given leave of amend to include allegations to support the inapplicability of the California safe harbor provisions. The Court found that Plaintiff has not acted in bad faith or with dilatory motive, and it would not prejudice Defendants or be futile to grant an opportunity to amend the FAC to allege additional factual allegations. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=khbRBx Lacks Merit Plaintiff contends that California's quantitative thresholds, which allow "Made in USA" claims when at least 90–95% of a product's wholesale value is derived from domestically sourced components, conflicts with the FTC's flexible and qualitative "all or virtually all" standard. According to Plaintiff, this renders the state-law safe harbors preempted. "But Plaintiff is mistaken," according to McCormick. As the Order correctly found, McCormick explained, California's statute and the FTC's regulation serve the same goal: preventing consumer deception. That they do so using different but complementary approaches does not establish the requisite irreconcilable conflict. To the contrary, the FTC itself acknowledged the existence of California's law during its 2021 rulemaking, explicitly cited its percentage-based framework, and declined to suggest any inconsistency or preemption. McCormick pointed out that since the Order was issued, the Southern District of California has reached the same conclusion in a case with the same legal issue. In Corona v. It's a New 10, LLC, No. 25-cv-377-GPC (BLM), 2025 WL 2173961, at *7 (S.D. Cal. July 31, 2025), Judge Gonzalo Curiel concluded "that the CA safe harbor provisions, sections 17533.7(b) & (c) are not preempted by the FTC Rule expressly or by conflict preemption." This further reinforces the correctness of the Magistrate Judge's Order, McCormick asserted. MI BUENOS AIRES: Fernandez Sues Over Disability Discrimination -------------------------------------------------------------- Nelson Fernandez, on behalf of others similarly situated v. MI BUENOS AIRES CAFE & BAKERY LLC, d/b/a LOS OLIVOS BISTRO, a Florida limited liability company, Case No. 9:25-cv-80936-MD (S.D. Fla., July 28, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant owns, controls, maintains, and/or operates an adjunct website, https://losolivosbistro.com (the "Website"). One of the functions of the Website is to provide the public information on the locations of Defendant's physical restaurants. Defendant also sells to the public its food and beverage products through the Website, which acts as a critical point of sale and ordering for Defendant's food and beverage products that are made in and also available for ordering and purchase in, from, and through Defendant's physical restaurants. The Plaintiff utilizes available screen reader software that allows individuals who are blind and visually disabled to communicate with company websites. However, Defendant's Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by blind and visually disabled individuals using keyboards and available screen reader software. These access barriers, one or more of which were experienced by Plaintiff, are severe and pervasive and, as confirmed by Plaintiff's expert, include the following (with reference to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines ("WCAG"), says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and at all relevant times has been a visually and physically disabled person. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls a restaurant selling food and beverage products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rodenck V. Hannah, Esq. RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A. 4800 N. Hiatus Road Sunrise, FL 33351 Phone: 954/362-3800 Facsimile: 954/362-3779 Email: rhannah@rhannahlaw.com - and - Pelayo Duran, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO 6355 NW. 36th Street, Suite 307 Virginia Gardens, FL 33166 Phone: 305/266-9780 Facsimile: 305/269-8311 Email: duranandassociates@gmail.com MIDWESTERN COMPANIES: Faces White Suit Over Property Barriers ------------------------------------------------------------- JOHNNY WHITE IV, an individual and on behalf of similarly situated disabled persons, Plaintiff v. MIDWESTERN COMPANIES, LLC, a limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-01127 (E.D. Mo., July 28, 2025) seeks injunctive relief pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act and the ADA's Accessibility Guidelines for Defendant's failure to remove physical barriers. The Defendant is the owner of the real property and improvements which are the subject of this action located in Florissant, Missouri. On January 5, 2024, the Plaintiff traveled to Midwestern Termite & Pest Control with the intention of being a customer; however, the Subject Property had no sign indicating accessible parking, no van-accessible parking, no ADA compliant route for access, and no ADA compliant access route from the public sidewalk. The Defendant has engaged in discriminatory practices against the Plaintiff and other individuals with disabilities by denying them access to, and the full and equal enjoyment of, the goods and services provided at the Subject Property/the Facility, says the suit. Midwestern Termite & Pest Control is a Missouri corporation operating as a commercial and residential pest removal company, featuring pest and termite extermination and pre-treatments, wildlife control, and shrub and lawn spraying.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michelle M. Funkenbusch, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MICHELLE M. FUNKENBUSCH 2901 Dougherty Ferry Rd., Suite 100 St. Louis, MO 63122 Telephone: (314) 338-3500 Facsimile: (314) 270-8103 E-mail: FunkenbuschADA@saintlouislegal.com MONROE CAPITAL: Faces Keller Over Robocalling Schemes & Web Ads --------------------------------------------------------------- JUSTIN KELLER and HAILEY KARDUX and PATRICIA BANDY v. MONROE CAPITAL CORPORATION, MONROE CAPITAL BDC ADVISORS, LLC, and MONROE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT ADVISORS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02474-SAG (D. Md., July 28, 2025) arises from a fraudulent and predatory scheme initially designed by MV and financed, strategically directed, and monetized by Monroe Capital. Through their scheme, Monroe Capital and MV Realty sought to profit by exploiting vulnerable homeowners through a deceptive contract known as the "Homeowner Benefit Agreement." For most homeowners in the United States, their home is their largest asset. And almost all homeowners are just one personal disaster—like the loss of a job or the illness of a loved one—from needing access to their home's equity to stay afloat, whether through sale, refinance, or other transaction. These transactions, and the decisions that lead to them, can be the difference between financial stability and financial ruin. The Defendants are private equity companies that conspired through dozens of sham real estate brokerage entities under the MV Realty flag to deceive vulnerable homeowners into 40- year "right-to-list" agreements in exchange for as little as a few hundred dollars. What MV Realty and, by extension, Monroe Capital concealed was that these contracts were secured by a recorded memorandum that operated as a lien on the homeowners' property. Using illegal robocalling schemes and deceptive internet advertisements, MV Realty and Monroe Capital targeted homeowners who were researching small short-term loans, or looking to refinance, with promises of a "no-risk" cash payment that was "not a loan" and never had to be re-paid, says the suit. Justin Keller and Hailey Kardux are Maryland homeowners who signed a "right-to-list" agreement with MV Realty on Feb. 28, 2022, pursuant to the HBA Scheme and suffered economic and non-economic harm as a result of Defendants' unlawful practices. Patricia Bandy, resides in North Carolina and signed a "right-to-list" agreement on Feb. 22, 2021, pursuant to the HBA Scheme. She first learned of the encumbrance on her title in late July 2022. Ms. Bandy subsequently paid a termination fee of $11,714.40 to terminate the HBA agreement in September 2022. Monroe Capital operates as a private equity firm headquartered in Illinois, which invested in, controlled, and directly supported MV Realty's operations, enabling its nationwide expansion.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Drew LaFramboise, Esq. Lacey Logsdon, Esq. JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE, P.A. 6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400 Greenbelt, MD 20770-1417 Telephone: (240) 553-1209 Facsimile: (240) 553-1740 E-mail: dlaframboise@jgllaw.com lmcmullan@jgllaw.com - and - Thomas W. Keilty, Esq. Nicholas C. Bonadio, Esq. KEILTY BONADIO One South Street 1 South Street, Suite 2125 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 469-9953 E-mail: tkeilty@kblitigation.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Faces Martin Class Suit Over Defective Roundup ---------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS MARTIN v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:25-cv-01131 (E.D. Mo., July 28, 2025) is brought by the Plaintiff in behalf of himself and similarly situated individuals, for damages suffered as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup(TM) containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. "Roundup" refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Prodry Herbicide, Roundup Promax, Roundup Quik Stik Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Quikpro Herbicide, Roundup Rainfast Concentrate Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Rainfast Super Concentrate Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Ready-to-Use Extended Control Weed & Grass Killer 1 Plus Weed Preventer, Roundup Ready-to-Use Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Ready-to-Use Weed and Grass Killer 2, Roundup Ultra Dry, Roundup Ultra Herbicide, Roundup Ultramax, Roundup VM Herbicide, Roundup Weed & Grass Killer Concentrate, Roundup Weed & Grass Killer Concentrate Plus, Roundup Weed & Grass Killer Ready-to-Use Plus, Roundup Weed & Grass Killer Super Concentrate, Roundup Weed & Grass Killer 1 Ready-to-Use, Roundup WSD Water Soluble Dry Herbicide Deploy Dry Herbicide, or any other formulation of containing the active ingredient glyphosate. Monsanto was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation, known for developing the herbicide Roundup and genetically modified seeds. It was acquired by Bayer in 2018.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tiffany Webber Carpenter, Esq. CORY WATSON, PC 254 Court Avenue, Suite 511 Memphis, TN 38103 E-mail: tcarpenter@corywatson.com MR. COPPER: Continues to Defend Cabezas Class Suit in Texas ----------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Cooper Group 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 Company continues to defend itself from the Cabezas class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. On November 3, 2023, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, captioned Cabezas v. Mr. Cooper Group, Inc., No. 23-cv-02453 ("Cabezas"), in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, by plaintiff Jennifer Cabezas purportedly on behalf of a class consisting of those persons impacted by the cybersecurity incident that occurred on October 31, 2023. The class action complaint alleged claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of express contract, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, breach of confidence, and breach of fiduciary duty based upon allegations that the Company did not employ reasonable and adequate security measures to protect customer personal information accessed in the cybersecurity incident. The Cabezas complaint sought damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, and an award of costs, attorney fees and expenses, among other relief. Between November 2023 and February 7, 2024, 26 additional putative class actions were filed against the Company asserting substantially similar claims and allegations as those asserted in the Cabezas action. The Cabezas court consolidated all 26 pending cases with the Cabezas action, and the 26 separate matters were administratively closed. By Order dated June 25, 2024, the Cabezas court set July 15, 2024 as the last day for Plaintiffs to file a Consolidated Amended Complaint. On July 15, 2024, plaintiffs Jose Ignacio Garrigo, Izabela Debowcsyk, Joshua Watson, Brett Padalecki, Chris Leptiak, Denver Dale, Emily Burke, Mary Crawford, Kay Pollard, Jonathan Josi, Jeff Price, Mychael Marrone, Katy Ross, Lynette Williams, Karen Lynn Williams, Gary Allen, Larry Siegal, Rohit Burani, Elizabeth Curry, Justin Snider, Linda Hansen, and Deira Robertson (collectively, "Plaintiffs") filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint on behalf of themselves and an alleged putative nationwide class of "All individuals residing in the United States whose PII was accessed and/or acquired as a result of the Data Breach announced by Mr. Cooper in or around November 2023," as well as 15 state subclasses. Plaintiffs assert seven of the same claims as in the original Cabezas complaint, (1) Breach of Express Contract; (2) Breach of Implied Contract; (3) Negligence; (4) Negligence Per Se; (5) Unjust Enrichment; (6) Invasion of Privacy; (7) Breach of Confidence; as well as a claim for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, and 19 state law claims. The Consolidated Class Action Complaint seeks damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement and restitution, and an award of costs, attorney fees and expenses, among other relief. The Cabezas court set September 13, 2024 as the last day for Defendants to move to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On September 13, 2024, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint. Plaintiffs opposed the motion and the Company filed a reply in further support of its motion on March 27, 2025. The Company will continue to monitor legal matters for further developments that could affect the amount of the accrued liability that has been previously established. Legal-related expenses for the Company include legal settlements and the fees paid to external legal service providers and are included in general and administrative expenses on the condensed consolidated statements of operations. The Company recorded legal-related expenses, net of recoveries, which includes legal settlements and fees paid to external legal service providers, of $15 and $25 during the three and six months ended June 30, 2025 and $7 and $19 during the three and six months ended June 30, 2024, respectively, which are included in "expenses - general and administrative" on the condensed consolidated statements of operations. Management currently believes the aggregate range of reasonably possible loss is $7 to $15 in excess of the accrued liability (if any) related to those matters as of June 30, 2025. For some of these matters, the Company is able to estimate reasonably possible losses above existing reserves and for other matters, such an estimate is not possible at this time. This estimated range of possible loss is based upon currently available information and is subject to significant judgment, numerous assumptions and known and unknown uncertainties. The matters underlying the estimated range will change from time to time, and actual results may vary substantially from the current estimate. Mr. Cooper Group Inc., collectively with its consolidated subsidiaries, provides servicing, origination and transaction-basedservices related to single family residences throughout the United States. MURTAGH'S LANDSCAPE: Marcellus Seeks to Recover OT Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- ROBENS MARCELLUS, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v. MURTAGH'S LANDSCAPE DESIGN & PROPERTY MAINTENANCE, INC., a Florida Profit Corporation, and NEIL P. MURTAGH, individually, Case No. 9:25-cv-80939 (S.D. Fla., July 28, 2025) seeks to recover overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, the Plaintiff performed non-exempt work as a laborer and related activities in Palm Beach County, Florida. He was employed with Defendants from June 2023 through March 2025 performing various landscape design and property maintenance duties for Defendants' residential and commercial clients. The Plaintiff regularly worked between 9 to 10 hours per day. He routinely worked more than 40 hours per week, the suit contends. The Defendant operates in the Construction industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maguene D. Cadet, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DIEUDONNE CADET, P.A. 2500 Quantum Lakes Drive, Suite 203 Boynton Beach, FL 33426 Telephone: (561) 853-2212 Facsimile: (561) 853-2213 E-mail: Maguene@DieudonneLaw.com NARWAL ROBOTICS: Lopez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Victor Lopez, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. NARWAL ROBOTICS CORPORATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-06206 (S.D.N.Y., July 28, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, https://us.narwal.com/, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. NARWAL ROBOTICS CORPORATION, operates the Narwal online retail store, as well as the Narwal interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Danalgottlieb@aol.com Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal NATIONAL AUTO: Violates Labor Laws, Molina Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------ Constanza Molina, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. National Auto Parts Warehouse, LLC, d/b/a National Performance Warehouse, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-23291 (S.D. Fla., July 23, 2025), seeks to recover from Defendant overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant employed Plaintiff Constanza Molina as a non-exempt, full-time, hourly employee from approximately March 13, 2018, to March 28, 2025, or more than seven years. Allegedly, the Defendant automatically deducted five working hours from Plaintiff's wages every week, corresponding to one hour of lunchtime daily, even though Plaintiff could never take bona fide lunch breaks. In addition, the Plaintiff was paid by direct deposit without paystubs providing information about the wage rate, number of days and hours worked, employee taxes withheld, etc., says the suit. Based in Dade County, FL, National Auto Parts Warehouse, LLC is a national distributor of auto parts, truck parts, accessories, and car care products. [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 NDN FM1960: Commercial Property Inaccessible to Disabled, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- SALVADOR SEGOVIA, JR., an individual and on behalf of similarly situated disabled persons, Plaintiff v. NDN FM1960 LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-03469 (S.D. Tex., July 28, 2025) seeks injunctive relief pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act and the ADA's Accessibility Guidelines for Defendant's failure to remove physical barriers. The Defendant is the owner or co-owner of the real property and improvements that American Wings is situated upon and is the subject of this action. On February 16, 2025, the Plaintiff was a customer at "American Wings & More," a business located in Houston, Texas. The Plaintiff personally encountered many barriers to access the Property, engaged many barriers, suffered legal harm and legal injury, and will continue to suffer such harm and injury if all the illegal barriers to access present at the Property identified in this Complaint are not removed. The Defendant has engaged in discriminatory practices against the Plaintiff and other individuals with disabilities by denying them access to, and the full and equal enjoyment of, the goods and services provided at the Subject Property/the Facility, says the suit. NDN FM1960 LLC is a Texas limited liability corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas S. Schapiro, Esq. THE SCHAPIRO LAW GROUP, P.L. 7301-A W. Palmetto Park Rd., #100A Boca Raton, FL 33433 Telephone: (561) 807-7388 E-mail: schapiro@schapirolawgroup.com NEW ASIA: Li Appeals Wage-and-Hour Suit Order to 8th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------ CHANGSHAN LI is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Changshan Li, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. New Asia Chinese Restaurant Wan Da Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 0:22-cv-01665-ECT, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendants for minimum wage and overtime violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as the wage, hour, labor, and other applicable laws of the States of Minnesota, including the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act and the Minnesota Payment of Wages Act. The appellate case is entitled Changshan Li v. New Asia Chinese Restaurant Wan Da Inc., et al., Case No. 25-2500, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on July 29, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Transcript is due on or before September 8, 2025; -- Appendix is due on or before September 17, 2025; -- Appellant's Brief is due on September 17, 2025; and -- Appellee's Brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant CHANGSHAN LI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Jian Hang, Esq. Ge Qu, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G Flushing, NY 11354 Defendants-Appellees NEW ASIA CHINESE RESTAURANT WAN DA INC., et al. appear pro se. NINTENDO OF AMERICA: J.A. Files Bid to Compel Production of Docs ---------------------------------------------------------------- J.A., a minor, represented by his mother and next friend ANDREA DEAMS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. NINTENDO OF AMERICA, INC., Case No. 2:25-mc-00048-TL (W.D. Wash., July 18, 2025), is brought arising out of a consumer class action brought against 2K Games, Inc., and Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Plaintiff hereby moves pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a) to compel third party Nintendo of America, Inc. to provide documents in response to two subpoenas duces tecum issued in connection with that matter. The subpoenas were properly served and required compliance by June 14, 2024, and July 3, 2025, respectively. Despite Plaintiff's willingness to extend the deadline to respond and limit the requests to avoid a motion to compel responses, Nintendo refused to produce any records in response to the subpoenas. As such, Plaintiff seeks the Court's intervention in obtaining the necessary and relevant discovery sought by the subpoenas, says the complaint. The Plaintiff J.A., a minor represented by his mother and next friend Andrea Deams. 2K Games, Inc. is a videogame publisher.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kim D. Stephens, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Ave, Ste 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 682-5600 Fax: (206) 682-2992 Email: kstephens@tousley.com - and - Kevin Osborne, Esq. Julie Erickson, Esq. ERICKSON KRAMER OSBORNE LLP 44 Tehama Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415-635-0631 Fax: 415-599-808 Email: kevin@eko.law julie@eko.law NORDSTROM INC: Pinckney Sues Over Unlawful Tobacco Surcharges ------------------------------------------------------------- RASHI PINCKNEY, JACK FERGUSON, and RAY EATON JR. on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NORDSTROM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01396 (W.D. Wash., July 24, 2025) arises from the Defendant's imposition of unlawful and discriminatory tobacco surcharges in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Plaintiffs Rashi Pinckney, Jack Ferguson, and Ray Eaton are former employees of Nordstrom who paid tobacco surcharges to maintain health insurance coverage under the Nordstrom Welfare Benefit Plan. This surcharge imposed an additional financial burden on Plaintiffs and continues to impose such a burden on those similarly situated. Accordingly, the suit challenges Nordstrom's unlawful practice of charging of this "tobacco surcharge" without complying with the regulatory requirements under the ERISA. Under ERISA, wellness programs must offer, and provide notice of, a reasonable alternative standard that allows all participants to obtain the "full reward" -- including refunds for surcharges paid while completing the program. Rather than comply with these requirements, the Nordstrom Welfare Benefit Plan imposes a flat discriminatory tobacco surcharge without providing participants with a reasonable alternative standard, and failed to provide notice of the availability of a reasonable alternative standard, violating federal regulations and depriving employees of benefits to which they are entitled under ERISA, asserts the complaint. Because Nordstrom fails to offer an alternative standard that fully reimburses those participants who satisfy the alternative standard, and because it failed to provide necessary disclosures in plan materials discussing the premium differential until 2025, Nordstrom cannot invoke ERISA's safe harbor defense, as its program neither offers a compliant alternative standard nor provides adequate notice, making its tobacco surcharge scheme not only unlawful but also discriminatory under ERISA, says the suit. Nordstrom, Inc. is a luxury department store chain with location across the country that generate billions of dollars in revenue annually. Nordstrom is a Washington corporation with its headquarters in Seattle, Washington.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David B. Richardson, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DAVID B. RICHARDSON, P.S. 3829 S. Edmunds St., Suite C Seattle, WA 98118 Telephone: 425-646-9801 E-mail: david@dbrlaw.com - and - Oren Faircloth, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: ofaircloth@sirillp.com NURSEFINDERS LLC: Gooch Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against NURSEFINDERS LLC, et al. The case is styled as Jamie Richard Gooch, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. NURSEFINDERS LLC, AMN HEALTHCARE, INC.; AMN HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC.; KAISER PERMANENTE BALDWIN PARK MEDICAL CENTER; Case No. 25STCV22177 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 28, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Nursefinders -- https://www.nursefinders.com/ -- is the nation's leading nurse staffing agency and per diem nurse agency.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alvin B. Lindsay, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N. Brand Blvd. Suite 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: (818) 962-6465 Fax: (818) 962-6469 Email: alindsay@d.law NYRSTAR US: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Francis Says ------------------------------------------------------------ JEFFREY FRANCIS, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NYRSTAR US INC., NYRSTAR US MINING INC., and NYRSTAR TENNESSEE MINES - STRAWBERRY PLAINS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00364 (E.D. Tenn., July 25, 2025) arises from the Defendant's violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate Plaintiff and the other hourly employees at rates of at least one and a half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 a workweek. Plaintiff Francis and the other hourly employees regularly work more than 40 hours in a workweek. However, Nyrstar does not pay Francis and the other hourly employees for all their hours worked, including overtime hours. Rather, Nyrstar requires Francis and the other hourly employees to suit out in protective clothing and safety gear necessary to safely their job duties, gather other fundamentally necessary tools and equipment, and attend required safety meetings, while on Nyrstar's premises "off the clock." Additionally, Nyrstar pays Francis and the other hourly employees non-discretionary bonuses, such as production, safety, and attendance bonuses, that it fails to include in the hourly employees' regular rates of pay for overtime purposes, the suit says. Plaintiff Francis was employed by the Defendant as a mechanic from approximately September 2021 to February 2024. Nyrstar US Inc. is a Delaware limited liability company headquartered in New Market, Tennessee.[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 - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com OCUCO INC: Fails to Protect Private Info, Monsoor and Porras Say ---------------------------------------------------------------- Raymond Monsoor and Laura Porras, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Ocuco, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 8:25-cv-01938 (M.D. Fla., July 23, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to protect these patients' personally identifiable information and protected health information. On or around April 1, 2025, the Defendant discovered that an unauthorized third party obtained access to two non-production servers and certain files stored therein between March 28, 2025 and April 1, 2025. However, the Defendant began notifying individuals of the breach on June 20, 2025--almost three months after Defendant learned that the information was accessed by cybercriminals. Moreover, the Defendant's data breach notices do not provide details about the root cause of the data breach, the vulnerabilities exploited, the criminals responsible for the breach, and the remedial measures undertaken to ensure such a breach does not occur again, says the suit. Based Largo, Pinellas County Florida, Ocuco, Inc. operates as an optical retail software company, which offers practice management and electronic health record systems for thousands of eyecare practices, clinics, and lens manufacturing labs. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nathan C. Zipperian, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 2103 N. Commerce Parkway Fort Lauderdale, FL 33326 Telephone: (866) 540-5505 E-mail: nczipperian@millershah.com - 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 OMID AGHAZADEH: Court Finds No TCPA Solicitation in Texts --------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Mark Aussieker, Plaintiff, v. Omid Aghazadeh, Defendant, Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-0888 TLN AC (PS) (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Allison Claire, the Magistrate Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, recommended that defendant's motion to dismiss be granted for failure to state a claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. While plaintiff makes allegations regarding defendant's unlicensed practice of real estate, these allegations are unrelated to the TCPA claim, which is the only cause of action in this case. This putative class action was brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 47 U.S.C. Section 227. Plaintiff's personal telephone number is on the National Do Not Call Registry. Plaintiff has never been a customer of defendant's, nor did he ever consent to be contacted by defendant. On November 4, 2024, at 8:25 a.m., plaintiff received a text message from 202-260-1663. The message read Hello KIMBERLY, Came across your property in SACRAMENTO. Are you open to options to sell it?" Plaintiff responded that he was not open to selling the property because there were people living in it. He then received a second text, reading "Do you own the property at [NN ]A[XXXXX XXXX]?" Plaintiff continued to receive various text messages from defendant asking to give a proposal on plaintiff's home and touted the services offered by defendant, using the fictitious names Yuna Homes and Golden Capital. Plaintiff contacted defendant's telephone company to ascertain who was texting him illegally with fake names, and the telephone company responded stating that the customer of record was Golden Capital Holdings, LLC with an address in Chatsworth, CA, and the responsible person on the account was defendant Omid Aghazadeh. Plaintiff alleges that defendant openly brags on Instagram about engaging in a business called real estate wholesaling, which consists of cold-calling people that are potentially interested in selling their house, cold-calling people that are potentially interested in buying the house, and then brokering a deal for the property and pocketing the difference. Plaintiff contends that this activity requires a real estate brokers license pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 10131, and defendant does not have a real estate license. Plaintiff alleges defendant posted on Instagram that he uses an automated system to send as many as 25,000 text messages per day, that he has made over $750,000 in the last year by engaging in this practice. Plaintiff received a phone call from defendant's number on November 25, 2024. All text messages and phone calls received were nonconsensual. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of All persons in the United States whose telephone numbers were on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 31 days, but who received more than one telemarketing call from or on behalf of Defendant promoting Golden Capital's goods or services, within a 12-month period at any time in the period that begins four years before the date of filing this Complaint to trial. On behalf of himself and the putative class, plaintiff sues defendant for a single count of violation of the TCPA. Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, arguing that the communications did not violate the TCPA because they offered to purchase a property rather than sell a good or service, and to dismiss the class claims because plaintiff's class allegations are facially deficient, and plaintiff is disqualified from service as a class representative. The TCPA prohibits initiating more than one telephone solicitation within any 12-month period to a residential telephone subscriber who has registered his or her telephone number on the national do-not-call registry. 47 U.S.C. Section 227(c)(5). Telephone solicitation means the initiation of a telephone call or message for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services, which is transmitted to any person." 47 U.S.C. Section 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(f)(15). Whether a call or text is considered a solicitation is determined by the purpose of the message. The court relied primarily on Coffey v. Fast Easy Offer LLC, where U.S. District Judge Steven P. Logan evaluated a case in which plaintiff received numerous telephone calls and text messages from a rotating series of phone numbers, seeking to solicit plaintiff to sell her home or engage various entities to represent or assist her in the sale of her home. In that case, the initial text read, "Hello Vickey, this Yannick the home buyer. Have you given up on selling your ... property?" Judge Logan rejected the argument that the messages constituted solicitations and dismissed the case. Judge Logan explained in Coffey that even assuming defendant intended to ultimately generate business based on the sale of plaintiff's home, the messages and calls plaintiff received relate to future potential advertising. And the fact that plaintiff was directed to defendant's website, which advertises its real estate services, is not itself dispositive, as 'the mere inclusion of a link to a website on which a consumer can purchase a product does not transform the whole communication into a solicitation. Judge Claire found the reasoning of Coffey to be persuasive. An offer to buy simply does not fall within the statutory definition of "solicitation" because it is not a communication "for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services, which is transmitted to any person." The court noted that unsolicited offers to buy may indeed be as unwelcome and intrusive as are unsolicited offers of property, goods or services for sale -- but Congress addressed only the latter problem in the TCPA. The court lacks the authority to construe the statute more broadly that its language permits in order to address the harm plaintiff seeks to redress. Plaintiff attempted to distinguish Coffey by stating that the messages sent in that case were "pure" offers to buy. But the court found that the messages sent in Coffey were no more pure offers to buy than those sent to plaintiff. The court noted there is no appreciable difference between the messages in both cases. Plaintiff's argument was exactly the same as the argument made by Coffey: that defendant's offer to buy plaintiff's house was really a solicitation for a service from which defendant would ultimately make money. This argument was expressly -- and the Court believes correctly -- rejected by Judge Logan. A copy of Judge Claire's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=keB8Hs R.D.G. ENTERPRISES: Gonzalez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation ------------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Gonzalez, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. R.D.G. Enterprises IV, Inc. a/k/a Westar Gas Station & Mart and Ruben Gonzalez, individually Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-23337 (S.D. Fla., July 25, 2025) is an action against the Defendants to recover monetary damages for unpaid overtime wages and retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Gonzalez was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt, full-time, hourly employee from approximately May 1, 2018 to February 22, 2025, or more than six years. However, for FLSA purposes, Plaintiff's relevant period of employment is 139 weeks. She was hired as a gas station, cafeteria, and convenience store employee and had duties as breakfast cook and cleaning employee. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants willfully failed to pay her overtime wages, at the rate of time and a half his regular rate, for every hour that he worked in excess of 40. She complained many times about the unpaid overtime hours. She complained on February 21, 2025, for the last time. As a direct result, Defendant Ruben Gonzalez fired her the next day, on February 22, 2025, says the Plaintiff. R.D.G. Enterprises IV, Inc., a/k/a Westar Gas Station & Mart, is a Florida profit corporation.[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 RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Prasad Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- RAJ PRASAD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES OF RICHMOND, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00576 (E.D. Va., July 24, 2025) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard individuals' highly valuable personally identifiable information and protected health information including, inter alia, names, dates of birth, addresses, Social Security numbers, account numbers, routing numbers, medical information, and health insurance information. In order to provide its healthcare services, the Defendant is indirectly or directly entrusted with individuals' PII and PHI. As Defendant is or should have been aware, these types of personal and sensitive data are highly targeted by hackers who seek to exploit that data for nefarious purposes. In the wrong hands, these types of sensitive data may be wielded to cause significant harm to Plaintiff and Class Members. Despite Defendant's duty to safeguard the PII and PHI with which it was entrusted, and the foreseeability of a data breach, Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI stored on Defendant's computer systems was compromised by unauthorized actors between April 2 and April 6, 2024. Despite the breach occurring in April 2024, the Defendant did not confirm that patient information was compromised until nearly a year later, on May 2, 2025, and did not begin notifying impacted individuals until July 1, 2025, says the suit. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's failure to implement and follow basic, standard security procedures, Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI have been compromised by cybercriminals. The Plaintiff, on behalf of the Class, brings claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, violation of the Virginia Personal Information Breach Notification Act, and declaratory judgment, seeking damages, with attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, and appropriate injunctive and declaratory relief. Radiology Associates of Richmond is a provider of medical imaging services at seven hospitals in Virginia and several outpatient facilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven T. Webster, Esq. WEBSTER BOOK LLP 2300 Wilson Blvd., Suite 728 Arlington, VA 22201 Telephone: (888) 987-9991 E-mail: swebster@websterbook.com - and - Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Patrick D. Donathen, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: gary@lcllp.com patrick@lcllp.com RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT: Venet Wage Suit to Remain in Federal Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Michelle Williams Court of the United States District Court for the Central District of California denied Plaintiff Nik Venet's motion to remand the case captioned as Nik Venet v. Recreational Equipment, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-03772-MWC-PD (C.D. Cal.). On March 18, 2024, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all persons who worked for Defendant in California as non-exempt employees during the relevant time period, filed a class action lawsuit against Defendants in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. Plaintiff's complaint alleges the following nine causes of action: (1) failure to pay minimum wages; (2) failure to pay overtime compensation; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to provide rest breaks; (5) failure to provide accurate wage statements; (6) failure to reimburse employees; (7) failure to provide wages; (8) failure to pay sick wages; and (9) unfair and unlawful business practices. Plaintiff defines two classes as follows: The California Class: All individuals who are or previously were employed by Defendant in California, including any employees staffed with Defendant by a third party, and classified as non-exempt employees at any time during the period beginning four (4) years prior to the filing of this Complaint and ending on the date as determined by the Court. The California Labor Sub-Class: All members of the California Class who are or previously were employed by Defendant in California, including any employees staffed with Defendant by a third party, and classified as non-exempt employees at any time during the period three (3) years prior to the filing of the complaint and ending on the date as determined by the Court. On April 24, 2025, Defendant filed a notice of removal pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act. Because Plaintiff did not expressly plead a specific amount of damages in the complaint, Defendant calculated its own estimate of potential damages based on Plaintiff's allegations. Plaintiff now moves to remand, arguing that Defendant has failed to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum. CAFA provides federal jurisdiction over class actions in which: (1) the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, (2) there is minimal diversity between the parties, and (3) the number of proposed class members is at least 100. The parties do not dispute class numerosity or minimal diversity. Therefore, the only question before the Court is whether the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. The Court finds that the amount in controversy requirement is met. With its removal notice, Defendant provided an initial declaration from Zach Lewis, an economist and a manager at Stout Risius Ross. (A) Unpaid Minimum Wages, Unpaid Overtime Wages, and Failure to Provide Meal and Rest Periods Plaintiff argues that Defendant's 10% violation rate is an unreasonable assumption. According to Judge Court, "Not so. Plaintiff's complaint alleges that the meal and rest period violations occurred 'from time to time,' in which an exposure rate of 10% is rather conservative. The off-the-clock allegations are not similarly narrowed 'from time to time.' Instead, the complaint alleges that Defendant engages in the practice of requiring off-the-clock work. Thus, a 10% violation rate for wage violations is also conservative." The Court finds that Defendant's proffered totals are credible for the unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, and failure to provide meal and rest periods -- totaling $4,300,544.75. (B) Waiting Time Penalties Plaintiff contends that Defendant's calculations improperly assume a 100% violation rate. The Court agrees that a 100% violation rate was not warranted but otherwise disagrees with Plaintiff. Plaintiff does not use broad language such as "at all relevant times," but alleges that Defendant "regularly" committed violations. The Court finds that a reduced violation rate of 20% is warranted based on Plaintiff's allegations that the violations were committed regularly. Accordingly, assuming a 20% violation rate (and tying the calculation to the number of separated employees), the potential exposure for waiting time penalties is $535,234.53. (C) Wage Statement Penalties In calculating the potential exposure, Mr. Lewis identified 2,612 putative class members who worked 51,596 bi-weekly pay periods within the one-year statute of limitations period. Plaintiff again argues that a 100% violation rate is not a reasonable assumption. The Court agrees. Plaintiff highlights that the complaint alleges that the wage statement violations occurred "from time to time." Like the Court did with Plaintiff's claim for waiting time penalties, it assumes a 20% violation instead. Accordingly, assuming a 20% violation rate (and using Mr. Lewis' calculation of $5,029,000.00), the potential exposure for wage statement penalties is $1,005,800.00. (D) Plaintiff's Remaining Claims Because the analyzed claims exceed CAFA's amount in controversy threshold at a combined total of $5,841,579.28, the Court need not determine attorneys' fees estimates. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ROw96h from PacerMonitor.com. RESERVEBAR HOLDINGS: Aguirre Files TCPA Suit in C.D. Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ReserveBar Holdings Corp. The case is captioned as JOSE LUIS AGUIRRE, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RESERVEBAR HOLDINGS CORP., Case No. 2:25-cv-06131-E (C.D. Cal., July 7, 2025). The suit is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. ReserveBar Holdings Corp. is a distributor of alcoholic beverages, headquartered in Connecticut. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gerald Donald Lane, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com REWARDSTYLE INC: Lopez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Victor Lopez, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. REWARDSTYLE, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-06207 (S.D.N.Y., July 28, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, https://www.shopltk.com/, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. REWARDSTYLE, INC., operates the Shop LTK online retail store, as well as the Shop LTK interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Danalgottlieb@aol.com Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal ROASTING SOLUTIONS: Evans Sues Over Blind Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES EVANS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROASTING SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08421 (N.D. Ill., July 23, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of ground coffee on Defendant's website. Despite his efforts, however, the Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendants' policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Based in Dubuque, IA, Roasting Solutions, LLC owns and operates the website, https://www.verenastreet.com, which offers roasted coffees and related accessories for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 (630) 478-0856 E-mail: achan@ealg.law RXSIGHT INC: Makaveev Sues Over Misleading Business Statements -------------------------------------------------------------- RUMEN MAKAVEEV, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RXSIGHT, INC., RON KURTZ, and SHELLEY THUNEN, Defendants, Case No. 8:25-cv-01596 (C.D. Cal., July 22, 2025) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired RxSight securities between November 7, 2024 and July 8, 2025, inclusive, pursuing claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On July 8, 2025, after the market closed, RxSight reported preliminary second quarter 2025 financial results, revealing significant declines in Light Delivery Device sales, and light adjustable intraocular lenses utilization, and overall revenue. The Company also lowered its full year 2025 guidance by approximately $42.5 million at the midpoint. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the Company was experiencing "adoption challenges" and/or structural issues resulting in declines in sales and utilization; (2) Defendants had overstated the demand for RxSight's products; (3) as a result, RxSight was unlikely to meet its own previously issued finanical guidance for fiscal year 2025; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis, says the suit. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. RxSight is a commercial-stage medical technology company, engaged in the research and development, manufacture, and sale of light adjustable intraocular lenses used in cataract surgery in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: clinehan@glancylaw.com - and - Howard G. Smith, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem, PA 19020 Telephone: (215) 638-4847 Facsimile: (215) 638-4867 SABLE OFFSHORE: Faces Johnson Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop -------------------------------------------------------------- TRACY JOHNSON, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SABLE OFFSHORE CORP., JAMES C. FLORES, GREGORY D. PATRINELY, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, JEFFERIES LLC, TD SECURITIES (USA) LLC, THE BENCHMARK COMPANY, LLC, JOHNSON RICE & COMPANY, L.L.C., PEP ADVISORY LLC, ROTH CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, and TUOHY BROTHERS INVESTMENT RESEARCH, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-06869 (C.D. Cal., July 28, 2025) is a class action on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Sable Offshore securities between May 19, 2025 and June 3, 2025, inclusive, and/or pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's May 21, 2025 secondary public offering. On June 4, 2025, before the market opened, Sable Offshore filed a current report on Form 8-K with the SEC. It stated, in pertinent part, the following: On June 3, 2025, a Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge granted ex parte requests from plaintiffs in Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, et al. (25CV02244) and Environmental Defense Center, et al. v. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, et al. (25CV02247) for temporary restraining orders prohibiting Sable Offshore Corp. from restarting transportation of oil through the Las Flores Pipeline System pending the hearing on an order to show cause regarding a preliminary injunction. Sable is exploring all possible avenues available to address these preliminary rulings. Sable is now targeting August 1, 2025. for first sales due to this delay. On this news, the price of Sable Offshore stock fell by $0.94 per share, or 3.91%, to close at $23.10 on June 4, 2025. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On May 21, 2025, the Defendants held the SPO, issuing 10,000,000 shares of common stock at $29.50 per share. The Company raised gross proceeds of $295 million. By the commencement of this action, the Company's common stock traded significantly below the SPO price. As a result, investors were damaged. Accordingly, Sable Offshore's efforts to restart production have been marred by litigation, amid accusations that the Company has violated the California Coastal Act, resulting in environmental harm. The Plaintiff purchased Sable Offshore securities during the Class Period and/or pursuant and/or traceable to the SPO and was economically damaged thereby. Sable operates in the offshore drilling business, and seeks to extract oil from the Santa Ynez field in federal waters off the Coast of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com SAN DIEGO, CA: Eulitt Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANDY EULITT, MARK ADELMAN, JOAN ADELMAN, CRUZ HERNANDEZ, MARK BUSH, DEBRA EGGEMAN STEFFEN AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED SINCE 1954, v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO, CA, Case No. 3:18-cv-02721-RBM-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying case as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Plaintiff seeks certification of a class defined as: "All individuals who resided in RV parks in the City of San Diego since 1954 and were subjected to the illegal enforcement of Ordinance 2584 after it had been repealed, as well as elderly and disabled individuals, protected classes under the Fair Housing Act and Americans with Disabilities Act, who were discriminated against and denied reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act and Americans with Disabilities Act." The Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and has moved for appointment of counsel. San Diego is a city on the Pacific coast of Southern California, adjacent to the Mexico–United States border. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4zrKnm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs appears pro se: Sandy Eulitt 49 El Prado Lane Oceanside, CA 92058 Telephone: (949) 295-9152 E-mail: thebubblyone@gmail.com SAXX UNDERWEAR: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Martinez Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JUDITH ADELA FERNANDEZ MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SAXX UNDERWEAR (USA) CO., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06142 (S.D.N.Y., July 26, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive interactive website, https://www.saxxunderwear.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 19, 2025, in an attempt to purchase Boxers 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 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. SAXX Underwear (USA) Co. operates the website that offers underwear 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 SD BULLION: Vickery Files False Ad Suit Over Precious Metal Coins ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Vickery, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff v. SD Bullion, Inc., Smart Silver Stacker, Silver Dragons, Yankee Stacking, Silver Seeker and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-01915-BEN-DDL (S.D. Cal., July 28, 2025) is a class action brought on behalf of two classes of persons who purchased precious metal coins from SD Bullion, Inc. after May 18, 2018, to the present time and paid more than comparable prices available elsewhere, as a result of SD Bullion's false advertising campaign claiming "The Lowest Price. Period." According to the complaint, the statement "SD BULLION The Lowest Price. Period." is literally false and misleading. The suit claims that it is impossible for any dealer to consistently offer the lowest prices to all customers at all times, given the fluctuating nature of the precious metals market and the varying costs associated with acquiring and selling precious metal coins. Specifically, SD Bullion's prices are, in fact, often higher than those offered by its competitors. For example, on May 25, 2025, Plaintiff purchased an American Gold Eagle Coin from SD Bullion at a price of $1,129.95 with tax. On the same day, while the Gold market was closed and not varying, these exact coins were available from a competitor for $1027.95 with tax. This price discrepancy demonstrates that SD Bullion's claim of offering the lowest prices is false, says the Plaintiff. The Defendants' false claims have caused Plaintiff and other consumers to pay higher prices for precious metal coins than they would have paid had they not relied on defendants' false advertising, the suit added. SD Bullion markets and sells precious metal coins nationwide through its website, www.sdbullion.com, and other promotional materials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Duane A. Admire, Esq. ADMIRE & ASSOCIATES 1770 Avenida Del Mundo, Suite 704 Coronado, CA 92118 Telephone: (619) 316-6658 E-mail: Duaneadmire@outlook.com SIRIUS XM: Court Narrows Claims in Balmores Suit ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CINDY BALMORES, et al., v. SIRIUS XM RADIO INC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00886-KKE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Kymberly Evanson entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Court dismisses the DUTPA claim and Florida good faith and fair dealing claim with leave to amend. The Court also dismisses the Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief regarding its advertising practices with leave to amend. The remainder of the motion is denied. The Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint by Aug. 13, 2025. In this putative class action, the Plaintiffs Cindy Balmores, Justin Braswell, Deborah Garvin, and Thea Anderson sue Sirius XM Radio Inc. under Washington and Florida law for Sirius's marketing and business practices regarding its U.S. Music Royalty Fee. Sirius moves to dismiss each claim of the lawsuit. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged violations of Washington's consumer protection law and, in the alternative, the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. But the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Sirius for any claims arising under Florida law. The Court also dismisses the Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief regarding Sirius’s advertising practices. In October 2022, Plaintiff Thea Anderson purchased a monthly Sirius plan after receiving a call from Sirius offering a promotional price of $5.99 per month for 12 months. Sirius provides subscription plans for "satellite radio music" and "internet-only streaming music." A copy of the Court's order dated July 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=I0Sjwq at no extra charge.[CC] SJS GROUP LLC: Cruz Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SJS Group LLC. The case is styled as Arleen Mariam Cruz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SJS Group LLC doing business as: Customcuff, Case No. 1:25-cv-23369-KMW (S.D. Fla., July 28, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. SJS Group LLC doing business as Customcuff -- https://www.customcuff.co/ -- offers personalized jewelry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zane Charles Hedaya, Esq. Gerald Donald Lane, Jr., Esq. Faaris Kamal Uddin, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com faaris@jibraellaw.com SKIN APEEL: Fernandez Sues Over Disability Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------- Nelson Fernandez, on behalf of others similarly situated v. SKIN APEEL, INC., a Florida for-profit corporation, Case No. 9:25-cv-80938-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 28, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant owns, controls, maintains, and/or operates an adjunct website, https://skinapeel.com (the "Website"). One of the functions of the Website is to provide the public information on the locations of Defendant's physical restaurants. Defendant also sells to the public its food and beverage products through the Website, which acts as a critical point of sale and ordering for Defendant's food and beverage products that are made in and also available for ordering and purchase in, from, and through Defendant's physical restaurants. The Plaintiff utilizes available screen reader software that allows individuals who are blind and visually disabled to communicate with company websites. However, Defendant's Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by blind and visually disabled individuals using keyboards and available screen reader software. These access barriers, one or more of which were experienced by Plaintiff, are severe and pervasive and, as confirmed by Plaintiff's expert, include the following (with reference to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines ("WCAG"), says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and at all relevant times has been a visually and physically disabled person. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls a health spa.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rodenck V. Hannah, Esq. RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A. 4800 N. Hiatus Road Sunrise, FL 33351 Phone: 954/362-3800 Facsimile: 954/362-3779 Email: rhannah@rhannahlaw.com - and - Pelayo Duran, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO 6355 NW. 36th Street, Suite 307 Virginia Gardens, FL 33166 Phone: 305/266-9780 Facsimile: 305/269-8311 Email: duranandassociates@gmail.com SMART ERP: Wright Bid to Appoint Interim Class Counsel Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RANDALL WRIGHT, v. SMART ERP SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-02588-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' application to appoint interim class counsel. The Plaintiffs seek to appoint three attorneys from three different law firms as interim class counsel: (1) Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A.; (2) Scott Edward Cole of Cole & Van Note; and (3) John J. Nelson of Milberg Coleman Bryson Philips Grossman, PLLC. The Court finds that counsel did "not present the 'special circumstances' that warrant appointment of interim counsel at this stage." Per the Court’s previous order, the Plaintiffs' consolidated complaint is due within 45 days of this Order. Within 10 days after the consolidated complaint is filed, the parties shall submit an agreed upon briefing schedule to the Court for motion to dismiss briefing or the filing of an answer to the consolidated complaint. Smart provides information technology services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ttpi9x at no extra charge.[CC] SMOKE HOUSE: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Mellenthin Says -------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL MELLENTHIN v. THOMAS P. SEHNERT, JANE C. SEHNERT and SMOKE HOUSE MARKET INCORPORATED, Case No. 4:25-cv-01123 (E.D. MO., July 28, 2025) is brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated disabled persons, asserting violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the ADA's Accessibility Guidelines. The Plaintiff is disabled as defined by the ADA. He is required to traverse in a wheelchair and is substantially limited in performing one or more major life activities, including but not limited to: walking, standing, grabbing, grasping and/or pinching. On May 1, 2025, the Plaintiff was a customer at "Annie Gunn's," a restaurant located at 16806 Chesterfield Airport Road, Chesterfield, Missouri. The Defendant operates restaurant business.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Douglas S. Schapiro, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF THE SCHAPIRO LAW GROUP, P.L. 7301-A W. Palmetto Park Rd., No. 100A Boca Raton, FL 33433 Telephone: (561) 807-7388 E-mail: schapiro@schapirolawgroup.com STATE FARM: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Pitkin Suit to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Melissa Pitkin, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. State Farm General Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00924-WHO, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs Melissa Pitkin and Dan Grout (a married couple, together, "Plaintiffs") bring this class action complaint against Defendant State Farm General Insurance Company, alleging that State Farm has a common practice of depreciating sales tax when calculating actual cash value ("ACV") benefits payments to policyholders, which the Plaintiffs claim violates California Insurance Code section 2051(b). On Oct. 17, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class. They seek class certification under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b) for all four of their causes of action: declaratory relief, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. On July 15, 2025, Judge William H. Orrick entered an Order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class. The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have offered a feasible methodology for calculating damages class wide, have demonstrated that the class is identifiable, and have shown that the common issue of whether State Farm's method of calculating actual cash value (ACV) for personal property insurance policies like those held by the putative Class Members predominates over whatever individualized issues may arise. In short, the Plaintiffs have satisfied the Rule 23 requirements for class certification. The appellate case is captioned Melissa Pitkin, et al. v. State Farm General Insurance Company, Case No. 25-4765, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 30, 2025. [BN] Defendant-Petitioner STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY is represented by: Jennifer M. Hoffman, Esq. Jeffrey S. Crowe, Esq. Katherine C. Sample, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 350 South Grand Ave, 40th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 620-1780 Facsimile: (213) 620-1398 Email: jhoffman@sheppardmullin.com jcrowe@sheppardmullin.com ksample@sheppardmullin.com - and - Anna S. McLean, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 434-9100 Facsimile: (415) 434-3947 Email: amclean@sheppardmullin.com SYNGENTA CROP: Paraquat Products Allegedly Unsafe, Roy Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM ROY HOLLIDAY, Plaintiff v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION LLC and CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Case No. N25-07-272-PQT (D. Del., July 28, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated seeking damages as a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of products containing the herbicide Paraquat, which causes Parkinson's disease in humans. The Plaintiff maintains that the Defendants' Paraquat products are defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable, the suit contends. "Paraquat" refers to all formulations of Defendants' products containing Paraquat, including, but not limited to, Gramoxone, or any other formulation containing the active ingredient Paraquat. The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Paraquat. He developed Parkinson's disease. Syngenta is an agricultural technology company headquartered in Basel, Switzerland. It primarily covers crop protection and seeds for farmers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th St. Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 E-mail: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Fidelma Fitzpatrick, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 40 Westminster Street, 5th Floor Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: (401) 457-7728 Facsimile: (401) 457-7708 E-mail: ffitzpatrick@motleyrice.com TALLAHASSEE MEMORIAL: Bell Transferred to W.D. Missouri ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Lydia Bell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tallahassee Memorial Healthcare, Inc., Case No. 4:25-cv-00309 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on July 28, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-00584-BP to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Tallahassee Memorial HealthCare -- https://www.tmh.org/ -- is a private, not-for-profit community healthcare system founded in 1948.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Rachel N. Dapeer, Esq. DAPEER LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave., Ste. 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 610-5223 Email: rachel@dapeer.com The Defendant is represented by: Julie Singer Brady, Esq. Yameel L. Mercado Robles, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP - ORLANDO FL 200 S. Orange Ave., Ste 2300 Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: (407) 649-4699 Email: jsingerbrady@bakerlaw.com ymercadorobles@bakerlaw.com TAYLOR MORRISON: Mundel Class Suit Trial to Begin in 2026 --------------------------------------------------------- Taylor Morrison Home Corp. 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 Gundel class suit trial to start in the first quarter of 2026. On April 26, 2017, a class action complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit in and for Polk County, Florida by Norman Gundel, William Mann, and Brenda Taylor against Avatar Properties, Inc., (an acquired AV Homes entity) ("Avatar"), generally alleging that its collection of club membership fees in connection with the use of one of its amenities in its East homebuilding segment violated various laws relating to homeowner associations and other Florida-specific laws (the "Solivita litigation"). The class action complaint sought an injunction to prohibit future collection of club membership fees. On November 2, 2021, the court determined that the club membership fees were improper and that plaintiffs were entitled to $35.0 million in fee reimbursements. The Company appealed the court’s ruling to the Sixth District Court of Appeal (the "District Court") on November 29, 2021, and the plaintiffs agreed to continue to pay club membership fees pending the outcome of the appeal. On June 23, 2023, the District Court affirmed the trial court judgment in a split decision, with three separate opinions. Recognizing the potential 'far-reaching effects on homeowners associations throughout the State,' the District Court certified a question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court, and it filed a notice to invoke the discretionary review of the Florida Supreme Court. On November 2, 2023, the Florida Supreme Court declined to exercise jurisdiction. Following the Florida Supreme Court's decision, it paid $64.7 million to the plaintiffs during the quarter ended December 31, 2023, which included the amount of the trial court's judgment, club membership fees received during the pendency of its appeal, pre- and post-judgment interest. The Court held evidentiary hearings on July 29 and 30, 2024 with respect to the plaintiffs' claims for additional pre-judgment interest and legal fees and heard closing argument on August 13, 2024. On November 4, 2024, the Tenth Judicial Circuit Court for Polk County, Florida issued an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and taxable costs and denied their motion for pre-judgment interest at a rate higher than the Florida statutory rate. The Court awarded plaintiffs $22.5 million for attorneys' fees, $0.6 million for pre-judgment interest at the statutory rate of 9.46%, and $0.6 million for reimbursement of taxable costs. The Company filed a notice of appeal and have recorded an accrual with respect to its estimated liability for the plaintiffs' legal fees and costs for this matter, which is reflected in our legal accruals as of June 30, 2025. After reviewing its amenity arrangements in its Florida communities to determine whether such arrangements might subject the Company to liability in light of the outcome of the Solivita litigation described above, it identified one additional community with similar arrangements. On August 13, 2020, Slade Chelbian, a resident of its Bellalago community in Kissimmee, Florida, filed a purported class action suit against Avatar, AV Homes, Inc. and Taylor Morrison Home Corporation in the Circuit Court of the Ninth Circuit in and for Osceola County, Florida, generally alleging that Avatar cannot earn profits from community members for use of club amenities where membership in the club is mandatory for all residents and failure to pay club membership fees could result in the foreclosure of their homes by Avatar. Trial has been scheduled to commence in the first quarter of 2026. Taylor Morrison Home Corporation is into residential homebuilding and the development of lifestyle communities based in Arizona. TEA DATING: Faces Reyes Suit Over Compromised Personal Info ----------------------------------------------------------- GRISELDA REYES, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TEA DATING ADVICE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-06321 (N.D. Cal., July 28, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Representative Plaintiff's and/or Class Members' personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's information network. With this action, Representative Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it caused and will continue to cause Representative Plaintiff and thousands of other similarly situated persons in the massive and preventable cyberattack purportedly discovered by Defendant on July 25, 2025, by which unauthorized individuals infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected network and accessed the Private Information which was being kept under protected. Shortly after the Data Breach was announced, Internet users claimed to have mapped the locations of Tea's users based on metadata contained from the leaked images. Thus, instead of empowering women, Tea has actually put them at risk of serious harm. While Defendant claims to have discovered the breach as early as July 25, 2025, the Defendant had not yet begun informing individual victims of the Data Breach as of the date of this filing. Indeed, Representative Plaintiff and Class Members were wholly unaware of the Data Breach until they saw media coverage of the incident, asserts the suit. Tea Dating Advice, Inc. owns and operates an application called "Tea" which is marketed as a women-only app that offers dating tools for women and lets women anonymously share and search for information, advice, and photos of men they say they have dates with or are looking to date.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edward Cole, Esq. Laura Van Note, Esq. Mark T. Freeman, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 Facsimile: (510) 891-7030 E-mail: sec@colevannote.com lvn@colevannote.com mtf@colevannote.com TOUCHETTE REGIONAL: Tate Sues Over Disability-Based Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------------ Lillie Tate, on behalf of others similarly situated v. TOUCHETTE REGIONAL HOSPITAL, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-01506 (S.D. Ill., July 28, 2025), is brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA") seeking redress for Defendant's failure to accommodate Plaintiff's disability, Defendant's disability-based discrimination, Defendant's disability-based harassment, and Defendant's retaliation against Plaintiff for engaging in a protected activity under the ADA. The Plaintiff's disability impacts major life activities. Specifically, Plaintiff's diabetes-induced vision impairments primarily impact her ability to drive at night, which was not an essential function of Plaintiff's job as an Outpatient Behavioral Health Therapist I. As such, Plaintiff is a "qualified individual" as defined under the ADA. The Plaintiff was treated less favorably than similarly situated employees outside of Plaintiff's protected class (non-disabled employees). The Defendant terminated Plaintiff's employment on the basis of Plaintiff's disability (diabetes). The Defendant's conduct toward Plaintiff illustrated a willful and/or reckless violation of the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an Outpatient Behavioral Health Therapist I from July 10, 2023 until Plaintiff's unlawful termination on December 9, 2024. Touchette Regional Hospital, Inc., is a corporation that at all times material to the allegations in this Complaint was doing business in and for St. Clair County, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sophia K. Steere, Esq. Nathan C. Volheim, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone (331) 307-7634 Fax (630) 575-8188 Email: ssteere@sulaimanlaw.com nvolheim@sulaimanlaw.com TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Braun Files FDCA Suit in S.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transworld Systems Inc., et al. The case is captioned as TZIPORAH BRAUN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS INC., et al., Case No. 7:25-cv-05673-PMH (S.D.N.Y., July 9, 2025). The suit is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act. Transworld Systems Inc. is a provider of receivables management, customer care, back-office support and consumer loan servicing, headquartered in Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com TRI CITY FOODS: Aigner Sues Over Discriminative Property -------------------------------------------------------- Kimberly Aigner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRI CITY FOODS, INC.; TRI CITY FOODS OF ILLINOIS LLC; and DOES 1 to 25, Case No. 1:25-cv-08794 (N.D. Ill., July 28, 2025), is brought against Defendants asserting violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"), and its implementing regulations, arising from the Plaintiff's own experience with excessive sloping conditions in purportedly accessible parking spaces, access aisles, and curb ramps ("Parking Area" or "Parking Areas") at places of public accommodation owned, operated, controlled, and/or leased by Defendants ("Defendants' facilities"), and from site investigations at 7 of Defendants' facilities also finding excessive sloping conditions. The Plaintiff asserts that these excessive sloping conditions persist in part as a result of Defendants' existing but inadequate internal maintenance policies, practices and/or procedures, which fail to ensure compliance with the sloping requirements of the ADA's implementing regulations. Based on the extensive factual investigation performed by Ms. Aigner's investigators, she believes and therefore asserts that numerous additional facilities owned, controlled, and/or operated by Defendants have Parking Areas that are, or have become, inaccessible to individuals who rely on wheelchairs for mobility due to excessive sloping, demonstrating that Defendants' existing internal maintenance policies, practices and/or procedures are inadequate and must be modified, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a person with a mobility disability. Tri City Foods Inc. is, and at all times relevant hereto has been, a Delaware corporation doing business in Illinois as the owner, lessee, and/or operator of dozens of Burger King restaurants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq. NYE, STIRLING, HALE, MILLER & SWEET, LLP 101 Pennsylvania Boulevard, Suite 2 Pittsburgh, PA 15228 Phone: 412-857-5350 Email: ben@nshmlaw.com - and - Jordan T. Porter, Esq. NYE, STIRLING, HALE, MILLER & SWEET, LLP 33 West Mission Street, Suite 201 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Phone: 805-963-2345 Email: jordan@nshmlaw.com TSG PERSIMMON: Baldwin Sues Over Physical Barriers -------------------------------------------------- Carolyn Baldwin, on behalf of others similarly situated v. JFRCO I, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02311-RMR (D. Colo., July 28, 2025), is brought based upon Defendant's failure to remove physical barriers to access and violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the ADA's Accessibility Guidelines, 28 C.F.R. Part 36 ("ADAAG"). The Defendant, as property owner, is responsible for complying with the ADA for both the exterior portions and interior portions of the Property. Even if there is a lease between Defendant and a tenant allocating responsibilities for ADA compliance within the unit the tenant operates, that lease is only between the property owner and the tenant and does not abrogate the Defendant's requirement to comply with the ADA for the entire Property it owns, including the interior portions of the Property which are public accommodations. The Plaintiff has visited the Property once before as a customer and advocate for the disabled. Plaintiff intends to revisit the Property within six months after the barriers to access detailed in this Complaint are removed and the Property is accessible again. The purpose of revisit is to be a return customer to Little George's Mexican, to determine if and when the Property is made accessible and to substantiate already existing standing for this lawsuit for Advocacy Purposes, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair for mobility purposes. JFRCO I, LLC, is a domestic limited liability company that transacts business in the State of Colorado.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas S. Schapiro, Esq. THE SCHAPIRO LAW GROUP, P.L. 7301-A W. Palmetto Park Rd., #100A Boca Raton, FL 33433 Phone: (561) 807-7388 Email: schapiro@schapirolawgroup.com ULTA SALON: Bonezzi Wage Lawsuit to Remain in Federal Court ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Maria Elizabeth Bonezzi's motion to remand the case captioned as MARIA ELIZABETH BONEZZI, Plaintiff, v. ULTA SALON, COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-06916-JST (N.D. Cal.) to state court. Bonezzi brings a class action lawsuit on behalf of herself and similarly situated individuals who worked as non-exempt hourly employees for Defendant Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. in California during the four years preceding the filing of the complaint on Aug. 30, 2024. Bonezzi alleges that she and other Class Members suffered violations from Defendants' failure to pay all wages owed, failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to pay for all hours worked, failure to furnish accurate wage statements, failure to pay final wages, failure to maintain accurate records, and failure to reimburse necessary business expenses. Specifically, Bonezzi alleges that employees were often required to perform pre- and post-shift off-the-clock work, such as waiting outside for store access, undergoing bag checks after clocking out, and waiting for store closure procedures, without proper compensation. Due to these policies, Bonezzi alleges that she and other Class Members suffered “systematic underpayment” of wages and are entitled to recover unpaid wages, waiting time penalties, and other statutory damages. Bonezzi filed the complaint in Marin County Superior Court on Aug. 30, 2024, asserting claims that Defendants: (1) failed to pay minimum wages; (2) failed to pay all overtime wages; (3) failed to provide proper meal periods; (4) failed to provide proper rest periods; (5) failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (6) failed to pay timely final wages; (7) failed to pay timely wages during employment; (8) failed to keep accurate payroll records; (9) failed to reimburse necessary business expenses; and (10) violated California's Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200 et seq. Defendants then filed a notice of removal to the Northern District of California on October 2, 2024, asserting federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1332(c), 1332(d)(2), 1441(a), 1446, and 1453. Bonezzi argues that this case should be remanded because: (1) Defendants have not provided sufficient evidence to support their calculation of the amount in controversy, and (2) Defendants' assumed rates of violation are unreasonable and not supported by any evidence. In total, Defendants assert $57.9 million in controversy through their notice of removal. The Court concludes that a 10% violation rate is reasonable based on the language in the complaint alleging policies, programs, practices, procedures and protocols, that regularly resulted in uncompensated pre-shift off-the-clock work and systematic underpayment of wages as well as allegations of widespread meal period and rest break violations. Accordingly, the Court finds that because even an assumption of a 10% violation rate would satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement, and Bonezzi has not demonstrated why a 10% violation rate would be unreasonable under the circumstances, Defendants have carried their burden of establishing that the amount-in-controversy exceeds $5 million. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gN3R2f from PacerMonitor.com. UNITED STATES: Appeals Injunctive Relief Order in Du Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the motion for injunctive relief in the lawsuit entitled Yan Du, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. United States Department of Homeland Security, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-644, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. Plaintiffs Yan Du, Elika Shams, Mengni He, and Stephen Azu are international students affiliated with Connecticut universities who learned in April 2025 that Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") terminated their F–1 nonimmigrant records. On April 24, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint and a motion for injunctive relief against the United States Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, and Acting Director of ICE Todd Lyons (together "Defendants") on behalf of themselves and at least 53 similarly situated individuals (the "putative class"). On April 28, 2025, Judge Omar A. Williams granted a temporary restraining order ("TRO") as to the named Plaintiffs, withholding judgment on injunctive relief as to the putative class. On May 16, 2025, the Court held a hearing during which the parties argued whether the terms of the TRO should convert into a preliminary injunction. On May 31, 2025, Judge Williams entered an Order granting the motion for injunctive. In sum, the Court finds that the balance of factors supports granting a preliminary injunction, pending adjudication of the merits of the Plaintiffs' claims. The appellate case is captioned Du v. United States Department of Homeland Security, Case No. 25-1867, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on July 31, 2025. [BN] Defendants-Appellants UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al. are represented by: Conor M. Reardon, Esq. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT Connecticut Financial Center 157 Church Street New Haven, CT 06510 UNITED STATES: Appeals Revised Adjudication Plan Order to D.D.C. ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARCO RUBIO, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting in part and denying in part their objections to the Revised Adjudication Plan in the lawsuit entitled Afghan and Iraqi Allies, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Marco Rubio, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01388-TSC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The Plaintiffs, a class of Afghan and Iraqi SIV applicants whose applications have been pending for more than nine months, brought this class action to compel the Defendants, the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and officials at those agencies, to process and adjudicate their SIV applications in accordance with Congress's instructions. In 2019, the Court granted summary judgment to the Plaintiffs on Counts One and Two of the Amended Complaint, concluding that the Defendants unreasonably delayed the adjudication of the Plaintiffs' SIV applications. After granting the Defendants relief from judgment, the Court referred the parties to a magistrate judge for development of a Revised Adjudication Plan. On Nov. 4, 2024, Magistrate Judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya adopted a Revised Adjudication Plan, which the Defendants opposed on Nov. 18, 2024. On June 5, 2025, Judge Tanya S. Chutkan entered an Order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' objections to the Revised Adjudication Plan, and adopting in part and modifying in part the Nov. 4 Order adopting Revised Adjudication Plan. The appellate case is entitled Afghan and Iraqi Allies v. Marco Rubio, et al., Case No. 25-5279, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, filed on July 31, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee AFGHAN AND IRAQI ALLIES, Under Serious Threat Because of Their Faithful Service to the United States, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Deepa Alagesan, Esq. INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ASSISTANCE PROJECT, INC. One Battery Park Plaza, 33rd Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (516) 838-7044 - and - Anika Havaldar, Esq. FRESHFIELDS US LLP 700 13th Street, NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 777-4500 Defendants-Appellants MARCO RUBIO, et al. are represented by: John Armstrong, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 514-2000 UNITED STATES: Brutus Files Prisoner's Civil Rights Suit in D.D.C. ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Donald J. Trump, et al. The case is captioned as CARLOS BRUTUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-02418-UNA (D.D.C., July 7, 2025). The suit is brought against the Defendants for violation of prisoner's civil rights. [BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. US HEALTHWORKS: Settlement Class Gets Provisional Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTINA RAINES and DARRICK FIGG, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. U.S. HEALTHWORKS MEDICAL GROUP, a corporation, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-01539-DMS-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dana Sabraw entered an order granting motion for preliminary approval of class settlement as follows: 1. The Court provisionally certifies a settlement class consisting of all job applicants (172,070 in number) who underwent a "basic" post-offer, pre placement medical examination at a U.S. Healthworks-branded facility in California between Oct. 23, 2017 and Dec. 31, 2018. 2. The Plaintiffs Kristina Raines and Darrick Figg are conditionally certified as the Class Representatives, and the following law firms are conditionally appointed as class counsel: Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP and Light & Miller LLP. 3. The Court approves the notice (attached as Exhibit 1 to the Settlement Agreement) and the Notice Plan. The Notice shall be distributed in the manner specified in the Settlement Agreement. 4. A hearing shall be held before this Court on Nov. 21, 2025 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 13A to consider whether the Settlement should be given final approval by the Court, whether the Court should grant the Plaintiffs' request for incentive and service awards, and what amounts should be awarded to the Plaintiffs' counsel for attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants conducted post-offer, pre-placement medical examinations requiring that job applicants fill out a health history questionnaire which asked health questions that were neither job-related nor consistent with business necessity in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act – "FEHA". The Plaintiffs seek provisional certification of a settlement class comprising: "All job applicants (172,070 in number) who underwent a "basic" post-offer, pre-placement medical examination at a U.S. Healthworks-branded facility in California between Oct. 23, 2017 and Dec. 31, 2018 ("Class Period")." US HealthWorks is an urgent care & occupational health service provider. A copy of the Court's order dated July 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YN8meV at no extra charge.[CC] VILLAGES AT NOAH'S: Murphy Gets More Time to File Class Cert Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Murphy, et al., v. Villages at Noah's Landing, LTD, et al., Case No. 8:25-cv-00022 (M.D. Fla., Filed Jan. 6, 2025), the Hon. Judge Thomas P. Barber entered an order granting the "Plaintiffs' Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Motion for Class Certification." -- The Plaintiffs may file their motion for class certification on or before Aug. 26, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Housing Act. Villages offers a range of housing options and amenities for older adults.[CC] VISION SERVICE: Hann Must File Consolidated Complaint by August 28 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as PETER HAHN on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. VISION SERVICE PLAN a/k/a VSP GLOBAL, VSP VENTURES, LLC, VSP VENTURES MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, and VSP VENTURES OPTOMETRIC SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01580-DJC-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Daniel J. Calabretta entered an order that: 1. Brian Tash v. Vision Service Plan a/k/a VSP Global et al., Case No. 2:25-CV-00762-DJC JDP, and Peter Hahn v. Vision Service Plan a/k/a VSP Global et al., Case No. 2:25-cv 01580- DJC-JDP are consolidated for all purposes. 2. The case identified as Brian Tash v. Vision Service Plan a/k/a VSP Global et al., Case No. 2:23-CV-00762-DJC-JDP, will be designated as the "master file". 3. The Clerk of Court shall add the Complaint filed in the case identified as Peter Hahn v. Vision Service Plan a/k/a VSP Global et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01580-DJC-JDP to the master file and shall thereafter administratively close Case No. 2:25-cv-01580-DJC-JDP. 4. All future pleadings, motions, and other filings shall be filed in the case identified as Brian Tash v. Vision Service Plan a/k/a VSP Global et al., Case No. 2:25-CV-00762-DJC-JDP only. 5. The Plaintiffs shall file and serve a consolidated complaint on or before Aug. 28, 2025. 6. VSP shall answer or otherwise respond to the consolidated complaint on or before Oct. 6, 2025. 7. The Parties shall submit a joint status report pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and paragraph 4 of the Civil Initial Case Management Order in the lead case on or before Nov. 20, 2025. VSP is a group of companies that offers personalized eye care, optical, and business solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated July 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nmMrAO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Heather Lopez, Esq. John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 402 W. Broadway, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com hlopez@milberg.com - and - Dennis Stewart, Esq. Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. Daniel J. Nordin, Esq. Mary M. Nikolai, Esq. Bailey Twyman-Metzger, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 595-3299 E-mail: dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com dnordin@gustafsongluek.com mnikolai@gustafsongluek.com btwymanmetzger@gustafsongluek.com - and - Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq. Justin N. Boley, Esq. Zoran Tasic, Esq. Gwyneth F. Lietz, Esq. WEXLER BOLEY & ELGERSMA LLP 311 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 5450 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 346-2222 Facsimile: (312) 346-0022 E-mail: kaw@wbe-llp.com jnb@wbe-llp.com zt@wbe-llp.com gfl@wbe-llp.com - and - Brett Cebulash, Esq. Kevin Landau, Esq. Joshua Hall, Esq. TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP 123 William St., Suite 1900A New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 931-0704 Facsimile: (212) 931-0703 E-mail: bcebulash@tcllaw.com klandau@tcllaw.com jhall@tcllaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Rebekah S. Guyon, Esq. Lori Chang, Esq. David H. Marenberg, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 1840 Century Park East, 19th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121 Telephone: (310) 586-7700 Facsimile: (310) 586-7800 E-mail: Rebekah.Guyon@gtlaw.com ChangL@gtlaw.com MarenbergD@gtlaw.com VISION SERVICE: Tash Must File Consolidated Complaint by August 28 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN TASH on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. VISION SERVICE PLAN a/k/a VSP GLOBAL, VSP VENTURES, LLC, VSP VENTURES MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, and VSP VENTURES OPTOMETRIC SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00762-DJC-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Daniel J. Calabretta entered an order that: 1. Brian Tash v. Vision Service Plan a/k/a VSP Global et al., Case No. 2:25-CV-00762-DJC JDP, and Peter Hahn v. Vision Service Plan a/k/a VSP Global et al., Case No. 2:25-cv 01580- DJC-JDP are consolidated for all purposes. 2. The case identified as Brian Tash v. Vision Service Plan a/k/a VSP Global et al., Case No. 2:23-CV-00762-DJC-JDP, will be designated as the "master file". 3. The Clerk of Court shall add the Complaint filed in the case identified as Peter Hahn v. Vision Service Plan a/k/a VSP Global et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01580-DJC-JDP to the master file and shall thereafter administratively close Case No. 2:25-cv-01580-DJC-JDP. 4. All future pleadings, motions, and other filings shall be filed in the case identified as Brian Tash v. Vision Service Plan a/k/a VSP Global et al., Case No. 2:25-CV-00762-DJC-JDP only. 5. The Plaintiffs shall file and serve a consolidated complaint on or before Aug. 28, 2025. 6. VSP shall answer or otherwise respond to the consolidated complaint on or before Oct. 6, 2025. 7. The Parties shall submit a joint status report pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and paragraph 4 of the Civil Initial Case Management Order in the lead case on or before Nov. 20, 2025. VSP is a group of companies that offers personalized eye care, optical, and business solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated July 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=y3yaeg at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Heather Lopez, Esq. John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 402 W. Broadway, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com hlopez@milberg.com - and - Dennis Stewart, Esq. Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. Daniel J. Nordin, Esq. Mary M. Nikolai, Esq. Bailey Twyman-Metzger, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 595-3299 E-mail: dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com dnordin@gustafsongluek.com mnikolai@gustafsongluek.com btwymanmetzger@gustafsongluek.com - and - Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq. Justin N. Boley, Esq. Zoran Tasic, Esq. Gwyneth F. Lietz, Esq. WEXLER BOLEY & ELGERSMA LLP 311 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 5450 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 346-2222 Facsimile: (312) 346-0022 E-mail: kaw@wbe-llp.com jnb@wbe-llp.com zt@wbe-llp.com gfl@wbe-llp.com - and - Brett Cebulash, Esq. Kevin Landau, Esq. Joshua Hall, Esq. TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP 123 William St., Suite 1900A New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 931-0704 Facsimile: (212) 931-0703 E-mail: bcebulash@tcllaw.com klandau@tcllaw.com jhall@tcllaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Rebekah S. Guyon, Esq. Lori Chang, Esq. David H. Marenberg, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 1840 Century Park East, 19th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121 Telephone: (310) 586-7700 Facsimile: (310) 586-7800 E-mail: Rebekah.Guyon@gtlaw.com ChangL@gtlaw.com MarenbergD@gtlaw.com WAYFAIR LLC: Rodriguez Consumer Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled REBEKA RODRIGUEZ, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WAYFAIR LLC, Defendant, Case No. 25STCV18387, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 28, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-06910 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff purports to bring this action on behalf of a California class of consumers who purchased any product from Defendant's Website while in California within the statute of limitations period at a purported discount from a higher reference price. In her Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant advertises fictitious prices (and corresponding phantom discounts) on such products which allows it to fabricate a fake reference price, and present the actual price as discounted, when it is not. Wayfair LLC provides home improvement products online. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: David T. Biderman, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1888 Century Park East, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067-1721 Telephone: (310) 788-9900 Facsimile: (310) 788-3399 E-mail: DBiderman@perkinscoie.com - and - Kristine E. Kruger, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1301 Second Ave., Ste. 4200 Seattle, WA 98101-3084 Telephone: (206) 359-8000 Facsimile: (206) 359-9000 WESTROCK SERVICES: Acu Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Edgar R. Acu, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WESTROCK SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2401400 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on July 18, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-01949-PA-AS. On July 18, 2024, while already proceeding in federal court, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant are collectively liable to Plaintiff and Class Members for the following: Failure to pay Plaintiff and Class Members the applicable minimum wage pursuant to California Labor Code and "any additional applicable Wage Orders, which require such compensation to non-exempt employees;" Failure to pay Plaintiff and Class Members for all overtime pursuant to California Labor Code; Failure to provide Plaintiff and Class Members with meal periods pursuant to California Labor Code. Failure to provide Plaintiff and Class Members with rest periods pursuant to California Labor Code; Failure to indemnify Plaintiff and Class Members for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred in direct consequence of the discharge of their duties pursuant to Labor Code; Failure to pay wages due to Plaintiff and Class Members upon discharge pursuant to California Labor; Failure to furnish Plaintiff and Class Members timely, accurate, and itemized wage statements pursuant to California Labor Code; Unfair and unlawful business practices pursuant to California Business and Professions Code; Civil penalties under PAGA pursuant to California Labor Code sections 2699.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Mia Farber, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Phone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 Email: Mia.Farber@jacksonlewis.com - and - Scott P. Jang, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 50 California Street, 9th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4615 Phone: (415) 394-9400 Facsimile: (415) 394-9401 Email: Scott.Jang@jacksonlewis.com - and - Isabella L. Shin, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 160 W. Santa Clara St., Suite 400 San Jose, CA 95113 Phone: (408) 579-0404 Facsimile: (408) 454-0290 Email: Isabella.Shin@jacksonlewis.com WILSHIRE LAW: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Ryan Due April 24, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL RYAN, v. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, P.L.C., Case No. 2:24-cv-08816-CV-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cynthia Valenzuela entered a trial order for civil cases assigned to Judge Valenzuela: Last date to hear motion to amend pleadings Oct. 24, 2025 or add parties: Last date to hear motion for class Apr. 24, 2026 certification: Fact discovery cut-off: Nov. 13, 2026 Expert discovery cut-off: Dec. 18, 2026 Wilshire is a personal injury, employment, aviation, and class action law firm. A copy of the Court's order dated July 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0l1hbR at no extra charge.[CC] WIZARDS OF THE COAST: Martinez Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ JUDITH ADELA FERNANDEZ MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WIZARDS OF THE COAST LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06072 (S.D.N.Y., July 24, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website https://www.dndbeyond.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 an Online Game from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, she encountered multiple access barriers that denied her 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. 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. Wizards of the Coast LLC operates the website that offers digital games.[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 ********* 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 ***