250813.mbx

250813.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, August 13, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 161 Headlines 44 STREET: Class Settlement in Almazo Suit Gets Final Nod ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Bid to Dismiss Legrand Claims Tossed ADIDAS AMERICA: Removes Miller Suit to C.D. Calif. ADOPTIONS FROM THE HEART: Loses Bid to Dismiss Data Breach Case ADROIT HEALTH: Faces Rashley Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages AIS INFOSOURCE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Geman Alleges ALASKA: Bid to Resolve on Summary Judgment Denied in Part ALLIANZ LIFE: Faces Data Breach Class Action Suit in D. Minn. ALLIANZ LIFE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Herrera Says ALLIANZ LIFE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Ogden Says ALLIANZ LIFE: Fails to Secure Sensitive Information, Marotta Says ALPHA BAKING: Removes Baum Suit to N.D. Ill. ALPHA BAKING: Removes Brown Suit to N.D. Ill. ANGELS ON OUR SIDE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Stubbs Alleges AT&T INC: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $177-Mil. ATLANTA MEDICAL: Wilson Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Removes Finney Suit to C.D. Calif. BIRDSONG CORP: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Ash Alleges BOAR'S HEAD: Wins Bid to Dismiss Buksbaum, et al. Consumer Lawsuit BOSTON CHILDREN'S: $5.15MM Deal in Breach Suit Gets Court Prelim OK BT GROUP: Customers Fail to Revive GBP1.3BB Class Action Suit CAPITAL ONE: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to August 15 CASTERDEPOT INC: Campos Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA CATALYST BRANDS: Montes Removed from State Court to E.D. Wash. CENTENE CORP: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit CHAUDRY ALI: Mantalis Seeks Minimum Wage & Overtime Under FLSA CHRISTIE'S: Class Settlement in Data Breach Suit Gets Final Nod COAST DENTAL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Chaviano Due August 21, 2026 COCA-COLA COMPANY: Fletcher Sues Over Mislabeled Drink Products CRE ONLINE: Standing Order in Gianne Class Action Entered DELTA GALIL: Advertises Fake Regular Prices, Sancez Suit Alleges DENTAL GROUP: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $1MM DOMINO'S PIZZA: Amendment of Scheduling Order Sought ELEMENT MATERIALS: Herrera Removed from State Court to C.D. Cal. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SAFETY: Matthews Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA ESKENAZI HEALTH: Green Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA ESSEX MANAGEMENT: Class Cert Filing in McAdams Due June 15, 2026 EVERGY INC: Seeks to Move Class Cert Bid Filing to Oct. 6 FAMILY SOLUTIONS: Bid to Enforce Class Settlement Granted in Part FARMERS INSURANCE: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to August 20 FCA US: Expert Discovery in Maugain Due May 11, 2026 FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE: Faces Suit Over Transfer Regulations FINWISE BANK: Fails to Secure Private Information, Meza Alleges FLEET QUEST: More Time to File Class Cert Bid Response Sought GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE: Loses Bid to Dismiss Brooks, et al. UCL Suit HCA HEALTHCARE: Deadline to File Settlement Claim Form Set Sept. 25 K C PLUMBING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Diaz Suit Alleges KEY DIGITAL: Lewis Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Protective Order Motion Granted in Part KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Must File Opposition Sur-Reply by Sept. 12 KRISPY KREME: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Martin Says KRISTI NOEM: Class Cert Briefing Schedule Entered in C.M. Suit KROGER CO: Womick Must File Class Certification Bid by Oct. 13 LAKE CHARLES: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $2-Mil. LENDMARK FINANCIAL: Record Phone Calls Without Consent, Wilson Says LINEAGE INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sept. 30 LIVE NATION: Arbitration Ruling in ERISA Lawsuit Reversed in Part MASTERCARD INC: $26M Settlement in Hayman Case Gets Final Court OK MOUNTAIN LAUREL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Leatherwood Says NATIONAL DEBT: Tracks Financial Communications, Bernardi Alleges NOVO NORDISK: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Set September 30 NOVO NORDISK: Faces Barta Suit Over Drop in Share Price PADAGIS US: Court Stays Motion to Dismiss Daugherty, et al. Case PLAVAN COMMERCIAL: Settlement in Tanner Suit Gets Final Court Okay R1 RCM HOLDCO: Spencer Sues Over Non Disclosure of Wage Scale REFRESCO BEVERAGES: Settlement in Berry Case Gets Prelim. Court OK ROTO-ROOTER SERVICES: Eddings Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA SAIA MOTOR: Moore Wage Lawsuit to Remain in Federal Court SANOFI-AVENTIS: Judgment in Mosaic, et al. Antitrust Suit Vacated SCOTTEVEST INC: Battle Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind SEGWAY INC: E-Scooters Have Defective Folding Mechanism, Suit Says SIGNANT HEALTH: Morgan Suit Removed from State Ct. to. N.D. Cal. SLEEP DOCTOR: Faces Rodriguez Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages SMTC MANUFACTURING: Nguyen Wage Lawsuit Remanded to State Court STOCKX LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Ashworth Claims SUSSEX CORRECTIONAL: Court Tosses Parkell Civil Rights Class Suit TARGET BRANDS: Oh Sues Over Mislabeled Freeze-Dried Peach Slices TAYLOR FARMS: Faces Vila Suit Over Mislabeled Farm Products TEA DATING: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Doe Suit Says TESLA INC: Transmit User Data to Third-Party Servers, Suit Says TFORCE FREIGHT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Adams Suit Alleges TILE INC: Wins Bid to Dismiss Ireland-Gordys' Claims WESTERN STONE: Removes Bauer Suit to C.D. Calif. WHIRLPOOL CORP: Ruling in Defective Product Suit Affirmed in Part ********* 44 STREET: Class Settlement in Almazo Suit Gets Final Nod --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIGUEL ALMAZO, AYRTON GUERRERO, KELLY LUNA, and EVA LEAL-RUTTEN, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. 44 STREET F&B LLC d/b/a THE LAMBS CLUB, THE GRAND TOUR COLLECTION LLC d/b/a THE LAMBS CLUB, CHRIS MILLER, and JACK LOGUE, Case No. 1:24-cv-00096-JPO (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge J. Paul Oetken entered an order granting final approval of the settlement, class certification, award of attorneys' fees and expenses, and service awards: 1. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23 (FRCP 23), the Court certifies, for settlement purposes only, a Class consisting of: "all current and former tipped, food service employees who worked for the Defendants between May 22, 2017 through March 12, 2025." 2. The Court appoints Plaintiffs Miguel Almazo, Ayrton Guerrero, Kelly Luna, and Eva Leal-Rutten to represent the Class, finding that Plaintiffs meet all the requirements for class certification under FRCP 23(a) and (b)(3). 3. The Court finds that a service payment of $10,000 to each of Miguel Almazo, Ayrton Guerrero, Kelly Luna, and Eva Leal- Rutten is reasonable. 4. The Court likewise confirms as final the appointment of Innessa Huot and Shawn Clark of Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP as Class Counsel for the Class pursuant to FRCP 23, and for individuals who opted into the litigation pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). 5. The Court grants Class Counsel's requested fees of $400,000.00 and reimbursement of litigation expenses of $10,000.00. The Court fully and finally dismisses this matter and litigation in its entirety and with prejudice. Neither party to this litigation is or shall be considered a prevailing party. Lambs is a restaurant near Times Square. A copy of the Court's order dated July 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wPmfDY at no extra charge.[CC] ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Bid to Dismiss Legrand Claims Tossed --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONDALISA LEGRAND, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Case No. 3:22-cv-05815-TSH (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Thomas S. Hixson entered an order denying Abbott's motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3). Condalisa LeGrand brings this putative class action against, alleging certain statements on the labels of Abbott's Ensure (TM) nutrition drinks are false and misleading. On Oct. 6, 2022, LeGrand filed the initial complaint in this matter, seeking to bring a class action. On Jan. 23, 2025, LeGrand filed a motion for class certification which is currently pending before the Court. LeGrand moves to certify the following class: "All persons who purchased Ensure Original Nutrition Shake, Ensure Plus Nutrition Shake, or Ensure Complete Nutrition Shake ('Ensure') in the State of California from Oct. 6, 2018, to the time the Class is notified (the 'Class Period')." Abbott is an Illinois corporation that manufactures, markets, and distributes several different "nutrition" shakes and drinks under its Ensure brand. A copy of the Court's order dated July 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ECHL5x at no extra charge.[CC] ADIDAS AMERICA: Removes Miller Suit to C.D. Calif. -------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of MATTHEW MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADIDAS AMERICA, INC., Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange (Case No. 30-2025-01486791-CU-BT-CXC) to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 31, 2025. The clerk of court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-01693. The case is assigned to Judge Matthew Miller. Adidas America Inc designs and markets apparel products. The Company provides shoes, apparel, and accessories for men, women, boys, girls, and infants and toddlers, as well as offers sports collections including basketball, football, and training shoes. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Vassi Iliadis, Esq. James Ettinger, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 785-4600 Facsimile: (310) 785-4601 Email: vassi.iliadis@hoganlovells.com jay.ettinger@hoganlovells.com ADOPTIONS FROM THE HEART: Loses Bid to Dismiss Data Breach Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Gerald Austin McHugh of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania will deny Adoptions from the Heart, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the case captioned as ERIK LASALLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. ADOPTIONS FROM THE HEART, INC., Case No. 25-cv-00974-GAM (E.D. Pa.). Defendant Adoptions from the Heart, Inc. is a non-profit adoption agency. In running its business, Defendant receives and maintains adoption files containing personal identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") of thousands of its current and former clients. Some of this information includes names, dates of birth, social security numbers, medical records, and names of social workers. In agreeing to work with Defendant, clients sign a Privacy Policy, wherein Defendant promises not to share the PHI or PII with anyone outside of the Agency. Despite this assurance, on April 17, 2024, the data stored in Defendant's internal database was made available and searchable on the internet. At least 2,502 of Defendant's former patients and clients' data files were exposed, and the data remained public for nine days. During this period, the data was susceptible to search engine indexing bots, which are automated data harvesting mechanisms designed to crawl the internet for publicly accessible data. Plaintiff Erik LaSalle is a former client of Defendant, and thus provided the Agency with his PII and PHI, trusting that the Agency would use reasonable measures to keep his information safe. Plaintiff is very careful about the privacy and security of his PII/PHI, does not knowingly transmit his PII/PHI over the internet in an unsafe manner, and is careful to store any sensitive documents in a secure location. But in February 2025, LaSalle received notice that his data file was one of those exposed in the Incident. LaSalle avers that following the Incident, he experienced a spike in spam and scam text messages and phone calls. In addition to the spam calls and attempted bank fraud, LaSalle states that he has spent, and will continue to spend, significant time, effort, and money monitoring his accounts to protect himself from identity theft. Plaintiff purports that Defendant knew or should have known that a failure to safeguard sensitive data presents great risk, but that they nevertheless failed to take adequate precautions, follow statutory or industry standards, or sufficiently notify affected parties once aware of the Incident. LaSalle brings this suit as a class action on behalf of himself and a similarly situated class consisting of "all individuals residing in the United States whose PII/PHI was compromised and/or made accessible to internet search engines as a result of the indexing error discovered by Adoptions From The Heart in April 2024, including all individuals who received a Notice of Security Incident." Defendant does not dispute that the Incident occurred, nor that they failed to notify putative Plaintiffs for nine months. Defendant argues instead that Plaintiff cannot establish a causal connection between the Incident and Plaintiff's alleged fraud, warranting dismissal for lack of standing. Defendant argues that the action should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). Plaintiff clearly alleges misuse that precipitated from the breach -- namely, the noteworthy surge in spam communications and the attempted bank fraud. The Court finds Plaintiff's allegations of misuse are actual injuries that support standing. Plaintiff alleges that names, birthdays, and social security numbers, as well as other PHI and PII, were compromised in the Incident. It is difficult to conceive of data more sensitive, as this personal information seldom changes, and can be used to unlock troves of additional sensitive data and accounts. The Court concludes Plaintiffs' injuries are thus "actual" or "imminent." Plaintiff asserts that Defendant's exposure of his sensitive data has resulted in fraudulent activity, supported by a surge in spam communications and an attempted banking breach. Even if these were Plaintiff's only allegations, he would have sufficiently established concreteness at the pleading stage. In addition to his allegations of misuse, Plaintiff argues that his heightened risk of identity theft also establishes concreteness. The Court agrees. Because Plaintiff pleads injuries that are both actual or imminent, concrete, and particularized, Plaintiff sufficiently establishes injury-in-fact, the Court finds. Defendant argues that Plaintiff cannot establish traceability, both because it is not clear that any hackers accessed the data within the nine-day period, and because the type of information exposed is not the type of information that would facilitate the attempted bank fraud that Plaintiff asserts. According to the Court, both arguments fail. At this stage of litigation, Plaintiff's allegations that Defendant's failure to safeguard sensitive data and to timely notify victims of the Incident led to resultant fraud, anxiety, and mitigation costs are sufficient to demonstrate traceability, the Court finds. While Defendant may ultimately show, after the opportunity for discovery, that the alleged injuries are not caused by the Incident, it is premature to dismiss Plaintiff's claims on traceability grounds. Judge McHugh concludes, "In sum, at least one plaintiff, Mr. LaSalle, has plausibly alleged that he has suffered an injury in fact, and that those injuries can be fairly traced to Defendant's conduct. As Defendant does not contest that Plaintiff's injuries would be redressed by the relief Plaintiff seeks, Plaintiff has therefore plausibly alleged Article III standing." A copy of the Court's Memorandum dated August 1, 2025, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5Nqf3Y from PacerMonitor.com. ADROIT HEALTH: Faces Rashley Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages ---------------------------------------------------------------- KYLE BUTLER RASHLEY, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. ADROIT HEALTH GROUP LLC, and PURE INSURANCE SOLUTIONS LLC, Case No. 9:25-cv-80959-DSL (S.D. Fla., July 31, 2025) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff alleges that Adroit hired Pure Insurance to market health insurance on its behalf. To do so, Pure Insurance engaged in a widescale telemarketing campaign utilizing automatically dialed telemarketing calls to consumers' cellular telephone numbers without their consent, which is prohibited by the Florida Telephone Solicitations Act. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and putative class members never consented to receive these calls. Because telemarketing campaigns generally place calls to thousands or even millions of potential customers en masse. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons who received illegal telemarketing calls from or on behalf of Defendants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 South Dixie Highway, 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: rachel@kaufmanpa.com ekaufman@kaufmanpa.com AIS INFOSOURCE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Geman Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN GETMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AIS INFOSOURCE, L.P., Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-03508 (S.D. Tex., July 30, 2025) is a class action arising out of the recent data breach ("Data Breach") involving the Defendant, a company that provides various back-office processing and automation services for financial institutions. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices, including Plaintiff's and Class Members' names, Social Security numbers, and financial account numbers. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and continuing risk of identity theft and fraud to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes, says the suit. AIS Infosource, L.P. operates as a diversified financial services company. The Company provides data and information services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com ALASKA: Bid to Resolve on Summary Judgment Denied in Part --------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Services reports that a federal judge on Tuesday, August 5, denied in part the Alaska Department of Family and Community Services' bid to resolve on summary judgment a class action accusing it of violating the civil rights of children in its foster care system. U.S. District Judge Sharon Gleason allowed the minors, represented by attorneys with A Better Childhood, the Perkins Coie law firm and the Northern Justice Project, to proceed to trial on their claim for violation of their substantive due process rights pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment. That claim, the children's attorneys argued in the their lawsuit, is based on the department's Office of Children's Services deliberate indifference to the children's right to freedom from the foreseeable risk of maltreatment; their right to protection from unnecessary intrusions into their emotional wellbeing; and their right to treatment and care consistent with the purpose and assumptions of government custody. "Defendants' argument for summary judgment is that too few children in OCS custody experience substantial placement instability or maltreatment and therefore plaintiffs have not shown that defendants are deliberately indifferent to plaintiffs' liberty interests," Gleason said. "However, the court agrees with plaintiffs that they need not show actual harm in order to prove a substantive due process violation; rather, a substantial risk of harm is all that is required." The judge, a Barack Obama appointee, however agreed that the state agency was entitled to summary judgment on the children's claim that they are deprived of the right to parent-child association because, she said, distance or failure to "facilitate" visitation do not amount to unwarranted state interference in the child-parent relationship. In addition, Gleason noted, the lawsuit's claim of limited visits between one minor and his mother, even if true, doesn't amount to deliberate indifference to this child's right to familial association. It's the latest ruling in the case that's headed for trial later this month. "The state is pleased that the court granted its motion for summary judgment on Count 2 of the complaint and is confident that it will prevail at trial on the remaining claims in the case, Patty Sullivan, a spokesperson for the Alaska Department of Law said in a response to the ruling. The lawsuit, first filed in 2022 on behalf of all children whom Alaska's Office of Children's Services (OCS) has or will have legal custody, seeks to force Alaska to hire more case workers and to enjoin the state "from placing any child in a congregate care setting based on the unavailability of foster home resources." In 2023, U.S. District Judge Joshua Kindred agreed to dismiss a few of the claims brought by the foster children but allowed most of the suit to move forward, finding that the children had standing to sue and that the plaintiffs had "adequately alleged they are suffering a continuing injury or are under imminent threat of future injury. Each named plaintiff is in OCS custody and therefore cannot avoid exposure to the defendants' challenged conduct." Gleason, who took over the case last year, agreed to trim some of the claims in April. For example, the plaintiffs had claimed they have the right to be placed "in the least restrictive and most family-like setting, closest to their home community that conforms to nationally recommended professional standards." But the judge found that the right is to "review procedure designed to achieve placement in a safe, least-restrictive setting." "The right is not to the placement itself," Gleason said at the time. She also dismissed a claim, that the state is violating foster children's rights "to quality services to protect his or her safety and health." "Unlike the provisions above that focus on 'each child' or particular children that meet certain requirements, this provision concerns a state's obligation to implement standards to provide children in foster care with quality services," Gleason wrote in April. "There is nothing individualized or rights-creating in the provision that would indicate that Congress intended to create an enforceable right to each child." [GN] ALLIANZ LIFE: Faces Data Breach Class Action Suit in D. Minn. ------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Sellers, writing for Insurance Business, reports that a newly filed class action says Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America failed to protect customer data in a July 2025 breach, putting policyholder information at risk. On July 31, 2025, a class action complaint landed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, targeting Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America. The suit comes from Sylvia Herrera, who says she's speaking for herself and everyone else whose information was caught up in the insurer's recent data breach. Here's what's at stake: the complaint claims that on or about July 16, 2025, someone managed to break into Allianz's cloud-based customer system. Allianz reported the incident to the Office of the Maine Attorney General on July 26. According to the filing, the breach exposed a laundry list of personal details - names, Social Security numbers, policy and contract numbers, dates of birth, mailing addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses. Herrera's complaint says Allianz, which sells life, auto, Medicare supplement, and cyber insurance, didn't do enough to keep this information safe. She claims the company had a responsibility to protect sensitive data, and that it fell short by not putting proper security measures in place. The complaint also says Allianz was slow to notify people whose information was compromised, leaving them exposed to possible identity theft. The lawsuit aims to represent everyone in the United States whose data was affected by the breach Allianz announced in July. It asks for damages, attorneys' fees, and court orders to make Allianz improve its data security and notify people more quickly if something like this happens again. The complaint spells out several alleged missteps. It says Allianz didn't have strong enough security, didn't keep a close enough eye on its systems, and didn't have a solid plan for responding to breaches. There's also a claim that Allianz didn't follow federal guidelines for protecting customer data. The complaint doesn't point to any specific insurance policy language, but it does say that customers gave Allianz their personal information with the understanding it would be kept private and secure. Herrera says she and others have already lost time and money monitoring their accounts for fraud, and that the breach has caused stress and worry about identity theft. The complaint argues that the risk isn't going away, since the stolen information could end up on the dark web. It's important to remember that these are allegations from the plaintiff's side. Allianz hasn't yet responded in court, and nothing has been proven. The case is still in its early days, with no final decision or ruling. For insurance professionals, this case is a reminder that data security is more than just an IT issue -- it's a business imperative. Customers trust insurers with their most sensitive information, and a breach can quickly become a headline, a lawsuit, and a reputational headache. As this case moves forward, insurers across the country will be watching closely to see how the court handles questions of responsibility, notification, and what counts as "reasonable" protection in today's digital world. [GN] ALLIANZ LIFE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Herrera Says --------------------------------------------------------- SYLVIA HERRERA, individually and on behalf herself, and all others similarly situated v. ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, a Minnesota corporation, Case No. 0:25-cv-03100 (D. Minn., July 31, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted the Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information1 that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed in July 2025 (the Data Breach). The Plaintiff's claims arise from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. On July 16, 2025, an unauthorized third party gained access to Defendant's cloud-based CRM system. In response, the Defendant launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the Data Breach. On July 26, 2025, the Defendant publicly reported the Data Breach to the Office of the Maine Attorney General. The following types of Private Information were impacted as a result of the Data Breach: full names, Social Security numbers, policy and contract numbers, dates of birth, mailing addresses, phone numbers, and mail addresses, the suit says. Accordingly, the Defendant failed to take precautions designed to keep individuals' Private Information secure. The Defendant is a provider of insurance policies including auto, life, Medicare supplements and cyber insurance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE, P.A. 100 Washington Ave. S., Ste. 1700 Minneapolis MN 55401-2138 Telephone : (612) 3396-7300 E-mail: pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com - and - 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 ALLIANZ LIFE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Ogden Says ------------------------------------------------------- DAVID OGDEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Case No. 0:25-cv-03111 (D. Minn., Aug. 1, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant challenging its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and roughly 1.4 million other similarly situated individuals' personally identifiable information, including names, addresses, dates of birth, and social security numbers, among other personal information from cybercriminals. The Defendant announced that on July 16, 2025, an unauthorized party had gained access to its Customer Relationship Management system; and during that time the unauthorized party "was able to obtain personally identifiable data related to the majority of Allianz Life customers, financial professionals, and select Allianz Life employees." The Defendant reviewed the files compromised in the Data Breach, and determined that Plaintiff's and other similarly situated Class Members had their names, addresses, dates of birth, and/or social security numbers accessed and/or acquired by an unauthorized party in the Data Breach. As a result of the Data Breach, and in light of their Personal Information now being in the hands of cybercriminals, Plaintiff and Class Members were, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff has had their personal information and PII collected, stored, and/or maintained by the Defendant since prior to July 16, 202 The Plaintiff is a consumer who provided their personal information and PII to Defendant. The Defendant is a stock insurance corporation with principal place of business located at 5701 Golden Hills Drive, Minneapolis, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony P. Chester, Esq. CHESTER LAW PLLC 8400 Normandale Lake Blvd., Ste 920 Bloomington, MN 55437 Telephone: (612) 488-2110 E-mail: tony@chester.law - and - Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Mona Amini, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Ave., Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com mona@kazlg.com ALLIANZ LIFE: Fails to Secure Sensitive Information, Marotta Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cheryl Marotta, David Werner, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America, Case No. 0:25-cv-03109-KMM-JFD (D. Minn., Aug. 1, 2025) is a class action complaint against Allianz seeking recompense for its acts and omissions, as alleged, which led to a breach of Allianz's computer systems and network in July 2025, culminating in the theft of Plaintiffs' and the Class's sensitive information by cybercriminals. In the regular course of its business, Allianz gathers and stores highly personal information obtained from its customers, financial partners, and employees. This includes: personally identifying information, like names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, and other government issue ID numbers; financial information, including financial account and banking information; protected health information (PHI); and (4) for employees, other employment-related details (collectively "Sensitive Information"). Accordingly, Allianz gathered the Personal Information of millions of its customers. Despite understanding the sensitivity of the data it stored and that it would be a prime target for hackers, Allianz failed to implement adequate systems and procedures for maintaining, safeguarding, and protecting the Sensitive Information it gathered and stored. As a result, in July 2025, cybercriminals capitalized on these deficiencies, infiltrated Allianz's systems, and extracted the highly sensitive information of approximately 1.4 million current Allianz customers, says the suit. Allianz Life is an American life insurance company owned by German global financial services group Allianz.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian Gudmundson, Esq. Michael J. Laird, Esq. Madison M. DeMaris, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com michael.laird@zimmreed.com madison.demaris@zimmreed.com ALPHA BAKING: Removes Baum Suit to N.D. Ill. -------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of JAMES BAUM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALPHA BAKING CO., INC., Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of Illinois, County of Cook (Case No. 2025CH06785) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July 31, 2025. The clerk of court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-09073 to the proceeding. Alpha Baking Co Inc is headquartered in the United States. The Company's line of business includes the manufacturing of fresh or frozen bread and bread-type rolls, cakes, pies, and other perishable bakery products. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Christopher S. Dodrill GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 5200 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 665-3601 Email: Christopher.Dodrill@gtlaw.com - and - Jena M. Valdetero, Esq. Aaron S. Klein, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 360 N. Green Street, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60607 Telephone: (312) 456-8400 Email: Jena.Valdetero@gtlaw.com ALPHA BAKING: Removes Brown Suit to N.D. Ill. --------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of KENE BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALPHA BAKING CO., INC., Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Circuit Court of the State of Illinois, County of Cook (Case No. 2025CH06564) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July 13, 2025. The clerk of court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-09070 to the proceeding. Alpha Baking Co Inc is headquartered in the United States. The Company's line of business includes the manufacturing of fresh or frozen bread and bread-type rolls, cakes, pies, and other perishable bakery products. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Aaron S. Klein, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 360 North Green Street Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60607 Telephone: (312) 456-8400 Facsimile: (312) 456-8435 ANGELS ON OUR SIDE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Stubbs Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- BRIANCA STUBBS; and DEMETRE WALKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANGELS ON YOUR SIDE HOME CARE, LLC; TAIMEKA HAGGANS; and CHRISTOPHER HAGGANS, Case No. 4-25-cv-753-LPR (E.D. Ark., July 25, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as health care providers. Angels On Your Side Home Care, LLC provides personal care services to elderly and disabled clients. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lucien Gilham, Esq. Luther Sutter, Esq. 1501 N. Pierce, Ste. 105 Little Rock, AR 72207 Telephone: (501) 315-1910 Facsimile: (501) 315-1916 Email: Lucien.gillham@gmail.com Luther.sutterlaw@gmail.com AT&T INC: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $177-Mil. --------------------------------------------------------------- Consumers whose personal data was included in the AT&T data breach announced March 30, 2024, or who were an account owner, line user or end user whose data was involved in the second AT&T data incident announced July 12, 2024, may qualify to claim up to $5,000 from a class action settlement. AT&T Inc. agreed to pay $177 million to resolve a class action lawsuit alleging it and its affiliates failed to adequately protect customer data, resulting in the exposure of sensitive information on the dark web and through a third-party cloud platform. Who can file am AT&T settlement claim? -- AT&T 1 settlement class: All living persons in the United States whose data may have been compromised in the data incident announced on March 30, 2024 -- Tier 1:_ _Individuals whose Social Security number was included in the breach -- Tier 2: Individuals whose data was included but not their Social Security number -- The data involved may include: -- Names -- Addresses -- Telephone numbers -- Email addresses -- Dates of birth -- Account passcodes -- Billing account numbers -- Social Security numbers -- AT&T 2 settlement class: AT&T account owners, line users or end users whose data may have been compromised in the data incident announced on July 12, 2024. -- The data involved may include: -- Telephone numbers -- Numbers interacted with -- Counts of those interactions -- Aggregate call durations -- Cell site identification numbers (small subset) Some individuals may fall into both classes. These overlap settlement class members are eligible for benefits under both classes. How much is the data breach payout? The amount a class member can receive depends on which class they are in and the type of claim they file. There are two main types of payments: documented loss cash payments and tiered cash payments. -- AT&T 1 settlement class documented loss cash payment: Up to $5,000 for documented losses that occurred in 2019 or later -- AT&T 1 settlement class tier cash payments: Class members who do not claim a documented loss can claim a tiered cash payment from the $149 million AT&T 1 settlement fund. The amount is a share of the net settlement fund after deductions for costs and fees. There are two tiers: -- Tier 1: Those whose Social Security numbers were included in the breach. Tier 1 payments are five times the amount of Tier 2 payments. -- Tier 2: Those whose Social Security number were not included in the breach -- AT&T 2 settlement class documented loss cash payment: Up to $2,500 for documented losses that occurred on or after April 14, 2024. AT&T 2 line users or end users who are not the account owner are eligible for reimbursement of documented losses that are fairly traceable to the AT&T 2 data incident. The account owner may submit a claim on the user's behalf, or he or she can register to file a claim by providing the account number and the consumer telephone number associated with the line. If both an account owner and a line or end user submit claims, the line or end user's claim will be given priority. -- AT&T tier 3 cash payment: Class members who do not claim a documented loss can claim a pro rata share of the $28,000 AT&T 2 settlement fund. The amount is a share of the net settlement fund after deductions for costs and fees. Actual amounts will vary based on the number of valid claims and the final net settlement fund. How to claim an AT&T payment Class members can file a claim online or or download, print and complete the AT&T 1 settlement class claim form, AT&T 2 settlement class claim form or overlap settlement class claim form and mail it to the settlement administrator. Claims must be submitted online or postmarked by Nov.18, 2025. Settlement administrator's mailing address: AT&T Data Incident Settlement c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC, P.O. Box 5324 New York, NY 10150-5324 What proof or documentation is needed to submit a claim? -- All class members must provide their class member ID. Online claimants must also enter one of the following to log in: their email address, their AT&T account number or their full name (as it appears on the notice they received). -- Claimants seeking a documented loss cash payment must provide documentation showing the loss is fairly traceable to the relevant data incident. Acceptable documentation includes receipts or other non-self-prepared documents. Self-prepared documents (such as handwritten receipts or statements) alone are not sufficient but may be used to clarify or support other documentation. -- Overlap claimants submitting documented losses for both AT&T 1 and AT&T 2 must submit unique documentation for each data incident. -- Class members do not need to provide documented for tiered cash payments Payout options -- Electronic payment (ACH) (online claims only) -- Paper check $177 million settlement fund breakdown The settlement fund of $177 million will cover all payments to class members, administrative costs, attorneys' fees and costs and service awards to class representatives. The fund is divided as follows: -- AT&T 1 settlement fund: $149 million -- AT&T 2 settlement fund: $28 million The following will be deducted before payments to class members: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees: Up to Up to $49,333,333 -- Attorneys' costs: To be determined -- Service awards for class representatives: Up to $1,500 each Important dates -- Opt-out deadline: Oct. 17, 2025 -- Deadline to file a claim: Nov. 18, 2025 -- Final approval hearing: Dec. 3, 2025 When is the AT&T data breach settlement payout date? Payments will begin approximately 40 days after the court grants final approval of the settlement or 60 days after any appeals are resolved. Why was there a class action settlement? This class action lawsuit alleged two separate AT&T data incidents in 2024 exposed customer data on the dark web and through a third-party cloud platform. The plaintiffs claimed AT&T failed to adequately protect customer information. AT&T does not admit any wrongdoing as part of the settlement. The parties agreed to settle to avoid the cost and risk of trial and appeals while providing compensation to affected individuals. [GN] ATLANTA MEDICAL: Wilson Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHET MICHAEL WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ATLANTA MEDICAL DAY SPA AND SURGERY CENTER, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-04023-SDG (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the time to file a motion for class certification. The Plaintiff alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act on behalf of a national class. Atlanta specializes in providing cosmetic dermatology and facial plastic surgery, and laser surgery and anti-aging medicine services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zUxqmb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Removes Finney Suit to C.D. Calif. --------------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of DAVID FINNEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, INC.; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No. 25STCV13093) to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 30, 2025. The clerk of court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-07026 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Judge Michael W Fitzgerald and referred to Magistrate Karen L Stevenson. AvalonBay Communities, Inc. is a real estate investment trust. The Company develops, redevelops, acquires, owns, and operates multifamily communities in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer W. Waldron, Esq. Jill M. Kleinkauf, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 2050 Main Street, Suite 1000 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 851-2424 Facsimile: (949) 851-0152 Email: swaldron@fisherphillips.com jkleinkauf@fisherphillips.com BIRDSONG CORP: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Ash Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- JUSTIN ASH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BIRDSONG CORPORATION D/B/A BIRDSONG PEANUTS, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00470 (E.D. Va., Aug. 1, 2025) is a class action against Birdsong for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and former job applicants and employees' ("Class Members") personally identifiable information from hackers. According to the complaint, Birdsong detected unusual activity on some of its computer systems on June 23, 2025. In response, the company conducted an investigation which revealed that an unauthorized party had access to certain company files on or before June 23, 2025 (the "Data Breach"). Birdsong failed to properly monitor and implement security practices with regard to the computer network and systems that housed the Private Information. Had Birdsong properly monitored its networks, it would have discovered the Breach sooner, says the suit. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are allegedly at risk because of Birdsong's negligent conduct as the Private Information that Birdsong collected and maintained is now in the hands of data thieves and other unauthorized third parties. Birdsong Corporation d/b/a Birdsong Peanuts operates as a peanut processing operation. The Company offers raw peanuts and markets peanuts to food processors. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ramon Rodriguez III, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 11 South 12th Street Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (509) 822-2463 Email: rrodriguez@sirillp.com - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Email: tbean@sirillp.com BOAR'S HEAD: Wins Bid to Dismiss Buksbaum, et al. Consumer Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Honorable Robert S. Huie of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted Boar's Head Provisions Company's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint in the case captioned as SHARYN BUKSBAUM, JANINE SABELLA, DEBORAH THAYER, DIESHA HODGES, California residents, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BOAR'S HEAD PROVISIONS CO., INC., DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25-cv-597-RSH-BLM (S.D. Cal.). On February 13, 2025, Plaintiffs filed this putative class action against Boar's Head in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. On March 13, 2025, Defendant removed the action to this Court. Defendant manufactures and distributes food products nationwide, including through major retailers in California. Defendant markets its products as being high-quality and prepared under sanitary conditions. The FAC addresses two channels of marketing: (1) the label and packaging contained on Defendant's products, and (2) statements on Defendant's website. Plaintiffs are four California consumers who purchased various Boar's Head food products -- including Everroast Chicken, Vermont Cheddar Cheese, Mesquite Wood Smoked Roasted Turkey, Sweet B's Honey Barbeque Glazed Chicken Breast, and Hard Salami -- from retailers between August 2024 and January 2025. Plaintiffs allege generally that they saw, read, understood, and relied on Defendant's marketing representations before making their purchases. On January 15, 2025, an AP News report disclosed unsanitary conditions documented by U.S. Department of Agriculture inspection reports at three of Defendant's various facilities. The three facilities at issue are located in Forrest City, Arkansas; New Castle, Indiana; and Petersburg, Virginia. The FAC alleges that Defendant's representations about the quality of its products and hygiene of its production methods were false as to products that were made at any of the Three Plants. Plaintiffs seek certification of a class consisting of: "All persons in California who purchased any Boar's Head product originating from plants in Forrest City, Arkansas, New Castle, Indiana, and Petersburg, Virginia, from the time beginning three years before this Complaint is filed until the resolution of this litigation. Plaintiffs' original complaint focused on the product labeling. Their FAC added allegations based on representations contained in Defendant's website. The FAC alleges a total of nineteen false representations on the website, including the use of the slogan "Compromise Elsewhere." The FAC does not allege that Plaintiffs were physically harmed by consuming Defendant's products from the Three Plants, but rather that they were economically harmed by relying on these false representations in paying an "artificially inflated price premium." The FAC asserts claims for: (1) intentional misrepresentation; (2) negligent representation; (3) violation of California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17500 et seq.; (4) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200 et seq.; (5) breach of express warranty; and (6) violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 1770(a)(5). Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and monetary damages. Sufficiency of Pleadings Defendant argues the FAC fails to allege sufficient information about Plaintiffs' purchases. Plaintiffs' claims are all based on the same underlying alleged conduct: Defendant falsely representing to consumers the quality and safety standards applicable to products made at the Three Plants. Plaintiff's claims sound in fraud, and are subject to the heightened pleading standard of Rule 9(b). More specifically, Defendant contends that the FAC fails to identify which misrepresentations each plaintiff saw and relied upon prior to purchasing Defendant's product, and when and where each plaintiff saw such representations. It further argues that the FAC fails to identify when and where each plaintiff made his or her respective purchases of each product at issue. Defendant also contends that -- because Plaintiffs' theory of falsity depends on each plaintiff purchasing products made at one of its Three Plants -- they have failed to adequately allege that the products they purchased were indeed made at one of the Three Plants. The Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiffs have not at this time adequately pleaded facts under Rule 9(b). According to the Court, the FAC's allegations about Plaintiffs seeing and relying on Defendant's misrepresentations are generalized and treat the four plaintiffs as a collective unit rather than as individual purchasers. In alleging that the products that Plaintiffs purchased were "manufactured at" the Three Plants, the FAC likewise treats Plaintiffs as a single unit, without distinguishing among the products purchased by each Plaintiff. Although the FAC contains allegations naming at least some of the specific products that each plaintiff purchased, and identifies a month in or around which the purchases were made, it does not allege where those purchases were made other than that they were "from a retailer in California." This too is inadequate, the Court states. The Court finds in summary, although the FAC contains some concrete factual allegations, it lacks the required specificity, for each plaintiff's purchase, regarding: which representations the plaintiff relied on; when the plaintiff read the representations at issue; where the plaintiff made the purchase; and facts establishing the falsity of those representations as to the product purchased. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' claims for intentional and negligent misrepresentation, and for violation of the FAL, UCL, and CLRA, are subject to dismissal. The FAC fails to adequately allege, as to each plaintiff's purchase, which representations the plaintiff read that formed part of the basis of the bargain, and the facts establishing the falsity of those representations as to the product purchased. Statements on Packaging Defendant also argues that each of the nineteen representations at issue constitute non-actionable puffery, and as such that they cannot form the basis for Plaintiff's claims. In light of the Court's dismissal based on inadequacy of pleading, the Court declines at this time to address each of the nineteen alleged misrepresentations. The Court will, however, address the single misrepresentation that Plaintiffs allege was contained on the labeling and packaging: Defendant's slogan, "Compromise Elsewhere." Accordingly, Plaintiffs' allegations as to the slogan "Compromise Elsewhere" -- which constitutes the totality of the alleged misrepresentations contained on the labeling or packaging of Defendant's product, and one of the nineteen alleged misrepresentations contained on Defendant's website -- fail to state a claim, the Court concludes. Defendant further contends that Plaintiffs are barred from recovering damages on their CLRA claim because they failed to comply with statutory notice requirements. The Court finds the notice is substantively defective, and the CLRA damages claim is subject to dismissal on this ground as well. A copy of the Court's Order dated August 1, 2025, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5dmYhQ from PacerMonitor.com. BOSTON CHILDREN'S: $5.15MM Deal in Breach Suit Gets Court Prelim OK ------------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a $5.15 million settlement will resolve a class action lawsuit against Boston Children's Health Physicians over a 2024 data breach that may have compromised the private information of approximately 918,000 BCHP patients and employees. The Boston Children's Health Physicians class action settlement received preliminary court approval on June 27, 2025 and covers anyone who was directly or indirectly notified by BCHP that their information may have been impacted by the data breach. The court-approved website for the Boston Children's Health Physicians settlement can be found at BCHPSettlement.com. BCHP settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form will be able to receive one of two types of cash compensation. Consumers who submit valid proof of documented losses related to the BCHP data breach and select Cash Payment A on their claim form may receive up to $5,000 in reimbursement for those losses. Data breach losses will not be reimbursed by the settlement if the class member has already been reimbursed for them by another source, the class action settlement website says. Those who submit no proof of documented losses and select Cash Payment B on the claim form may receive a flat cash payment estimated to be approximately $100. This settlement payout may decrease below $100 or increase up to a maximum of $350 on a pro-rata, or equal-share, basis, depending on the total number of valid claims filed, the settlement site relays. In addition, all class members may also elect to receive two years of CyEx Medical Shield Medical Data Monitoring, which, per the settlement website, will include: -- Insurance coverage for up to $1,000,000 for medical identity theft; -- Medical identity monitoring; and -- Real-time alerts. To submit a claim form online, BCHP class members must visit this page on the settlement website and log in with the unique class member ID found in their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, a PDF of the claim form is available to print, fill out and mail back to the address listed on the first page of the document. All claim forms must be submitted or postmarked by November 25, 2025. Additionally, Boston Children's Health Physicians, as part of the class action settlement, has agreed to implement further cybersecurity measures to better protect its information systems. A hearing is set for December 10, 2025 to determine whether the settlement will receive final approval from the court. Compensation will begin to be dispensed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Boston Children's Health Physicians class action lawsuit claimed that it was BCHP's negligence that allowed the September 2024 data breach to occur and potentially expose the private information of thousands of patients, including: -- Social Security numbers; -- Names; -- Dates of birth; -- Medical record numbers; -- Driver's license numbers; -- Health insurance information; -- Treatment information; -- Financial and billing information; -- Demographic information; and -- Employee benefit information. [GN] BT GROUP: Customers Fail to Revive GBP1.3BB Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Rainford of Light Reading reports that London's Court of Appeal has rejected a bid by disgruntled BT customers and their legal representatives to revive a GBP1.3 billion (US$1.6 billion) class action that was first rebuffed in December 2024 by the UK's Competition and Markets Authority. The class action centered on what were seen as excessive charges being faced by around 3.7 million landline-only customers between 2009 and 2017. Many of these customers are elderly and are often classed as "vulnerable." As Reuters reports (paywall applies), Justin Le Patourel, a former executive at UK communications regulator Ofcom who led the lawsuit, said that he was "hugely disappointed" by the ruling. Openreach engineers under attack In related news, the Guardian reports that engineers at Openreach, BT's semi-autonomous network access arm, are increasingly being the victim of physical and verbal assaults as they seek to go about their work. Indeed, such attacks have risen by 8% year-over-year and are seven times what they were a decade ago. Among other unpleasant incidents, engineers have been shaken off step ladders, spat at and pushed down stairs while working in people's homes. The situation has become so serious that Openreach's engineers are now trialing a special "panic alarm" feature on their smartphones, which immediately connects them to a monitoring center that can dispatch the emergency services, if required. O2 Daisy is born O2 Daisy, a business IT and telecom services provider created by the merger of Virgin Media O2 Business and Daisy Group, has been officially launched. The company, which will be led by Daisy Group founder Matthew Riley as chairman and VMO2's Jo Bertram as CEO, has around GBP1.4 billion ($1.8 billion) in annual pro forma revenues and a customer base spanning thousands of SMEs, large enterprises and public sector bodies. 5G private networks and cybersecurity tools are among the products being offered by O2 Daisy. Get off your phone and jump in the river Seventy-seven percent of 11-17-year-olds in Portugal want to reduce screen time, while 81% of them claim that "real moments" spent with friends and family bring them more happiness than interacting with online content. (Yeah, right.) This is according to a Vodafone survey of teenagers' attitudes toward screen time, carried out to mark the launch of an "18 Before 18" campaign that hopes to persuade teenagers to give 18 real-world activities a go before they become boring old adults. Among the suggestions: "try swimming in rivers." Better fill out that risk assessment form first, kids . . . [GN] CAPITAL ONE: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to August 15 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as AZLYNNE HOARD and CHIQUITA PLENTY, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CAPITAL ONE, N.A., Case No. 3:24-cv-01133-JLS-VET (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Janis Sammartino entered an order granting joint motion for extension of time to file the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, to set briefing schedule, and for leave to file memoranda of law in excess of 25 pages: 1. The Plaintiffs shall file their motion for class certification on or before Aug. 15, 2025. 2. The Defendant shall file any opposition on or before Sept. 29, 2025. 3. The Plaintiffs may file a reply on or before Oct. 20, 2025. However, to accommodate its own schedule, which includes several lengthy trials throughout the fall, the Court will set a hearing on the motion for class certification for 9:30 a.m. on Jan. 13, 2026, in Courtroom 4D of the Edward J. Schwartz United States Courthouse. The Parties' currently scheduled filing date for the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is July 30, 2025. Capital provides a range of financial products and services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KdhoY6 at no extra charge.[CC] CASTERDEPOT INC: Campos Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- SAUL CORTES CAMPOS on behalf of himself and on behalf of all similarly situated v. CASTERDEPOT INC., a Domestic Profit Corporation MICHEAL B. PLONT an individual, jointly and severally, Case No. 1:25-cv-00875 (W.D. Mich., July 31, 2025) seeks to recover mandated overtime premium and minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Improved Workforce Opportunity Wage Act. The Plaintiff is similarly situated with other employees who worked for or are working for Defendants who were not paid minimum wage for all hours worked. The Plaintiff is similarly situated with other employees who worked for or are working for Defendants who were not compensated the mandated minimum wage for all hours worked in a work week and overtime premium hours worked in excess of 40 in a work week, says the suit. The Defendant operates as a supplier of casters.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Anthony Alvarez, Esq. Victor M. Jimenez Jr., Esq. AVANTI LAW GROUP, PLLC 600 28th St. SW Wyoming, MI 49509 Telephone: (616) 257-6807 E-mail: ralvarez@avantilaw.com vjimenez@avantilaw.com CATALYST BRANDS: Montes Removed from State Court to E.D. Wash. -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as SHAWNA MONTES, for herself, as a private attorney general, and on behalf of all others similarly situation, v. CATALYST BRANDS LLC, SPARC GROUP LLC, and PENNEY OPCO LLC, Case No. 25-2-03222-32, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Spokane, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington on Aug. 1, 2025. The Eastern District of Washington Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00281 to the proceedings. The Plaintiff seeks to certify a putative class of "All residents of the State of Washington who, within the applicable limitations period, received an email from or at the behest of Aéropostale that contained in the subject line: (a) a 'xx% Off' or similar percentage-off statement and/or (b) a statement advertising a 'free' offer." Catalyst Brands was formed in 2025 by the merger of SPARC Group and JCPenney. In December 2024, Cooper Retail JV acquired 100% of the outstanding equity of SPARC Group Holdings.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: David R. Ebel, Esq. Davis Leigh, Esq. SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C. 1420 5th Avenue, Suite 3400 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 622-1711 Facsimile: (206) 292-0460 E-mail: debel@schwabe.com dbleigh@schwabe.com CENTENE CORP: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------- If you suffered a loss on your Centene Corporation (NYSE:CNC) investment and want to learn about a potential recovery under the federal securities laws, visit the link below for more information: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/centene-corporation-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=159433&wire=1&utm_campaign=29 or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or call (212) 363-7500 to speak to our team of experienced shareholder advocates. THE LAWSUIT: A class action securities lawsuit was filed against Centene Corporation that seeks to recover losses of shareholders who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between December 12, 2024 and June 30, 2025. CASE DETAILS: According to the complaint, defendants provided overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of Centene's enrollment and morbidity rates. Investors began to question the veracity of defendants' public statements on July 1, 2025, when Centene issued a press release withdrawing 2025 guidance. Particularly, following an analysis of the 2025 Health Insurance Marketplace, Centene's overall market growth across 22 states, or 72% of the Company's marketplace membership, was lower than expected. In pertinent part, the Company stated that this preliminary analysis resulted in a reduction of its previously issued guidance to approximately $1.8 billion or an adjusted diluted EPS of $2.75. Following this news, Centene's common stock declined dramatically, from a closing market price of $56.65 per share on July 1, 2025, Centene's stock price fell to $33.78 per share on July 2, 2025, a decline of 40.4%. WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Centene stock during the relevant time frame -- even if you still hold your shares -- go to https://zlk.com/pslra-1/centene-corporation-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=159433&wire=1&utm_campaign=29 to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or obligation to participate. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 https://zlk.com/ [GN] CHAUDRY ALI: Mantalis Seeks Minimum Wage & Overtime Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- STELIOS MANTALIS v. CHAUDRY ALI, RANAH ALI, and PARIS LIMOUSINE SERVICES, CORP., Case No. 1:25-cv-04287 (E.D.N.Y., August 1, 2025) is a class action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated seeking to recover unpaid minimum wage, overtime, and spread-of-hours pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff asserts these allegations and claims on their own and on behalf of a class of persons including: All persons employed as drivers by Defendants at any time since Oct. 4, 2021, and through the entry of judgment in this case. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was compensated at a rate below the prevailing minimum wage and did not receive any overtime or spread-of-hours pay. The Plaintiff seeks an award of compensatory and liquidated damages, plus pre- and post-judgment interest and reasonable attorneys' costs and fees. The Defendants own and operate a professional car service out of the city and state of New York. Their drivers, like Plaintiff, are provided with company vehicles used to transport customers to and from various locations per the Defendants' instructions and schedules. 3. Defendants, individually and/or jointly, employed Plaintiff as a driver from Oct. 4, 2021, through Nov. 28, 2022.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary C. Naidich, Esq. NAIDICH LAW 137 5th Avenue, 9th Fl. New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (646) 665-1060 CHRISTIE'S: Class Settlement in Data Breach Suit Gets Final Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Christie's Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 1:24-cv-04221-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jesse M. Furman entered an order granting final approval of class action settlement, attorneys' fees, expenses, and service awards; and entering final judgment and dismissal: 1. The Court grants final approval of the appointment of David Lietz of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC and Jonathan S. Mann of Pittman, Dutton, Hellums, Bradley & Mann, P.C. as Class Counsel; 2. The Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and service awards. The Court awards Class Counsel $324,907.29 in attorneys' fees and $15,278.13 for the reimbursement of litigation expenses, to be paid according to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. This amount of fees and reimbursement of expenses is fair and reasonable. The Court also approves service awards of $5,000.00 each for the five (5) Class Representatives. 3. The Court grants final approval of the appointment of Efsathios Maroulis, William Colley, Russell DeJulio, Alice Bruce, and Ildar Gaifullin as Class Representatives. 4. The Court certifies the following Class for settlement purposes only under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3), subject to the Settlement Class exclusions set forth in the Settlement Agreement: "All persons in the United States whose Private Information was compromised as a result of the Data Breach and who were sent notice of the Data Breach." The Settlement Class specifically excludes all Persons who submit a timely and valid request for exclusion from the Settlement Class. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF Nos. 59, 62, and close this case A copy of the Court's order dated July 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wK6ayT at no extra charge.[CC] COAST DENTAL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Chaviano Due August 21, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEBASTIAN CHAVIANO, v. COAST DENTAL SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 6:25-cv-00653-CEM-NWH (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Carlos Mendoza entered a case management and scheduling order as follows: Action or Event Deadline Mandatory initial disclosures Aug. 11, 2025 Motion to join a party or amend pleadings: Aug. 18, 2025 Class Certification: Aug, 21, 2026 Completion of discovery and motion to Sept. 1, 2026 compel discovery: Dispositive and Daubert motions: Oct. 1, 2026 Mediation: Sept. 15, 2026 Joint pretrial meeting: Jan. 29, 2027 Coast is a provider of dental care services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=v4FNgz at no extra charge.[CC] COCA-COLA COMPANY: Fletcher Sues Over Mislabeled Drink Products --------------------------------------------------------------- ROXANNE FLETCHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE COCA-COLA COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 160002/2025 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., July 30, 2025) alleges violation of the New York's General Business Law. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the packaging and labeling of the Product violated laws, statutes, rules, regulations, and/or norms, which prohibit unfair, deceptive, and unconscionable conduct, against the public. The packaging and labeling of the Product violated the GBL, because the representations, omissions, design, markings, and/or other elements, including, "No Preservatives Added," caused purchasers to expect it did not contain ingredients, including non-natural, synthetic ingredients, which served, or could serve, preservative functions, contrary to statutes and/or regulations, which prohibit consumer deception by companies in the labeling of foods, says the suit. The Plaintiff paid more for the Product, and/or would not have paid as much, if she knew that it contained ingredients, including non-natural, synthetic ingredients, which served, or could serve, preservative functions. The Coca-Cola Company manufactures, markets, and distributes soft drink concentrates and syrups. The Company also distributes and markets juice and juice-drink products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 Facsimile: (516) 234-7800 Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com CRE ONLINE: Standing Order in Gianne Class Action Entered --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Natalie Gianne, v. CRE Online Ventures LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-06727-JFW-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John F. 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. The plaintiff is notified that failure to serve the Complaint as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) will result in the dismissal of the Complaint against the unserved defendant(s). Lead trial counsel shall attend all proceedings before this Court and all Local Rule 7-3, scheduling, status, and settlement conferences. Only ONE attorney for a party may be designated as lead trial counsel unless otherwise permitted by the Court. Motions shall be filed in accordance with the Local Rules. This Court hears motions on Mondays commencing at 1:30 p.m. A copy of the Court's order dated July 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=U1ARKA at no extra charge.[CC] DELTA GALIL: Advertises Fake Regular Prices, Sancez Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- MONICA SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DELTA GALIL USA, INC., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a WWW.7FORALLMANKIND.COM, Case No. 3:25-cv-01963-BEN-AHG (S.D. Cal., July 31, 2025) alleges that the Defendant advertises fictitious regular prices (and corresponding phantom discounts) on products sold through its website at www.7forallmankind.com. Accordingly, the practice allows the Defendant to fabricate a fake "reference price," and present the actual price as "discounted," when it is not. The result is a sham price disparity that is per se illegal under California law, the suit asserts. The Plaintiff is a citizen of California who purchased a product from Defendant's Website. DELTA GALIL USA, INC. is a manufacturer of private-label and licensed intimate apparel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com DENTAL GROUP: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $1MM -------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Alder of The HIPAA Journal reports that Dental Group of Amarillo in Texas and Heart South Cardiovascular Group in Alabama have settled class action lawsuits to resolve claims related to hacking incidents and data breaches. The dental group has agreed to pay $1 million, and the cardiovascular group will pay $500,000 to cover fees, expenses, and claims from the class members. Dental Group of Amarillo Data Breach Settlement Dental Group of Amarillo, a network of six dental and orthodontic facilities in Amarillo, Dumas, and Canyon in Texas, has agreed to pay $1,000,000 to settle a class action lawsuit filed in response to a 2023 cyberattack and data breach. A hacking group accessed its network between October 3, 2023, and October 19, 2023, and on January 9, 2024, Dental Group of Amarillo confirmed that patient names, contact information, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, and health insurance information, and medical information (including x-rays, medical histories, dates of service) were exposed and potentially stolen. The data breach was reported to the HHS' Office for Civil Rights as involving the protected health information of 3,821 patients. A lawsuit was filed in response to the breach -- Barham v. Dental Group of Amarillo, LLP -- in the District Court for the 251st Judicial District, Potter County, Texas, alleging negligence for failing to safeguard personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI). The lawsuit also alleged the response to the incident was inadequate, as it took until January 9, 2024, to confirm the data breach, and the HHS was not notified until March 6, 2024 - 60 days after the breach was confirmed, and 132 days after the cyberattack was first discovered. Individual notification letters were mailed on May 9, 2024, 196 days after the cyberattack was first identified. The delay was alleged to be a violation of Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. Section 521.053 and HIPAA. In addition to negligence, the lawsuit asserted claims of negligence per se (violations of the Texas Identity Theft Enforcement and Protection Act, FTC Act, and HIPAA), breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and breach of implied contract. Dental Group of Amarillo maintains there was no wrongdoing, but agreed to a settlement to avoid the costs, risks, disruptions, and uncertainties associated with continuing the litigation. Legal counsel and the lead plaintiffs determined the settlement was best for class members for similar reasons. Under the terms of the settlement, Dental Group of Amarillo has agreed to establish a $1,000,000 settlement fund to cover attorneys' fees (up to $333,333), attorneys' expenses (yet to be determined), service awards to the class representatives ($2,500 each), settlement administration costs (yet to be determined), credit monitoring services, and payments to class members. There are two potential cash payments on offer. Class members may submit a claim for up to $5,000 for reimbursement of documented, unreimbursed monetary losses or, alternatively, may choose a cash payment, which is expected to be approximately $125 per class member. The cash payments will be paid pro rata and could be higher or lower depending on the number of valid claims received. In addition to a cash payment, class members may claim three years of three-bureau credit monitoring services, which include dark web monitoring, medical identity monitoring, public record monitoring services, and an identity theft insurance policy. The deadline for opting out of or objecting to the settlement is September 29, 2025, the claim submission deadline is October 13, 2025, and the final approval hearing has been scheduled for October 27, 2025. Further information is available on the settlement website: https://www.dgadatasettlement.com/ Heart South Cardiovascular Group Data Breach Settlement Heart South Cardiovascular Group, a provider of cardiac and vascular care at three locations in Clanton, Alabaster, and Centreville in central Alabama, has agreed to settle litigation stemming from a May 2024 data breach that affected 20,577 patients. Heart South Cardiovascular Group identified the cyberattack on May 30, 2024, and the forensic investigation confirmed unauthorized access to its network between May 29, 2024, and May 30, 2024. The hackers potentially obtained names, addresses, birth dates, driver's license numbers, Social Security numbers, diagnoses, lab results, medications, and other treatment information. Several lawsuits were filed in response to the data breach, which were consolidated into a single lawsuit -- Kornegay et al. v. Heart South Cardiovascular Group, P.C. -- in the Circuit Court of Bibb County, Alabama. The lawsuit asserted several claims: negligence for failing to implement appropriate safeguards to prevent unauthorized access to sensitive patient data, negligence per se, wantonness, breach of an express or implied contract, and unjust enrichment. Heart South Cardiovascular Group denied all claims and contentions in the litigation and maintains there was no wrongdoing. The decision was taken to settle the lawsuit to avoid the costs, disruptions, and uncertainties associated with continuing the litigation. Under the terms of the settlement, Heart South Cardiovascular Group has agreed to establish a $500,000 settlement fund to cover attorneys' fees (up to $186,666.66), attorneys' expenses (yet to be determined), service awards to the class representatives ($4,000 for each of the 5 named plaintiffs), settlement administration costs (yet to be determined), credit monitoring services, and payments to class members. Class members may submit a claim for reimbursement of documented, unreimbursed out-of-pocket losses fairly traceable to the data breach that happened on or after May 29, 2024, up to a maximum of $5,000 per class member. All class members may submit a claim for two years of Medical Shield Complete services, which include credit monitoring, dark web monitoring, real-time inquiry alerts, and a $1 million identity theft insurance policy. All class members may also submit a claim for a cash payment, which will be paid pro rata after fees, expenses, and claims have been paid, and is expected to be around $50. The deadline for objecting to and opting out of the settlement is September 9, 2025, and the deadline for submitting a claim is October 9, 2025. A date has yet to be set for the final fairness hearing. [GN] DOMINO'S PIZZA: Amendment of Scheduling Order Sought ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDMOND CARMONA, ABRAHAM MENDOZA, ROGER NOGUEIRA, THOMAS ARRIOLA, BURNETT BRULEE, GYGORY DIAZ, DANIEL ETCHEPARE, RAUL QUIROZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and all other aggrieved employees v. DOMINO'S PIZZA, LLC, a Michigan Corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 8:20-cv-01905-JVS-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order to amend scheduling order and class certification briefing schedule as follows: Event Proposed Date Jury Trial: Sept. 15, 2026 at 8:30am Final Pre-trial Conference: Aug. 31, 2026 at 11am Expert Discovery Cut-off: June 30, 2026 The Plaintiffs to file motion for Jan. 12, 2026 class certification: Domino's to file opposition to motion Feb. 9, 2026 for class certification: The Plaintiffs' reply to motion for Feb. 23, 2026 class certification: Hearing: Mar. 9, 2026 The Parties filed a Joint Stipulation on July 18, 2025, asking the Court to amend the Scheduling Order to allow for sufficient time to mediate the case. Good cause therefore exists for this request and is not meant for the purpose of delay. On July 22, 2025, the Court issued an order granting the stipulation regarding class certification. However, the Order reflected the previous class certification deadlines instead of the new deadlines proposed by the Parties in the most recent Joint Stipulation. Domino's is an American multinational pizza restaurant chain. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7nObfR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Aashish Y. Desai, Esq. Adrianne De Castro, Esq. DESAI LAW FIRM, P.C. 3200 Bristol St., Suite 650 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (949) 614-5830 Facsimile: (949) 271-4190 E-mail: aashish@desai-law.com adrianne@desai-law.com The Defendants are represented by: Norman Leon, Esq. Joseph A. Piesco, Jr., Esq. Taylor H. Wemmer, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 444 West Lake Street, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 368-4000 Facsimile: (312) 236-7516 E-mail: norman.leon@us.dlapiper.com joseph.piesco@us.dlapiper.com taylor.wemmer@dlapiper.com ELEMENT MATERIALS: Herrera Removed from State Court to C.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit has been filed against ROBERT NORIEGA, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ELEMENT MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY AEROSPACE US LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, et al., Case No. : 25STCV18674 (Filed June 25, 2025) was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court Central District of California on July 31, 2025. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-07089 to the proceedings. The complaint asserts the following causes of action Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Furnish Wage and Hour Statements; and Failure to Maintain Payroll Records. The Complaint seeks judgement in [Plaintiff's] favor and against Defendants, and each of them, in the amount no less than $1,000,000, inclusive of alleged unpaid wages, meal, and rest period compensation, waiting time compensation, statutory penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendants include ELEMENT MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY HOLDING USA INC., a Delaware Corporation, ELEMENT MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY HUNTINGTON BEACH LLC, a North Carolina Limited Liability Company, ELEMENT MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY LOS ANGELES LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, ROE 1, an individual, STEPHANIE HUNT, an individual, EDGAR CORTEZ, an individual, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michael A. Wertheim, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 442-1111 Facsimile: (916) 448-1709 E-mail: Michael.Wertheim@gtlaw.com - and - Kristen Khair, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 732-6500 Facsimile: (949) 732-6501 E-mail: Kristen.Khair@gtlaw.com ENVIRONMENTAL AND SAFETY: Matthews Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- ALTON MATTHEWS and LIDIA MOTA, on their own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated v. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SAFETY SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00537-JPH (S.D. Ohio, Aug. 1, 2025) seeks to recover for unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, declaratory relief and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, were allegedly paid an hourly rate for work performed on behalf of Defendant's customers. The Defendant is in the business of providing construction safety and consulting services to its customers, nationwide, and is headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Raeshon M. Mansoor, Esq. Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq. C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 501 Riverside Avenue, Suite 1200 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Telephone: (689) 219-2219 Facsimile: (689) 219-2249 E-mail: rmansoor@forthepeople.com akimd@forthepeople.com rmorgan@forthepeople.com ESKENAZI HEALTH: Green Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- TIFANY GREEN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ESKENAZI HEALTH, Case No. e 1:25-cv-01533-JRS-MJD (S.D. Ind., July 31, 2025) seeks to recover overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Plaintiff is a current employee of the Defendant. Since June 2022, Plaintiff has been a Financial Counselor at Defendant's West Side Clinic located at 2732 West Michigan Street, Indianapolis, Indiana. Throughout her tenure working for Defendant, Plaintiff Green has been classified as a non-exempt employee by Defendant and paid on an hourly basis. Plaintiff Green is a full-time employee and is scheduled to work from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Eskenazi provides health care in Central Indiana, with physicians of the Indiana University School of Medicine.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John T. Steinkamp, Esq. JOHN STEINKAMP & ASSOCIATES 5214 S East St., Suite D1 Indianapolis, IN 46227 Telephone: 317-780-8300 Facsimile: 317-217-1320 - and - Joseph F. Scott, Esq. Ryan A. Winters, Esq. Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC 11925 Pearl Rd., Suite 308 Strongsville, OH 44136 Telephone: (216) 912-2221 - and - Seth R. Lesser, Esq. Christopher M. Timmel, Esq. KLAFTER LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: (914) 934-9200 E-mail: seth@klafterlesser.com christopher.timmel@klafterlesser.com ESSEX MANAGEMENT: Class Cert Filing in McAdams Due June 15, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MCADAMS, v. ESSEX MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Case No. 4:24-cv-06975-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an amended case management and pretrial scheduling order as follows: Joint case management conference statement: Apr. 27, 2026 Further case management conference: May 4, 2026 Non-expert discovery cutoff: May 29, 2026 Expert discovery cutoff: May 15, 2026 Motion for class certification to be filed: June 15, 2026 Opposition due by: July 27, 2026 Reply due by: Aug. 17, 2026 Motion for class certification to be heard by: Sept. 22, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. Essex is engaged in real estate investment trusts or related mortgage assets. A copy of the Court's order dated July 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=k0BOCh at no extra charge.[CC] EVERGY INC: Seeks to Move Class Cert Bid Filing to Oct. 6 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DERICK L. DOLL, et al., v. EVERGY, INC., et al., Case No. 4:25-cv-00043-SRB (W.D. Mo.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order to extend the deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their motion for class certification by two months, from Aug. 3, 2025, until Oct. 6, 2025, with corresponding adjustments to the remaining class certification briefing. SageView was added as a party to this case more than five months after the initial complaint was filed, and more than seven weeks after the current schedule was entered. SageView requests the Court extend the deadlines for class certification briefing as follows: Action Proposed Deadline The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification: Oct. 6, 2025 The Defendants' suggestions in opposition: Nov. 3, 2025 The Plaintiffs' reply suggestions: Dec. 1, 2025 In the alternative, SageView requests that the Court extend all Defendants' deadlines for filing suggestions in opposition to class certification from Sept. 1, 2025, to Nov. 3, 2025. Counsel for SageView has conferred with counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Evergy Defendants regarding this Motion. The Evergy Defendants consent to the relief requested. Plaintiffs take no position on this Motion. Evergy is engaged in the generation, transmission, distribution, and sale of electricity in the United States. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dOTXCI at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Alicia R. Olszeski, Esq. W. Glenn Merten, Esq. Alison S. Egan, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 320 S. Canal Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 569-1219 Facsimile: (312) 569-3000 E-mail: ali.olszeski@faegredrinker.com glenn.merten@faegredrinker.com allison.egan@faegredrinker.com FAMILY SOLUTIONS: Bid to Enforce Class Settlement Granted in Part ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Pamela A. Barker of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted in part and denied without prejudice in part the motion of Plaintiffs Jamal Stephenson and Melanie Baron to enforce provisions of the parties' settlement agreement in the class action lawsuit captioned as Jamal Stephenson, et al., on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, -vs- Family Solutions of Ohio, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-02017 (lead case), 1:21-cv-00196 (N.D. Ohio). Defendants Prostar Management, Inc., John Hopkins, and Dawn Smith opposed the Motion. This class and collective action was brought on behalf of Qualified Mental Health Specialists employed by Defendant Family Solutions of Ohio, Inc. The Complaint was filed on Sept. 4, 2018, and an Amended Complaint was filed on May 5, 2020 In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs Jamal Stephenson and Melanie Baron assert claims for violations of federal and state wage-and-hour laws and state common law against the following Defendants: (1) FSO; (2) Prostar Management, Inc.; (3) John Hopkins; and (4) Dawn Smith Defendants denied Plaintiffs' allegations. On Sept. 16, 2019, the Court conditionally certified the case as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b), on behalf of QMHS's who worked during the preceding three years. On April 5, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Certification of a state-law Class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. After Notice was issued and the period to request exclusion had expired, the Rule 23 Class consisted of a total of 177 Class Members. After extensive discovery and motion practice, the parties ultimately reached an agreement to settle the instant action. On March 16, 2023, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class and Class Action Settlement. The Court preliminarily approved the parties' Settlement Agreement on March 28, 2023. Several months later, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Final Approval of the parties' Settlement Agreement. The Agreement contains several provisions relating to the distribution of settlement payments to Class Members and Opt-Ins. Specifically, Paragraphs 26 and 27 of the Agreement provide: "Total Settlement Amount. Defendants will pay the Total Settlement Amount of Five Hundred Thirty-Five Thousand Dollars ($535,000.00) as provided herein." "Defendants' Installment Payments and Dates. Defendants will pay the Total Settlement Amount of $535,000.00 in two equal installments of $178,333.33, and a third installment of $178,333.34, on or before the following Installment Dates. The first Installment Date shall be thirty days after the Effective Date or Nov. 1, 2023, whichever is later. The second and third Installment Dates shall be June 1, 2024 and Jan. 2, 2025, respectively." The Agreement further provides that Defendants are to make individual payments to Class Members and Opt-Ins as follows: "Issuance of Distributions. Defendants will make the prescribed distributions from Installment Payments according to the Schedule of Distributions, as follows: (a) Individual Payments. Individual Payments will be distributed by Defendants' payroll service. Individual Payments of one-hundred dollars ($100) or less will be distributed out of the second Installment Payment. All other Individual Payments will be distributed in three approximately equal amounts out of the first, second, and third Installment Payments. Defendants' payroll service will distribute the Individual Payments no later than twenty-one days after the applicable Installment Date." The Court conducted an in-person Final Approval Hearing on July 10, 2023 and issued a Final Approval Order later that same day. In the Final Approval Order, the Court found (among other things) that the Total Settlement Amount and the proposed distributions to the Named Plaintiffs, Opt-Ins, and Settlement Class Members were fair and reasonable. The Court also retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement and resolve any and all disputes thereunder. First Motion to Enforce On March 5, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their first Motion to Enforce, arguing that Defendants violated Paragraphs 32(d) and 34 of the Settlement Agreement when they failed to either respond to Plaintiffs' Counsel's repeated requests for further information or comply with Plaintiffs' Counsel's request that Defendants reissue individual settlement payment checks to the 11 Class Members identified in their various emails that had not received checks. On April 11, 2024, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion & Order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's Motion. The Court found that Defendants failed to sufficiently cooperate with Plaintiffs' Counsel and/or timely respond to Plaintiff's Counsel's requests for reasonably necessary information and documents related to the first installment payments, in contravention of Paragraphs 27 and 32(d) of the Settlement Agreement. The Court therefore required Defendants to provide the following information to Plaintiffs' Counsel: (1) the names and addresses of the Class Members to whom the first installment checks were mailed; and (2) the date on which each such check was mailed (or remailed, if applicable). The Court, however, denied Plaintiffs' Motion to the extent it asked the Court to order Defendants to send reissued checks to Plaintiff's Counsel's office address, as this was not contemplated in the Settlement Agreement. On Sept. 13, 2024, Defendant FSO filed a Notice that it had filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Stephenson II On Sept. 12, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Complaint for Equitable, Declaratory, and Monetary Relief (Stephenson II) in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas against the following defendants: (1) John A. Hopkins, Sr., (2) Dawn Smith, (3) Nancy Hopkins, (4) John A. Hopkins, Jr., (5) Tiffany Hopkins, (6) Family Solutions USA, Inc., (7) Hopkins Global Solutions, Inc., and (8) Prostar Management, Inc. Therein, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants Hopkins, Sr., Smith, and Prostar Management, Inc. had breached the Settlement Agreement in the instant action (Stephenson I) by failing to make even the first installment payment in full. Plaintiffs further alleged that, from 2018 through 2023, during the pendency of Stephenson I, decision after decision from that litigation alerted Defendants that their pay practices at FSO were quite patently illegal. Plaintiffs brought the case as a class action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 on behalf of themselves and "all employees who worked in Ohio as Qualified Mental Health Specialists for Family Solutions of Ohio during the period September 16, 2016 to April 5, 2021," i.e., the same class of employees in Stephenson I. Plaintiffs identified the following questions of law and fact common to the proposed Class: (1) whether Defendants transferred assets out of FSO, and/or other entities, for their own benefit; (2) whether Defendants transferred assets out of FSO, and/or other entities, while knowing that FSO could not meet its ability to pay debts as they became due; (3) whether Defendants' transfers or receipt of monies directly or indirectly from FSO violated provisions of the Ohio Fraudulent Transfer Act, R.C. Sec. 1336.01, et seq.; and (4) where the transferred sums or proceeds are currently held or deposited. Based on the allegations, Plaintiffs asserted state claims in Stephenson II for: (1) breach of contract; (2) fraudulent transfer liability under the Ohio Fraudulent Transfer Act, Ohio Rev. Code Secs. 1336.01, et seq.; (3) civil conspiracy to commit fraudulent transfer; and (4) declaratory relief. On Oct. 21, 2024, Defendants removed the Complaint to the instant Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction and marked it as "related" to Stephenson I. On Feb. 6, 2025, in Stephenson II, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action Complaint, which added Family Solutions of Louisiana, Inc., and Family Solutions of Illinois, Inc., as party defendants. Second Motion to Enforce Meanwhile, on Jan. 23, 2025, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to Enforce Settlement in Stephenson I based on the Responding Defendants' failure to make the required Installment Payments under the Settlement Agreement. Plaintiffs argue that the parties' Settlement Agreement should be enforced because: (1) it is a binding contract that was signed by each of the Responding Defendants; (2) Plaintiffs performed their part of the bargain by releasing claims against Defendants; (3) Defendants breached Paragraphs 26 and 27 of the Settlement Agreement by failing to make the required Installment Payments; and (4) Plaintiffs have been damaged in the amount of the total unpaid balance of $397, 677.51. Plaintiffs maintain that, as named Defendants and signatories to the Settlement Agreement, Responding Defendants are responsible for the unpaid balance and are not affected by the bankruptcy stay as to Defendant FSO. Thus, Plaintiffs request that: (1) the settlement payments due and owing of $397,677.51 be reduced to judgment; (2) Responding Defendants be ordered to show cause why they have not complied with the Settlement Agreement; (3) Plaintiffs be permitted to conduct discovery regarding any representation by Responding Defendants that they are/were financially unable to make the required Installment Payments; and (4) Plaintiffs be permitted to move for attorneys' fees and other appropriate sanctions if any representations of insolvency are not made in good faith. The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement is a binding, enforceable contract between Plaintiffs and Defendants FSO, Prostar Management, Inc., John Hopkins, and Dawn Smith. The Court finds -- and Responding Defendants do not dispute -- that the essential terms of the settlement are reasonably certain and clear. The Court also finds that Defendants breached Paragraphs 26 and 27 of the Settlement Agreement by failing to timely make the required Installment Payments. Plaintiffs have come forward with evidence demonstrating that: (1) Defendants -- including Responding Defendants -- breached the payment provisions of the parties' Settlement Agreement; and (2) Plaintiffs have been damaged in the total amount of $397,677.51 by Defendants' breach. Responding Defendants argue, however, that the Settlement Agreement should not be enforced against them because they are not Plaintiffs' "employers" within the meaning of the FLSA and, therefore, were not required to make any payments under the Agreement. The Court rejects this argument. In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs specifically allege that Responding Defendants are "employers" for purposes of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 203(d). The Court finds the Responding Defendants are clearly parties to the Settlement Agreement. The Court also rejects Responding Defendants' argument that, if they are considered "employers" along with Defendant FSO, the stay arising from FSO's bankruptcy petition "should apply equally to them." In this case, the Responding Defendants indicate that they "are seeking an extension of the bankruptcy stay from the Bankruptcy Court under its equity jurisdiction pursuant to 11 U .S.C. Sec. 105" and "request that this Court hold Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce in abeyance to allow the Bankruptcy Court to extend the stay to them." As of the date of this Order, however, Responding Defendants have not demonstrated that they have, in fact, sought an extension of the automatic stay from the Bankruptcy Court. Specifically, Responding Defendants have not provided this Court with a copy of any motion or request filed in the FSO Bankruptcy proceeding seeking an extension of the automatic stay to Responding Defendants, or otherwise directed this Court's attention to any specific filing on the FSO Bankruptcy Court docket that would evidence that such a request has been made. Under these circumstances, then, this Court will not hold Plaintiffs' Motion in abeyance to allow the Bankruptcy Court to extend the stay. The Court also rejects Responding Defendants' arguments that Plaintiffs should be: (1) barred by principles of collateral estoppel and res judicata from pursuing their fraudulent transfer and civil conspiracy claims in Stephenson II because Plaintiffs could have raised those claims in Stephenson I; and (2) required to "elect their remedy, either enforcement of the Settlement Agreement or pursuit of the claims in Stephenson II, but not both." As an initial matter, the Court finds that this issue is moot in light of the parties' Joint Stipulation in Stephenson II. Even if it were not moot, the Court finds that it would not be appropriate for this Court to decide whether Plaintiffs' claims in Stephenson II (an entirely different action that is presided over by a different District Judge) are barred by collateral estoppel and/or res judicata. As for the issue of election of remedies, the Court finds that this issue is not appropriately raised or addressed in the context of the instant Motion to Enforce. Plaintiffs' Motion is granted to the extent it seeks a ruling that Responding Defendants breached the Settlement Agreement and are jointly and personally liable for damages in the amount of $397,677.51. However, to the extent Plaintiffs seek an Order directing the Responding Defendants to pay this amount at this time, Plaintiffs' Motion is denied without prejudice in light of Plaintiffs' failure to adequately address how the payments and the appropriate tax deductions should be made consistent with Paragraphs 32(a) and 33 of the Settlement Agreement. In addition, the Court denies without prejudice Plaintiffs' request that: (1) Responding Defendants be ordered to show cause why they have not complied with the Settlement Agreement; (2) Plaintiffs be permitted to conduct discovery regarding any representation by Responding Defendants that they are/were financially unable to make the required Installment Payments; and (3) Plaintiffs be permitted to move for attorneys' fees and other appropriate sanctions if any representations of insolvency are not made in good faith. In the event that Responding Defendants default on their payment obligations in Stephenson II, Plaintiffs may file an appropriate motion in this Court seeking the relief, as necessary. A copy of the Court's Order dated July 31, 2025, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=raHMru from PacerMonitor.com. About Family Solutions of Ohio Family Solutions of Ohio, Inc. in Wake Forest, NC, filed its voluntary petition for Chapter 11 protection (Bankr. E.D.N.C. Case No. 24-03043) on Sept. 5, 2024, listing as much as $1 million to $10 million in both assets and liabilities. John Hopkins, Jr., vice president, signed the petition. Judge Pamela W. McAfee oversees the case. Hendren, Redwine & Malone, PLLC serves as the Debtor's counsel. George Sanderson III was appointed as trustee appointed in this Chapter 11 case. The trustee tapped The Sanderson Law Firm, PLLC and Hendren, Redwine & Malone, PLLC as bankruptcy counsel and Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP as special purpose counsel. FARMERS INSURANCE: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to August 20 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES RUFFULO and VALERIE YANKUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, FARMERS GROUP INC., TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE, FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE, and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-01796-FMO-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando Olguin entered an order extending the time for the Plaintiffs to file the motion for class certification and preliminary approval of class action settlement agreement to Aug. 20, 2025. Farmers provide insurance products and services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BK2mBT at no extra charge.[CC] FCA US: Expert Discovery in Maugain Due May 11, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ETIENNE MAUGAIN, et al., v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00116-JLH-SRF (D. Del.), the Hon. Judge Sherry Fallon entered an order modifying certain discovery and class certification order deadlines as follows: Event Deadline Deadline for the Defendant to Provide Aug. 8, 2025 Name(s) of Designee(s) and Proposed Dates of Availability: Deadline for Rule 30(b)(6) deposition: August 29, 2025 Expert discovery regarding class May 11, 2026 certification cutoff: Deadline for any opposition to a motion June 15, 2026 for class certification: Deadline for case dispositive motions June 15, 2026 (other than motions for summary judgment) and Daubert motions Deadline for any reply in support of a July 15, 2026 motion for class certification: FCA designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles. A copy of the Court's order dated July 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mPn50f at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kelly A. Green, Esq. Jason Z. Miller, Esq. SMITH, KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS, LLP 1000 N. West Street, Suite 1501 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 504-1656 Facsimile: (302) 652-8405 E-mail: kag@skjlaw.com jzm@skjlaw.com - and - Russell D. Paul, Esq. Amey J. Park, Esq. Natalie Lesser, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: rpaul@bm.net apark@bm.net nlesser@bm.net - and - Cody R. Padgett, Esq. Majdi Hijazin, Esq. Abigail Gertner, Esq. Nathan Kiyam, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 E-mail: Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com Majdi.Hijazin@capstonelawyers.com Abigail.Gertner@capstonelawyers.com Nate.Kiyam@capstonelawyers.com - and - Steven Calamusa, Esq. Geoff Stahl, Esq. Rachel Bentley, Esq. GORDON & PARTNERS, P.A. 4114 Northlake Blvd., Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 799-5070 Facsimile: (561) 799-4050 E-mail: scalamusa@fortheinjured.com gstahl@fortheinjured.com rbentley@fortheinjured.com - and - Theodore Leopold, Esq. Geoffrey Graber, Esq. Karina Puttieva, Esq. Blake R. Miller, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 11780 U.S. Highway One, Suite N500 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33408 Telephone: (561) 515-1400 Facsimile: (561) 515-1401 E-mail: tleopold@cohenmilstein.com brmiller@cohenmilstein.com The Defendant is represented by: Patrick M. Brannigan, Esq. Jessica L. Reno, Esq. ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 700 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 574-7400 E-mail: pbrannigan@eckertseamans.com jreno@eckertseamans.com - and - Stephen A. D'Aunoy, Esq. Scott H. Morgan, Esq. KLEIN THOMAS LEE AND FRESARD 100 N. Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 888-2970 E-mail: steve.daunoy@kleinthomaslaw.com scott.morgan@kleinthomaslaw.com FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE: Faces Suit Over Transfer Regulations --------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo!Sports reports that a Dutch group seeking compensation on behalf of soccer players who might have lost income due to transfer regulations has filed a class action lawsuit against the sport's governing body FIFA and five other football associations. The Justice for Players foundation said in a statement Monday, August 4, that men and women across the world who have played for a club in the European Union or the United Kingdom since 2002 are eligible to join the legal procedure. The legal move follows a landmark ruling from top EU court last year stating that some parts of FIFA's transfer regulations did not comply with the bloc's laws on competition and freedom of movement for labor. The foundation says it is fighting for the right of players "whose earnings were compromised as a result of FIFA's restrictive rules on termination of contracts and transfers." In addition to FIFA, Justice For Players is also taking legal action against the national football associations of the Netherlands, France, Germany, Belgium and Denmark. "Preliminary estimates indicate that the number of affected footballers may comprise approximately 100,000 players," it said. By ruling in the Lassana Diarra case that some FIFA regulations on player transfers are contrary to EU legislation relating to competition and freedom of movement, the European Court of Justice has paved the way for deep changes in the sport's economy. Diarra, a former Real Madrid, Arsenal and Chelsea player, signed a four-year contract with Lokomotiv Moscow in 2013. The deal was terminated a year later after he was unhappy with alleged pay cuts. FIFA and then the Court of Arbitration for Sport found the Russian club terminated the contract "with just cause" and ordered the player to pay 10.5 million euros ($11.2 million). Diarra argued his search for a new club was affected by FIFA rules, making his next employer jointly responsible for paying compensation to Lokomotiv. Some analysts have compared the ruling to the 1995 decision on Belgian Jean-Marc Bosman. That ruling removed restrictions placed on foreign EU footballers within national leagues and allowed players in the bloc to move to another club for free when their contracts ended. But for now, the decision on Diarra has not changed how the global soccer transfer market, worth more than $10 billion each season, functions. Justice for Players said that economists at Compass Lexecon consulting firm estimate that FIFA regulations caused the affected players to earn about 8% less over their careers. "All professional football players have lost a significant amount of earnings due to the unlawful FIFA regulations," said the foundation chair, Lucia Melcherts. "The past and even current system unduly favours FIFA who has far too much unilateral power. In any other profession, people are allowed to change jobs voluntarily." [GN] FINWISE BANK: Fails to Secure Private Information, Meza Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- BERTHA MEZA and LATISE SAVOY on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. FINWISE BANK, Case No. 2:25-cv-00636 (Aug. 1, 2025) alleges FinWise failed to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiffs' and other similarly situated FinWise customers' full names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, and account numbers from hackers. On July 29, 2025, FinWise sent out data breach letters to individuals whose information was compromised as a result of the hacking incident. In response, the company launched an investigation which revealed that an unauthorized party had access to certain company files (the Data Breach). Yet, FinWise waited 14 months to notify the public that they were at risk. As a result of this delayed response, the Plaintiffs and "Class Members" had no idea for 14 months that their Private Information had been compromised, and that they were, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm, says the suit. The Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered and are at an imminent, immediate, and continuing increased risk of suffering ascertainable losses in the form of harm from identity theft and other fraudulent misuse of their Private Information, the loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach. The Plaintiffs bring this class action lawsuit to address FinWise's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information that it collected and maintained, and its failure to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiffs and Class Members of the types of information that were accessed, and that such information was subject to unauthorized access by a former employee. FinWise, based in Murray, Utah, is a chartered bank that provides "embedded banking" services, assisting non-financial businesses, including fintechs, in offering financial products to consumers and businesses.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason R. Hull, Esq. Anikka T. Hoidal, Esq. MARSHALL OLSON & HULL, PC Newhouse Building Ten Exchange Place, Suite 350 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 456-7655 E-mail: jhull@mohtrial.com ahoidal@mohtrial.com - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Neil P. Williams, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com nwilliams@sirillp.com FLEET QUEST: More Time to File Class Cert Bid Response Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAYVON SCOTT, YAZMINE WALTON, JOHN WARLICK, and SHERROD HUTCHIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FLEET QUEST LOGISTICS, LLC FLEET QUEST, L.L.C., SN TRANSPORTATION LLC, NERMIN MUJANOVIC, SALIH MUJANOVIC, SANEL FAZLIC, and ARMIN HIRKICH, jointly and severally, Case No. 1:23-cv-00770-PLM-RSK (W.D. Mich.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline for the Defendants' response to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification to Aug. 18, 2025. Fleet is a transportation and logistics trucking company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eDfG0T at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jack W. Schulz, Esq. SCHULZ LAW PLC 645 Griswold Street, Suite 4100 Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 788-7446 E-mail: jack@michiganworkerlaw.com - and - Kevin Ernst, Esq. ERNST LAW FIRM, PLC 645 Griswold St Ste 4100 Detroit, MI, 48226 Telephone: (313) 965-5555 E-mail: kevin@ernstlawplc.com The Defendants are represented by: Ronald G. DeWaard, Esq. Jeffrey D. Koelzer, Esq. VARNUM LLP Grand Rapids, MI 49501-0352 Telephone: (616) 336-6000 E-mail: rgdewaard@varnumlaw.com jdkoelzer@varnumlaw.com GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE: Loses Bid to Dismiss Brooks, et al. UCL Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Honorable Linda Lopez of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss and motion to strike plaintiffs' second amended complaint filed by Defendants Greystar California, Inc. and Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC in the case captioned as RONNIE BROOKS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC; GREYSTAR CALIFORNIA INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.: 23cv1729-LL-VET (S.D. Cal.). This matter was initiated on September 18, 2023. On July 19, 2024, the Court granted Greystar's motion to compel arbitration as to named Plaintiff Philip McGill. On September 26, 2024, the Court granted in part an denied in part Defendants' motion to strike and motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint. On October 3, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint. In the SAC, six named Plaintiffs sue Greystar in a putative class action pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d)(2), claiming, inter alia, Greystar unlawfully withheld portions of tenants' security deposits without providing required statutory disclosures. Plaintiffs allege that Greystar owns, controls and/or manages hundreds of properties on behalf of the owners, referred to as Single Purpose Entities ("SPEs"). Plaintiffs are former tenants of apartment complexes owned, controlled, and/or managed by Greystar. Greystar is the property manager for all apartment complexes in the FAC. Plaintiffs bring a claim for unlawful retention of residential security deposits in violation of California Civil Code section 1950.5 and a derivative claim for violation of the Unfair Competition Law, section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code ("UCL"). Plaintiffs seek to litigate their claims as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and propose the following class definitions: Unsubstantiated-Charges Class: All former tenants of Defendants whose leaseholds terminated between September 18, 2019 to present, and who had at least $125.00 of their security deposits retained for cleaning, repairs and/or replacements combined, excluding those tenants who leases contained arbitration provisions including class action waivers. a. In-House Charges Subclass: All members of the Unsubstantiated Charges Class whom Defendants charged for asserted inhouse repair or cleaning. b. In-House Supplies Subclass: All members of the Unsubstantiated Charges Class whom Defendants charged for asserted inhouse supplies. c. Vendor Charges Subclass: All members of the Unsubstantiated Charges Class whom Defendants charged for asserted third-party services or supplies. d. Cleaning-Fee Class: All former tenants of Defendants whose leaseholds terminated between September 18, 2019 to present and from whom Defendants withheld a portion of their security deposits for flat-fee cleaning charges. e. Unauthorized Deduction Class: All former tenants of Defendants whose leaseholds terminated between September 18, 2019 to present that had any portion of their security deposit used for any charge other than rent in arrears, cleaning or repairing of their vacated unit. Defendants argue that the entire SAC should be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(7) for failure to join necessary and indispensable parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. Defendants contend that the SPEs are necessary and indispensable parties because Plaintiffs' request for relief is not possible in their absence. Plaintiffs oppose, arguing that joinder is not necessary, that they do not seek to hold the SPEs liable and do not seek recovery against the SPEs, and that the Court previously considered and rejected an identical argument by Defendants when they sought to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. According to the Court, Plaintiffs sufficiently allege that complete relief can be accorded among the existing parties. Plaintiffs allege in the SAC that Greystar, rather than the SPEs, is tasked with administering tenant security deposits at each of the complexes. They further allege that Defendants violated Section 1950.5 in bad faith by, inter alia, retaining all of part of their security deposits after they moved out without providing the required documentation to substantiate any amounts withheld, which requires the return of their entire security deposits. Therefore, if Plaintiffs prevail as to the security deposits, complete relief can be accorded among the existing parties by the return of Plaintiffs' own security deposits in full by Defendants, which is a consequence for violating Section 1950.5. The Court finds the SPEs are not necessary parties and joinder is not required. The Court denies the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' SAC for failure to join necessary and indispensable parties. Motion to Strike Alternatively, Defendants move to strike Plaintiffs' new allegations of an Unauthorized Deduction Class, arguing that it was added without the Court's leave, it fails as a matter of law, and it is an impermissible "failsafe" class. The Court finds the allegations regarding the Unauthorized Deduction Class fail as a matter of law. Plaintiffs premise this subclass on allegations that it is unlawful for utility charges to be deducted from security deposits. However, the plain text of subsections (b) and (e) of Section 1950.5 expressly allow security deposits to be used "for any purpose." The Court grants without leave to amend the Motion to Strike the Unauthorized Deduction Class and those portions of the SAC that allege or relate to allegations that utility charges are unauthorized deductions. This affects, at minimum, the following paragraphs of the SAC: 515(e), 517(a)-(b), 525, and 532. A copy of the Court's Order dated August 7, 2025, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VWVmzJ from PacerMonitor.com. HCA HEALTHCARE: Deadline to File Settlement Claim Form Set Sept. 25 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that HCA Healthcare, Inc. has agreed to settle a consolidated class action lawsuit that alleged that the Tennessee-based medical organization failed to protect confidential patient information during a data breach announced in July 2023. The court-approved website for the HCA data breach settlement can be found at HCAHealthcareSettlement.com. The settlement agreement, which received preliminary approval from the court on May 14, 2025, covers all current HCA patients residing in the United States whose personal information was impacted by the HCA Healthcare data breach announced around July 10, 2023. According to the official HCA settlement website, eligible class members who submit a timely, valid claim form are entitled to receive credit monitoring services and reimbursement for certain documented losses as part of the deal. The deadline to file an HCA settlement claim form is September 25, 2025. Class members can submit a claim form online on this page. Those who prefer to file by mail may download a PDF claim form to print, complete and return to the settlement administrator. Claim submission requires a unique class member ID, which can be located on the personalized settlement notice consumers were issued via email. The deal with HCA will provide all class members who file a timely, valid claim with one year of credit monitoring and identity theft protection services, which can be deferred for a period of 12 months at no cost if a consumer already maintains such services, the website explains. In addition, the site says that class members may submit a claim for up to $5,000 in compensation for documented out-of-pocket losses that were incurred as a result of the data breach and have not already been reimbursed. The court will decide whether to grant final approval to the terms of the HCA class action settlement at a hearing on October 27, 2025. Per the website, HCA settlement payments will be issued to eligible class members only if the deal receives ultimate court approval, and after any appeals are resolved. The lawsuit against HCA Healthcare claimed that inadequate cybersecurity resulted in the data breach incident, during which cybercriminals reportedly accessed and stole data from an external storage location used for email formatting automation. According to the data breach suit, the cyberattack exposed the personal information of approximately 11 million patients, including their names, cities, states, zip codes, email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, genders, service dates, appointment locations and the dates of individuals’ next appointments. [GN] K C PLUMBING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Diaz Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- ELBER BARBOZA DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. K C PLUMBING LLC; J K M MECHANICAL CORPORATION; KOLBE COTTO and JENNIFER VENTURA, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-04215 (E.D.N.Y., July 30, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Diaz was employed by the Defendants as a plumber. K C Plumbing LLC specializes in plumbing repairs and water heater replacements. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 KEY DIGITAL: Lewis Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT LEWIS, JR., on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. KEY DIGITAL STRATEGIES LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02757-VMC (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order allowing him to file his motion for class certification at a time that is ordered by the Court when a joint proposed Scheduling Order is issued. By seeking this extension, neither Party waives, and expressly preserves its rights. The Plaintiff alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) on behalf of a national class. Key develops and manufactures high quality, cutting-edge technology solutions. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=75Um7o at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Protective Order Motion Granted in Part ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Kari A. Dooley of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut granted in part and denied in part Kimberly-Clark Corporation's motion for protective order in the case captioned as BETHANY DePAUL, ARLENE QUARANTA, MEREDITH QUARANTA, MARGARET MERIWETHER, MINAH McBREAIRTY, and JEFFREY McBREAIRTY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00271-KAD (D. Conn.). Discovery is stayed pending the Court's adjudication of defendant's motion to dismiss. Through this putative class action, Plaintiffs Bethany DePaul, Arlene Quaranta, Meredith Quaranta, Margaret Meriwether, Minah McBreairty, and Jeffrey McBreairty bring claims against Defendant Kimberly-Clark Corporation, arising out of Defendant's alleged use of PFAS chemicals in its manufacturing processes in and around New Milford, Connecticut. On August 6, 2024, Defendant filed a fully dispositive Motion to Dismiss. On March 12, 2025, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Protective Order, which seeks: (1) a stay of discovery pending resolution of the Motion to Dismiss; and (2) clarification that discovery has been bifurcated and once resumed, is limited to issues relevant to class certification. Plaintiffs oppose the motion. Defendant asserts that a stay of discovery is warranted, because: (1) the pending Motion to Dismiss raises substantial grounds for dismissing the entire case; (2) requiring Defendant to respond to Plaintiffs' onerous, merits-based discovery requests would impose significant burdens on Defendant; and (3) Plaintiffs will not face any prejudice if discovery is stayed until after the Court has decided the Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs argue that: (a) Defendant's belief in the success of its Motion to Dismiss does not override this District's default practice that a motion to dismiss does not stay discovery; (b) their discovery requests are narrowly tailored and discovery has not been bifurcated; and (c) they will be unfairly prejudiced by any stay of discovery. On balance, the Court agrees with Defendant. In this case, Defendant is seeking dismissal of the TAC principally on the grounds that it does not plausibly allege any causal connection between Defendant's manufacturing processes and the purportedly "elevated" levels of PFAS chemicals in New Milford's soil and/or water supply, which Defendant's argue is fatal to all of Plaintiffs' claims. These arguments are substantial. Indeed, Defendant argues convincingly that the allegations in the TAC do not tie Defendant to Plaintiffs' harm, much less that Defendant's conduct was a "substantial factor" in such harm. Moreover, even assuming, as Plaintiffs' posit, that testing from the nearby groundwater and surface water permits Plaintiffs to plausibly assert that indeed, waste from the Kimberly-Clark Landfill contains PFAS, factual support as to causation remains scarce -- particularly given that it appears the PFAS levels in New Milford's drinking water are roughly the same as those found in cities all across Connecticut. In sum, without resolving these or any other issues raised in the Motion to Dismiss, the Court concludes that Defendant has presented "substantial arguments for dismissal," and made a strong showing that some or all of Plaintiffs' claims are without merit. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of a stay. Defendant argues that permitting discovery to proceed while their meritorious, fully dispositive Motion to Dismiss is pending would be unduly burdensome. Plaintiffs have already served Defendant with discovery requests seeking a broad range of materials regarding Defendant's New Milford manufacturing facility, as well as the Kimberly-Clark Landfill, spanning decades of operations. And Plaintiffs argue that these requests are appropriate at the class certification stage, even if the Court were to agree with Defendant that discovery has been bifurcated. This issue aside, Plaintiffs seek certification of two separate classes, and the Court generally accepts that class certification discovery -- particularly involving the use of experts --is likely to be both significant and time-consuming. Therefore, the Court finds that this factor also weighs in favor of a stay While the Court appreciates that Plaintiffs want to proceed expeditiously with pursuing their claims, it does not agree that Plaintiffs will face significant prejudice if a stay is entered. Plaintiffs argue that a stay of discovery would allow Defendant to back out of the agreed-upon case management plan and unilaterally shorten the time for Plaintiffs to complete discovery. The Court is not persuaded, insofar as the parties clearly negotiated the revised case management plan with fundamentally different understandings as to its scope, and in any event, Plaintiffs may seek a further extension of the deadlines in the case management plan as necessary and appropriate. Plaintiffs also argue that a stay of discovery would prolong their ongoing exposure to PFAS contamination. This too is unpersuasive. The Court notes it is well-settled that delay alone cannot itself constitute prejudice sufficient to defeat a motion to stay discovery. A copy of the Court's Memorandum of Decision dated August 7, 2025, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AJFPvz from PacerMonitor.com. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Must File Opposition Sur-Reply by Sept. 12 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUBHASH PATEL and RICHARD SUN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. and FRANS VAN HOUTEN, Case No. 1:21-cv-04606-ERK-MMH (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Marcia M. Henry entered an order regarding class certification-related case schedule and word limits: (1) The deadline for the Defendants' sur-reply in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion shall be Sept. 12, 2025, and the accompanying memorandum of law shall not exceed 3,250 words; (2) The Defendants may serve expert reports responding to Dr. Nye's reply expert report on the same date; (3) The Defendants may re-depose Dr. Nye for three hours on the record; (4) If the parties file Daubert motions directed at Dr. Nye's reply expert report or any expert reports the Defendants may serve in response to that report, the parties shall do so on the following schedule: Daubert Briefing Schedule Defendants' Daubert motion: Sept. 12, 2025 Plaintiffs' opposition: Oct. 13, 2025 Plaintiffs' Daubert motion: Oct. 13, 2025 Defendants' opposition: Nov. 13, 2025 On Feb. 28, 2025, the Plaintiffs served their Motion and an accompanying expert report of Dr. Zachary Nye. On Dec. 5, 2024, the Court approved the parties' proposed discovery plan and scheduling order. Koninklijke is a health technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LJTHcM at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Emma Gilmore, Esq. Villi Shteyn, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com egilmore@pomlaw.com vshteyn@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com The Defendants are represented by: Sharon L. Nelles, Esq. William B. Monahan, Esq. Thomas C. White, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 558-4000 KRISPY KREME: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Martin Says -------------------------------------------------------- LANASA MARTIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KRISPY KREME DOUGHNUT CORPORATION and KRISPY KREME, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00578 (W.D.N.C., Aug. 1, 2025) arises from a data breach. According to the complaint, an unauthorized third-party gained access to Krispy Kreme's network beginning on or around Nov. 29, 2024, and absconded with personally identifying information. The Defendants, as part of their normal business operations, collect highly sensitive data about its employees, including their names, dates of birth, Social Security Numbers, and financial information. Krispy Kreme employees have no choice but to trust Krispy Kreme to keep their data secure, asserts the suit. The vast majority of affected individuals were Krispy Kreme employees, former employees, and their family members. According to Krispy Kreme's website, the PII seized may have included names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, driver's license or state ID numbers, financial account information, financial account access information, credit or debit card information, credit or debit card information in combination with a security code, usernames and passwords to a financial account, passport numbers, digital signatures, usernames and passwords, email addresses and passwords, biometric data, USCIS or Alien Registration Numbers, U.S. military ID numbers, medical or health information, and health insurance information. The Plaintiff contends that criminals can now sell the victims' data on the black market for the purpose of stealing their identities. None of this would have occurred if Krispy Kreme had implemented reasonable data security measures. Plaintiff Lanasa Martin was a victim of the data breach. She brings this action on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, seeking damages for the injuries that Defendant's negligence have and will cause, as well as injunctive relief to ensure that the data Defendant continues to store will be protected by reasonable data security practices going forward. Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corporation and its parent company Krispy Kreme, Inc. are an American multinational doughnut company and coffeehouse chain.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kurt F. Hausler, Esq. HAUSLER LAW FIRM, PLLC 524 East Boulevard Charlotte, NC 28203 Telephone: (704) 247-3255 Facsimile: (704) 247-3267 E-mail: khausler@hauslerlaw.com - and - Michael J. Boyle, Jr., Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 4200 Regent Street, Suite 200 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 578-5582 E-mail: mboyle@bgandg.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com KRISTI NOEM: Class Cert Briefing Schedule Entered in C.M. Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as C.M., MICHAEL BORREGO FERNANDEZ, J.M.C., E.R., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, et al., v. KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-23182-RAR (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Rodolfo Ruiz II entered an order setting briefing schedule and hearing on forthcoming renewed motion for preliminary injunction: 1. The Plaintiffs are directed to file a Supplemental Complaint pursuant to Rule 15(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a renewed motion for preliminary injunction, and a renewed motion for class certification by July 29, 2025. 2. Once the Plaintiffs file their supplemental complaint, renewed motion for preliminary injunction, and renewed motion for class certification, the renewed motion for preliminary injunction shall be briefed as follows: a. The Defendants' responses in opposition to the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for preliminary injunction shall be filed by Aug. 7, 2025, at 12:00 P.M. Each Defendant shall respond separately to the Plaintiffs' renewed motion. b. The Plaintiffs shall file a consolidated reply in support of their renewed motion by Aug. 13, 2025, at 12:00 P.M. 3. The Court will hold an in-person hearing on the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for preliminary injunction on Aug. 18, 2025, at 10:00 A.M. All parties shall report to Courtroom 11-2, 11th Floor, at the Wilkie D. Ferguson, Jr. United States Courthouse, 400 North Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida 33128. A copy of the Court's order dated July 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=T16pjd at no extra charge.[CC] KROGER CO: Womick Must File Class Certification Bid by Oct. 13 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Womick v. The Kroger Co., Case No. 3:21-cv-00574 (S.D. Ill., Filed June 11, 2021), the Hon. Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel entered an order directing the Plaintiff to file his motion for class certification on or before Oct. 13, 2025. The Defendant's response will then be due on or before Dec. 12, 2025. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. Kroger is an American retail company that operates supermarkets and multi-department stores.[CC] LAKE CHARLES: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $2-Mil. ----------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that Lake Charles Memorial Health has agreed to a $2 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it failed to protect patients from a 2022 data breach. The settlement benefits individuals who were notified by Lake Charles Memorial Health in December 2022 that their personal health information and/or personally identifiable information may have been impacted by a data breach in October 2022. In October 2022, an unauthorized actor allegedly gained access to files on Lake Charles Memorial Health's computer network. The files reportedly contained sensitive patient information, such as names, addresses, identification numbers, health insurance information, payment information, dates of birth, clinical information and, for some, Social Security numbers. Lake Charles Memorial Health is a hospital in Lake Charles, Louisiana. Plaintiffs in the Lake Charles Memorial Health data breach class action lawsuit claim the hospital failed to protect their information through reasonable cybersecurity measures. As a result, the plaintiffs and other class members allegedly faced a heightened risk of identity theft and fraud. Lake Charles Memorial Health has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $2 million settlement to resolve the data breach class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Lake Charles Memorial Health settlement, class members can receive up to $5,000 for out-of-pocket expenses related to the data breach. This reimbursement includes up to three hours of lost time at a rate of $25 per hour. Class members who did not experience any losses can still receive settlement benefits in the form of a pro rata cash payment. Class members can also receive two years of medical data monitoring and identity theft protection services through the settlement. These services include one-bureau credit monitoring. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Sept. 5, 2025. The final approval hearing for the Lake Charles Memorial Health settlement is scheduled for Nov. 3, 2025. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Sept. 5, 2025. Who's Eligible Individuals who reside in the United States who were notified by Lake Charles Memorial Health in December 2022 that their personal health information and/or personally identifiable information may have been impacted by the data incident. Potential Award Up to $5,000 in out-of-pocket expenses or a pro-rata cash payment. Proof of Purchase Documentation, such as credit card statements, bank statements, invoices, telephone records and receipts. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 09/05/2025 Case Name Salinas, et al. v. Southwest Louisiana Hospital Association d/b/a Lake Charles Memorial Health, Case No. 2023-0090, in the 14th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Calcasieu, Louisiana Final Hearing 11/03/2025 Settlement Website LakeCharlesSettlement.com Claims Administrator LCMH Data Incident Litigation c/o Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 25244 Santa Ana, CA 92799 info@LakeCharlesSettlement.com (833) 360-6824 Class Counsel Benjamin F. Johns Samantha E. Holbrook SHUB & JOHNS LLC Brandon Wise Daniel J. Carr Janiel Centner PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE LLP Brian C. Gudmundson Jason P. Johnston Michael J. Laird Rachel K. Tack ZIMMERMAN REED LLP Defense Counsel Christopher A. Wiech Chelsea M. Lamb BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP[GN] LENDMARK FINANCIAL: Record Phone Calls Without Consent, Wilson Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- TERRANCE WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LENDMARK FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-01906 (C.D. Cal., July 25, 2025) is an action against the Defendant's practice of recording calls to consumers without having first notified said consumers or obtaining their consent to have the call recorded, in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. Lendmark Financial Services LLC provides consumer finance services. The Company offers personal and automobile loans, retail merchant sales finance, debt consolidation, online applications, and other financial services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 23586 Calabasas Rd, Suite 105 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 619-3774 Email: tfriedman@ toddflaw.com abacon@ toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com LINEAGE INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sept. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers of Lineage, Inc. (NASDAQ: LINE) common stock in or traceable to the registration statement used in connection with Lineage's July 2024 initial public offering ("IPO"), have until September 30, 2025 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the Lineage class action lawsuit. Captioned City of St. Clair Shores Police and Fire Retirement System v. Lineage, Inc., No. 25-cv-12383 (E.D. Mich.), the Lineage class action lawsuit charges Lineage and certain of its top executives, directors, IPO underwriters, and IPO sponsor with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Lineage class action lawsuit, please provide your information here: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-lineage-inc-class-action-lawsuit-line.html You can also contact attorneys J.C. Sanchez or Jennifer N. Caringal of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at info@rgrdlaw.com. CASE ALLEGATIONS: Lineage is a Maryland REIT focused on temperature-controlled cold-storage facilities. In the July 2024 IPO, Lineage sold over 65 million shares of Lineage common stock to investors at $78 per share, raising more than $5 billion in gross offering proceeds. The Lineage class action lawsuit alleges that the registration statement was false and/or misleading and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Lineage was then experiencing sustained weakening in customer demand, as additional cold-storage supply had come on line, Lineage's customers destocked a glut of excessive inventory built up during the COVID-19 pandemic, and Lineage's customers shifted to maintaining leaner cold-storage inventories on a go-forward basis in response to changed consumer trends; (ii) Lineage had implemented price increases in the lead-up to the IPO that could not be sustained in light of the weakening demand environment facing Lineage; (iii) Lineage was unable to effectively counteract the adverse trends listed above through the use of minimum storage guarantees or as a result of operational efficiencies, technological improvements, or its purported competitive advantages; (iv) as a result, rather than enjoying stable revenue growth, high occupancy rates, and steady rent escalation as represented in the registration statement, Lineage was in fact suffering from stagnant or falling revenue, occupancy rates, and rent prices; and (v) consequently, Lineage's financial results, business operations, and prospects were materially impaired. Since the IPO, the price of Lineage stock has fallen to lows near $40 per share. The price of Lineage stock has remained substantially below the IPO price at the time of the filing of the complaint. The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving financial fraud. You can view a copy of the complaint by clicking here. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Lineage common stock in or traceable to the registration statement issued in connection with Lineage's IPO to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Lineage class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Lineage class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Lineage class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the Lineage class action lawsuit. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities fraud and shareholder litigation. Our Firm has been ranked #1 in the ISS Securities Class Action Services rankings for four out of the last five years for securing the most monetary relief for investors. In 2024, we recovered over $2.5 billion for investors in securities-related class action cases -- more than the next five law firms combined, according to ISS. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world, and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for more information: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. Contact: J.C. Sanchez, Esq. Jennifer N. Caringal, Esq. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (800) 449-4900 info@rgrdlaw.com [GN] LIVE NATION: Arbitration Ruling in ERISA Lawsuit Reversed in Part ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the appeal styled PAMELA AVECILLA and SEAN BAILEY, individually and as representatives of a Putative Class of Participants and Beneficiaries, on behalf of the LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC. 401 (K) SAVINGS PLAN, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC. 401(K) COMMITTEE, Defendants - Appellees, No. 23-55725 (9th Cir.), Judges Roopali H. Desai and Michelle T. Friedland, and and Karen E. Schreier of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reverse in part and remand the judgment of the United States District Court for the Central District of California granting Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.'s motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiffs Pamela Avecilla and Sean Bailey invested in a 401(k) plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), which was offered by their former employer, Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. Plaintiffs sued Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. and Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. 401(k) Committee on behalf of the Plan for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA Secs. 502(a)(2), (a)(3), and Sec. 409(a). They allege that Live Nation mismanaged the Plan and caused the Plan to suffer millions of dollars in losses. Live Nation moved to compel arbitration based on an arbitration provision in the Plan. Plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing that: (1) the class action waiver in the arbitration agreement violated the effective vindication doctrine; (2) they did not consent to the arbitration provision; and (3) in any event, the arbitration provision is unconscionable. The district court granted Live Nation's motion, finding that there was a valid arbitration agreement because the Plan consented to arbitration through the Plan document, and Plaintiffs' unconscionability arguments failed because their California contract defenses were preempted by ERISA. Plaintiffs timely appealed. In this case, Plaintiffs request equitable relief and monetary damages on behalf of the Plan for Live Nation's alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. Because Plaintiffs specifically brought this action to recover losses incurred by the Plan and to obtain redress for grievances against the Plan, both claims exist for the Plan's primary benefit. Thus, the Plan is the relevant consenting party for Plaintiffs' ERISA Secs. 502(a)(2) and (a)(3) claims, the Ninth Circuit finds. According to the Ninth Circuit, the Plan consented to arbitration, and the district court did not err in concluding that a valid arbitration agreement exists between the Plan and Live Nation absent applicable defenses. The Circuit Judges explain, "Here, the Plan states that Live Nation has the authority to amend the Plan for any reason, at any time in such a manner as Live Nation shall deem advisable. Because the terms of the Plan expressly cede broad authority to Live Nation to amend its terms, a reasonable person would believe that the Plan consented to the addition of the arbitration provision. Thus, the arbitration agreement is valid and enforceable unless Plaintiffs' unconscionability defenses are successful." The Ninth Circuit hold in a concurrently filed opinion (Platt v. Sodexo, S.A., No. 23-55737, slip op. at 5 (9th Cir. August 4, 2025) that an employer does not create a valid arbitration agreement by unilaterally modifying an ERISA-governed plan to add an arbitration provision. Instead, the employer must obtain consent from the relevant party to form a valid arbitration agreement.” Thus, Live Nation must obtain consent from the relevant consenting party to form a valid arbitration agreement. The Circuit Judges conclude, "The availability of the unconscionability defense is not preempted by ERISA because that defense arises from the Federal Arbitration Act rather than state law. The district court therefore erred in concluding that Plaintiffs' unconscionability defenses are foreclosed because the defenses are based in California law and thus preempted by ERISA. Accordingly, Plaintiffs may raise unconscionability defenses to arbitration, and the source of law for those defenses is federal common law. We thus reverse in part and remand for the district court to consider Plaintiffs' unconscionability defenses in the first instance." A copy of the Court's Memorandum dated August 4, 2025, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=D90WaC MASTERCARD INC: $26M Settlement in Hayman Case Gets Final Court OK ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Honorable Jessica G. L. Clarke of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted final approval of the class action settlement in the case captioned as DEBORAH HAYMAN et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MASTERCARD, INC., Defendant, Case No. 7:25-cv-00340 (S.D.N.Y.). The Court held that: 1. Within 14 days after the date of Final Approval, Defendant shall deposit $26,000,000 as Settlement Payment into the Qualified Settlement Fund established by the Settlement Administrator. 2. Within 14 calendar days after Mastercard makes the Settlement Payment, the Settlement Administrator shall re-calculate each Participating Class Member’s Participating Class Member Payment and mail to each Participating Class Member settlement checks written from the QSF's bank account and equaling the Participating Class Member Payment. 3. The Settlement Administrator will send out reminders within 60 calendar days after the initial distribution of settlement checks to Participating Class Members reminding them to cash their checks prior to the 90-day deadline. The reminders will be sent via email and/or text message for Participating Class Members for which the Settlement Administrator has an email address or mobile phone number, and by U.S. First Class Mail for Participating Class Members for which the Settlement Administrator has neither an email address nor a mobile phone number. 4. Upon the fulfillment of all settlement terms, the entire Litigation will be dismissed with prejudice, and without costs, expenses or attorneys' fees to any party except as provided in the Settlement Stipulation and this Order. All Participating Class Members who did not opt out, all Participating Collective Members who deposit a Settlement Check, and Plaintiffs are permanently enjoined from asserting, pursuing, and/or seeking to reopen claims that have been released through the Settlement Stipulation. The Court retains jurisdiction over the interpretation and implementation of the Settlement Stipulation. Plaintiffs Deborah Hayman, G.A. Gomes, L. Kasomo, and S. Brown, on behalf of themselves and all Participating Class Members, and Mastercard, Inc., have negotiated a settlement of this action to avoid the uncertainties and burden of protracted litigation, and to resolve any and all claims being released by the Settlement Stipulation. The Court finds the Settlement Stipulation entered into by and among the Parties is procedurally and substantively fair, reasonable, and adequate, and is not the product of collusion. The relief is significant and meaningful, especially when weighed against the risks of ongoing litigation. Among other factors, the Court has considered the strengths and weaknesses of Plaintiffs' case versus the benefits of the Settlement; the monetary recovery; the method of distribution and the treatment of Class Members; the likely complexity, length, and expense of further litigation; the support of the Settlement among the Participating Class Members; the opinion of competent counsel; the arm's-length negotiations entered into with the assistance of a mediator; the amount of discovery undertaken; and the other terms of the settlement. The Class consists of: (a) Gender Class Members: all individuals who identify as women, who have not, prior to the date of the Preliminary Approval Order, signed a separation agreement that includes a release of the Gender Claims, and who were employed by Mastercard in a Qualified Position in the United States from the following dates (based on the location at which they were employed by Mastercard): New York, from September 30, 2016; Virginia, from September 30, 2020; California, from September 30, 2018; Massachusetts, Washington, and Colorado, from September 30, 2019; and all other States, from December 4, 2019, through the date of this signed Settlement Stipulation. Gender Class Members who sign a separation agreement that includes a release of the Gender Claims on or after the date of the Preliminary Approval Order will remain Gender Class Members for Settlement purposes only and may participate in the Settlement, provided, however, that such participation shall not otherwise alter the effect of the release they have given in any way. (b) Race Class Members: all individuals who identify as Black (or African American) and/or Hispanic (or Latino/a), who have not, prior to the date of the Preliminary Approval Order, signed a separation agreement that includes a release of the Race Claims, and who were employed by Mastercard in a Qualified Position in the United States from the following dates (based on the location at which they were employed by Mastercard): New York, from October 8, 2019; California, from September 30, 2018; Colorado, from September 30, 2019; all other States, from December 4, 2019, through the date of this signed Settlement Stipulation. Race Class Members who sign a separation agreement that includes a release of the Race Claims on or after the date of the Preliminary Approval Order will remain Race Class Members for Settlement purposes only and may participate in the Settlement, provided, however, that such participation shall not otherwise alter the effect of the release they have given in any way. The Court makes the following determinations as to certification of the Class for settlement purposes only: (a) The Court finally certifies the Class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(2) and (b)(3). (b) The Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (c) There are questions of law or fact common to the members of the Class; (d) The claims of Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the other members of the Class; (e) Plaintiffs are capable of fairly and adequately protecting the interests of the members of the Class, in connection with the Settlement Stipulation; (f) Common questions of law and fact predominate over questions affecting only individual members of the Class; (g) The Class is ascertainable; (h) Resolution of the claims in this Action by way of settlement is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient resolution of the claims of the Class. Plaintiffs Deborah Hayman, G.A. Gomes, L. Kasomo, and S. Brown are confirmed as representative of the Class for the sole purpose of seeking a settlement of the Action. Outten & Golden LLP is confirmed as Class Counsel for the sole purpose of seeking a settlement of the Action. The Court finds that service awards of $25,000 each to the Class Representatives are reasonable. In this case, the requested service awards are reasonable and are approved. The Court awards Class Counsel $8,666,666.66 in fees and costs for their efforts in support of this litigation out of the Gross Settlement Amount. Class Counsel engaged considerable resources in the prosecution of this case. The attorneys at Outten & Golden LLP are experienced class action and employment lawyers with good reputations among the class action and employment bars and significant experience in litigating criminal history discrimination claims. Class Counsel are nationally recognized employment class action litigators. Rust Consulting Group, Inc. is appointed to continue serving as Settlement Administrator and its fee of $65,000 is approved. Upon the fulfillment of all settlement terms, the entire Litigation will be dismissed with prejudice, and without costs, expenses or attorneys' fees to any party except as provided in the Settlement Stipulation and this Order. All Participating Class Members who did not opt out, all Participating Collective Members who deposit a Settlement Check, and Plaintiffs are permanently enjoined from asserting, pursuing, and/or seeking to reopen claims that have been released through the Settlement Stipulation. The Court retains jurisdiction over the interpretation and implementation of the Settlement Stipulation. A copy of the Court's Order dated August 1, 2025, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6csVU2 from PacerMonitor.com. MOUNTAIN LAUREL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Leatherwood Says --------------------------------------------------------------- BETTY LEATHERWOOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOUNTAIN LAUREL DERMATOLOGY, PLLC, Defendant, Case No. 25CV004685-100 (N.C. Sup., Buncombe Cty., Aug. 1, 2025) alleges that the Defendant's data security failed and allowed a targeted cyberattack in or about May 2025 to compromise Defendant's network that contained personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiffs and other individuals. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, despite learning of the Data Breach on or about May 12, 2025 and determining that Private Information was involved in the breach, Defendant did not begin sending notices of the Data Breach (the "Notice of Data Breach Letter') until July 10, 2025. The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' Private Information with which it was entrusted for either treatment or employment or both, says the suit. Mountain Laurel Dermatology, PLLC offers complete diagnosis and treatment of diseases affecting the skin, hair and nails, from common disorders to complex conditions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel R. Rhine, Esq. RHINE LAW FIRM, P.C. 1612 Military Cutoff Road, Suite 300 Wilmington, NC 28403 Telephone: (910) 772-9960 Facsimile: (910) 772-9062 Email: jrr@rhinelawfirm.com - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. Danielle L. Perry, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 Email: gmason@masonllp.com dperry@masonllp.com NATIONAL DEBT: Tracks Financial Communications, Bernardi Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- LORETTA JEAN BERNARDI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NATIONAL DEBT RELIEF, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-06334 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 1, 2025) alleges that NDR conspires with various third parties to learn, use, or attempt to learn or use the Plaintiff's sensitive personal and financial communications. Accordingly, the Defendant's willful and affirmative actions aided numerous third-party advertising companies to learn the contents of Plaintiff's communications -- as well as the communications of the proposed Class members -- with NDR. Those third parties Advertisers include Meta, Google, Microsoft, Twitter, Tiktok, The Trade Desk, and Claritas, the suit says. The Plaintiff contends that NDR installed the Advertisers' tracking technologies, which aids, permits, and/or causes Advertisers to learn or attempt to learn the contents of their communications without their consent in violation of federal, California and New York law. NDR provides consumer debt relief services. As part of its business, it operates a website located at https://www.nationaldebtrelief.com/, which facilitates a process through which visitors may apply for such services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel R. Jackson, Esq. Joseph Henry (Hank) Bates, III, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC One Allied Drive, Suite 1400 Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 Facsimile: (501) 312-8505 E-mail: sjackson@cbplaw.com acarney@cbplaw.com NOVO NORDISK: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Set September 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is investigating potential claims against Novo Nordisk A/S ("Novo" or the "Company") (NYSE: NVO) and reminds investors of the September 30, 2025 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed against the Company. Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading national securities law firm with offices in New York, Pennsylvania, California and Georgia. The firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors since its founding in 1995. See www.faruqilaw.com. According to the complaint, defendants provided overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of Novo's growth potential; notably, that its asserted potential to capitalize on the compounded market greatly understated the potential impact of the personalization exception to the compounded GLP-1 exclusion and overstated the likelihood such patients would switch to Novo's branded alternatives, and further greatly overstated the potential GLP-1 market or otherwise Novo's capability to penetrate said markets to achieve continued growth. On July 29, 2025, Novo announced it was lowering its sales and profit outlook ahead of reporting its results for the second quarter of fiscal year 2025. The Company attributed the guide down on "lowered growth expectations for the second half of 2025" for both Wegovy and Ozempic due to "the persistent use of compounded GLP-1s, slower-than-expected market expansion and competition." Following this news, the price of Novo's common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $69.00 per share on July 28, 2025, Novo's stock price fell to $53.94 per share on July 29, 2025, a decline of about 21.83% in the span of just a single day. The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead plaintiff or not. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding Novo's conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. To learn more about the Novo Nordisk class action, go to www.faruqilaw.com/NVO or call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310). [GN] NOVO NORDISK: Faces Barta Suit Over Drop in Share Price ------------------------------------------------------- ERIC BARTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NOVO NORDISK A/S; MAZIAR MIKE DOUSTDAR; LARS FRUERGAARD JORGENSEN; KARSTEN MUNK KNUDSEN; and DAVID S. MOORE, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-14045 (D.N.Y., Aug. 1, 2025) is a federal securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Novo securities between May 7, 2025, to July 28, 2025, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the statements made by the Defendants were false and materially misleading. The Defendants created the false impression that they possessed reliable information pertaining to the Company's projected revenue outlook and anticipated growth while also minimizing risks from competition and macroeconomic fluctuations. In truth, Novo's optimistic reports of growth, cost cutting measures, and its overall potential and ability to continue to capitalize upon both the compounded and unreached GLP-1 markets fell short of reality; Novo repeatedly ignored and minimized the significance of the personalization exception for GLP-1 compounding, greatly overestimated its ability to capture patients coming off of compounded treatments, and was ultimately ill equipped to capitalize upon the purported significant unmet patient population. From a closing market price of $69 per share on July 28, 2025, Novo's stock price fell to $53.94 per share on July 29, 2025, a decline of about 21.83 percent in the span of just a single day, says the suit. Novo Nordisk A/S develops, produces, and markets pharmaceutical products. The Company focuses on diabetes care and offers insulin delivery systems and other diabetes products. Novo Nordisk also works in areas such as haemostatis management, growth disorders, and hormone replacement therapy. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: aapton@zlk.com PADAGIS US: Court Stays Motion to Dismiss Daugherty, et al. Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Edward M. Chen of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California stayed the motion filed by Defendants Padagis (US) LLC and L Perrigo Company to dismiss the first amended complaint in the case captioned as LINDSEY DAUGHERTY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PADAGIS US LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-02066-EMC (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs' administrative motion is denied as moot. Plaintiffs Lindsey Daugherty, Tuan Nguyen, Jarad Linn, and Cole Scroggs bring this proposed class action against Defendants Padagis (US) LLC and L Perrigo Company. They purchased Perrigo(R) branded benzoyl peroxide products in California and Missouri. They allege that Defendants' BPO Products "contain benzene and/or degrade to form benzene at high levels" and that benzene is a carcinogen. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to include product labels alerting or otherwise warning consumers of benzene in the BPO Products. They only allege economic harm, i.e. they would not have purchased and used the Products at all or would have paid significantly less for them had they known that the BPO Products contained/degraded to form benzene. Plaintiffs bring seven state law claims against Defendants all related to the alleged misrepresentation and/or warning omission: 1. On behalf of the California subclass, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have engaged in unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practices and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising, in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. 2. On behalf of the California subclass, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants engaged in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in connection with the sale of consumer goods, in violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act. 3. On behalf of the California subclass, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants omission of benzene information (ingredient or warning) constitutes false advertising, in violation of California's False Advertising Law. 4. On behalf of the nationwide class, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants engaged in deceptive trade practices by misrepresenting the safety and ingredients of the BPO Products. 5. On behalf of the nationwide class, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants breached the implied warranty of merchantability that their BPO Products were merchantable, fit and safe for ordinary use because the BPO Products contain benzene and/or degrade to form benzene and were not adequately labeled. 6. On behalf of the nationwide class, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated a common law duty to provide accurate and non-misleading information to consumers with respect to the quality, safety, and purity characteristics of their BPO Products by selling adulterated products. Defendants also violated a common law duty (and a duty under applicable drug safety laws) to use reasonable care in the design and manufacture of its BPO Products, including the duty to perform reasonable tests and inspections of its Products. 7. On behalf of the nationwide class, Plaintiffs bring a claim for unjust enrichment/quasi-contract based on Defendants' profiting from their misleading labeling. Plaintiffs seek, inter alia: -- an order enjoining Defendants from selling the BPO Products; -- an order enjoining Defendants from suggesting or implying that the BPO Products are safe for human application; -- an order requiring Defendants to engage in a corrective advertising campaign and engage in any further necessary affirmative injunctive relief, such as recalling existing BPO Products; -- restitution/damages; -- disgorgement; and -- statutory damages. Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' FAC for: (1) lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and (2) failure to state a claim. Standing: Injury-in-Fact Contrary to Defendants' argument, Plaintiffs have alleged facts sufficient to establish an injury-in-fact for Article III standing because Plaintiffs allege economic harm. Plaintiffs plausibly allege that if they knew about the risk of benzene contamination, they would either have paid less for or not bought the BPO Products at all. According to the Court, these allegations outline a theory of economic injury that qualifies as an injury in fact under established Article III standing caselaw. Therefore, Defendant's Rule 12(b)(1) motion is denied. cGMP Violations Plaintiffs assert state law claims that Defendants failed to comply with federal current Good Manufacturing Practices ("cGMPs") and adulteration standards which are incorporated by reference in state regulations. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that the BPO Products are contaminated and/or adulterated with benzene, which indicates that there was a critical failure in Defendants' quality control and testing protocols as required by federal cGMPs. Plaintiffs provide a long list of thirty-seven state statutes that purport to mirror the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act . According to Court, while Plaintiff's cGMP-based claims survive preemption, these claims are likely to be dismissed because Plaintiffs fail to: 1) adequately allege that the state statutes enforce requirements that are identical to federal standards (i.e. parallelism), and 2) allege with specificity how Defendant has violated each cGMP requirement identified in Plaintiffs' complaint, specificity necessary not only as a matter of fair notice to the defendant and to meet the pleading standard of Rule 9 but also to determine whether the claims are preempted. Although the Court is inclined to grant Defendants' motion to dismiss, it will permit Plaintiffs to amend their complaint to allege with specificity the parallel state laws it asserts and specific facts establishing Defendants' violations of particular cGMPs and how such violations rendered the BPO Products adulterated, provided that those asserted violations are limited to those which can be proven without interpretation of the cGMPs. The Court will stay the current motion to dismiss and lift the stay on discovery to permit Plaintiffs the opportunity to conduct limited and focused discovery on the alleged cGMP violations. Such discovery will be limited to written discovery designed to determine whether the cGMPs were violated in a manner that does not require interpretation or scientific/technical judgment, i.e. violations provable in a manner similar to that in Sprout. A copy of the Court's Order dated August 6, 2025, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8tbwTV from PacerMonitor.com. PLAVAN COMMERCIAL: Settlement in Tanner Suit Gets Final Court Okay ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted the plaintiff's motion for final approval of class action settlement and motion for service award, attorney's fees, and litigation costs in the case captioned as TRACY TANNER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. PLAVAN COMMERCIAL FUELING, INC, Defendant, Case No.: 3:24-cv-1341-BTM-JLB (S.D. Cal.). In February 2024, Defendant Plavan Commercial Fueling, Inc. experienced a Ransomware Incident, which may have impacted the names and Social Security numbers of Plavan's current and former customers. Plavan announced the Ransomware Incident in June 2024, and Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint on July 30, 2024. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement on October 14, 2024, which stated that Plaintiff and Defendant had reached an agreement to resolve all pending claims against Defendant on a class-wide basis. Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary approval of the class settlement on December 16, 2024, which the Court granted on February 18, 2025. In its Preliminary Approval Order, the Court conditionally certified the Settlement Class as "all individual U.S. residents to whom Plavan sent written notification of the February 23, 2024, Ransomware Incident." The Court provisionally appointed Patrick A. Barthle II of Morgan & Morgan and Ryan D. Maxey of Maxey Law Firm, P.A. as Class Counsel, Tracy Tanner as Class Representative, and Simpluris, Inc. as Class Administrator. Under the Settlement Agreement, Plavan agreed to establish a non-reversionary common fund of $300,000 for class benefits, notice and administration costs, service award payments approved by the Court, and attorneys' fees and expenses award by the Court. In exchange, the class members will release Plavan from all claims related to the Ransomware Incident. Class Certification The Class Representative's claims are typical of those of the class, as they advance the same claims and legal theories as those of the rest of the class. Rule 23(a)(3) is thus satisfied. With respect to Rule 23(a)(4), the Court finds that the Class Representative and Class Counsel have fairly and adequately represented the interests of the Class. The Settlement Class further satisfies Rule 23(b)(3) in that common issues predominate and "a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating" the claims in this case. The main common question in this case which would be subject to common proof is whether Plavan failed to properly secure and safeguard the Settlement Class's personal identifiable information. That question predominates in the case. Moreover, given this commonality, and the number of potential class members, the Court concludes that a class action is a superior mechanism for adjudicating the claims at issue. The Court concludes that the requirements of Rule 23 are met and that certification of the class for settlement purposes is appropriate. The Court appoints Patrick A. Barthle II of Morgan & Morgan and Ryan D. Maxey of Maxey Law Firm, P.A. as Class Counsel and Tracy Tanner as Class Representative. Settlement Approval The Court finds that the parties have provided sufficient notice to the class members. The Court further finds that the Class Representatives and Class Counsel have adequately represented the class. The Court finds that the settlement was the product of arm's length negotiations through back-and-forth communications and bargaining of terms. There is no evidence that the parties colluded. Counsel's fee request is proportionate to the settlement fund, and no funds revert to Plavan. The Court also finds that the requested fees are in fact reasonable. This factor weighs in favor of approval. In this case, the $300,000 fund (around $100 per class member) is an excellent recovery for the class. Counsel stated at the final approval hearing that they estimate that the class members who submitted claims will each receive around $600. Accordingly, the settlement amount also weighs in favor of approval, the Court finds. The Court finds that notice of the proposed settlement was adequate, the settlement was not the result of collusion, and the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. The motion for final approval of class action settlement is granted, and the Court approves and directs consummation of the Settlement Agreement with the cy pres modification. The Court also approves the Release provided in the Settlement Agreement and orders that, as of the Effective Date, the Released Claims will be released as to Released Parties. Moreover, the Court grants the motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and service awards: -- Class Counsel is awarded $100,000 in fees and $6,603.75 in costs. -- Class Representative Tracy Tanner is awarded $5,000 as a service award. A copy of the Court's Order dated August 4, 2025, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OfseAd from PacerMonitor.com R1 RCM HOLDCO: Spencer Sues Over Non Disclosure of Wage Scale ------------------------------------------------------------- SHANNON SPENCER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. R1 RCM HOLDCO INC. dba ACCRETIVE HEALTH INC.; MEDICAL FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS; and DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 25-2-21778-7 SEA (Wash. Super., Kings Cty., July 25, 2025) alleges that the Defendants failed to disclose the wage scale or salary range to be offered to the hired applicant in the posting. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, as a result of the Defendant's refusal to disclose the wage scale or salary range to be offered to the hired applicant in the posting, the Plaintiff remains unable to evaluate the pay for the position and compare it to other available positions in the marketplace, which negatively impacts the Plaintiff's current and lifetime wages. R1 RCM Holdco Inc. dba Accretive Health Inc. is a revenue cycle management company servicing hospitals, health systems and physician groups across the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Paul Cipriani, Esq. Hannah M. Hamley, Esq. EMERY REDDY, PLLC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 442-9106 Facsimile: (206) 441-9711 Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com paul@emeryreddy.com hannah@emeryreddy.com REFRESCO BEVERAGES: Settlement in Berry Case Gets Prelim. Court OK ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Tom Barber of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida adopted the report and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Sean P. Flynn that plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of the class action and notice to the settlement class be granted in the case captioned as JOHN BERRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. REFRESCO BEVERAGES U.S. INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:23-cv-2763-TPB-SPF (M.D. Fla.). This case involves a putative class action against Refresco relating to a criminal data security incident it suffered that potentially allowed an unauthorized actor to access the personal information of approximately 23,491 individuals in or around March 2023. Refresco announced the Incident in a notice sent to affected individuals in November 2023. On December 5, 2023, Plaintiff Berry filed a complaint alleging, among other things, that Refresco failed to take adequate measures to protect her and other putative class members' personal information and failed to disclose that its systems were susceptible to such a criminal attack. Plaintiff filed his amended complaint on February 14, 2024. The complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) negligence; (2) breach of contract; (3) breach of implied contract; (4) breach of fiduciary duty; (5) violation of the California Constitution's right to privacy; and (6) violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Practices Act ("FDUTPA"), Sec. 501.201, F.S., et seq. Settlement Benefits and Aggregate Cap The settlement negotiated on behalf of the class provides for monetary relief to be paid by Refresco to eligible claimants of a settlement class that includes 23,491 persons whose personal information was compromised as a result of the incident and who were sent written notice thereof. Settlement class members may be eligible to receive the following settlement benefits: a. Payments: All settlement class members who submit a valid, complete, and timely claim are eligible to be paid the following: i. Reimbursements for attested time spent up to $100 for each settlement class member. Lost time will be reimbursed at a rate of $20 per hour, and a maximum of five hours can be claimed, with an attestation that they spent that much time responding to issues raised by the incident. ii. Out-of-pocket expenses up to $500 for each settlement class member as reimbursement for actual, documented, unreimbursed out-of-pocket expenses. iii. Documented extraordinary losses up to $5,000 for each settlement class member as compensation for extraordinary losses resulting from the Incident. The payments available to settlement class members under subsection 8(a), together with settlement administration charges, and Plaintiff's attorney's fees and expenses, shall derive from the $650,00.00 non-reversionary net settlement fund. To the extent any monies from uncashed checks remain in the net settlement fund more than 120 days after the distribution of all settlement payments to the class members, a subsequent settlement payment will be evenly made to all class members with approved claims for attested time spent payments who cashed or deposited the initial payment they received, provided that the average check amount is equal to or greater than $3.00 and more than 10% of the net settlement fund remains unclaimed. The distribution of this remaining uncashed net settlement fund shall continue until the average check or digital payment in a distribution is less than $3.00 and/or no more than 10% of the net settlement fund remains, whereupon the amount remaining in the net settlement fund shall be distributed by mutual agreement of the parties to the Refresco UA 401(k) savings & retirement plan. The Court finds that the parties' settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and falls within the range of possible approval, and was entered into after extensive, arm's length negotiations, such that it is preliminarily approved and notice of the settlement should be provided to the settlement class members pursuant to Rule 23(e). Class Certification For purposes of settlement only, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1)(b), the Court provisionally certifies the class, defined as follows: All persons Refresco identified as being among those individuals impacted by the March 2023 Data Breach, including all who were sent a notice of the Data Breach (the "settlement class members"). The settlement class specifically excludes: (1) any judge presiding over this matter and any of their first-degree relatives and judicial staff; (2) Refresco's officers, directors, and members; and (3) persons who timely and validly request exclusion from the settlement class. The Court provisionally finds, pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3), for settlement purposes only, that: (a) the settlement class is so numerous that joinder of all settlement class members is impracticable; (b) there are questions of law and fact common to the settlement class; (c) the class representative's claims are typical of the claims of the settlement class; (d) the class representative will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the settlement class; (e) the questions of law or fact common to the settlement class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members; and (f) that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. Plaintiff John Berry is designated and appointed as the class representative. The Court provisionally finds that the class representative is similarly situated to absent settlement class members and is typical of the settlement class, and, therefore, will be an adequate class representative. The Court finds that Nicholas A. Migliaccio of Migliaccio & Rathod LLP, and Scott D. Hirsch of Scott Hirsch Law Group, PLLC are experienced and adequate counsel and are appointed as settlement class counsel. Administration of Settlement The class representative, settlement class counsel, and Refresco have created a process for assessing the validity of claims and a payment method to settlement class members who submit timely, valid claim forms. The Court preliminarily approves the settlement benefits to the settlement class and the plan for distributing the settlement benefits. The Court appoints Simpluris as settlement administrator. The Court directs that the settlement administrator distribute settlement benefits according to the terms of the settlement agreement, should the settlement be finally approved. A copy of the Court's Order dated August 7, 2025, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YGY7tK from PacerMonitor.com. ROTO-ROOTER SERVICES: Eddings Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHRIS EDDINGS, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ROTO-ROOTER SERVICES COMPANY, an Iowa Corporation, and DOES 1-10, is a class and collective action for wage and labor violations arising out of the Defendant's failure to properly classify Plaintiff and others similarly situated as non-exempt employees, and thus failure to pay wages for all time worked, including overtime, failure to provide timely and uninterrupted meal and rest periods, and for derivative claims, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Accordingly, the Defendant misclassified the Plaintiff and others similarly situated as salaried exempt when their day-to-day job duties consisted of non-exempt duties, and consequently failed to pay its employees' wages for all hours worked, including overtime wages. Furthermore, the Defendant failed to provide timely and uninterrupted meal and rest periods in violation of California Labor Code sections 512 and 226.7, and the applicable Industrial Wage Order. The Plaintiff is employed at the Defendant's location in the whereabouts of Alhambra, California, but spends the day in the field travelling between customer locations conducting camera scope field work. His job title is Sales Supervisor however the job duties he performs on a daily basis are that of camera scope field technician. The Defendant is a provider of plumbing repair and drain cleaning services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David R. Markham, Esq. Lisa R. Brevard, Esq. THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM 888 Prospect Street, Suite 200 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (619) 399-3995 Facsimile: (619) 323-1684 E-mail: dmarkham@markham-law.com lbrevard@markham-law.com - and - Walter L. Haines, Esq. UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP 8605 Santa Monica Blvd., No. 63354 North Hollywood, CA 90069 Telephone: (562) 256-1047 Facsimile: (562) 256-1006 E-mail: walter@uelglaw.com SAIA MOTOR: Moore Wage Lawsuit to Remain in Federal Court --------------------------------------------------------- Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha of the United States District Court for the Central District of California denied Plaintiff Michael Moore's motion to remand the case captioned as MICHAEL MOORE, Plaintiff, v. SAIA MOTOR FREIGHT LINE, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-03156-FLA-E (C.D. Cal.). Defendant Saia Motor Freight Line, LLC opposes the Motion. Plaintiff filed a class-action lawsuit against Defendant in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. 24STCV06059, on March 11, 2024. Plaintiff's Complaint asserts Defendant violated the following statutes: (1) Cal. Lab. Code Secs. 204, 1194, 1194.2, and 1197 (Failure to Pay Minimum Wages); (2) Cal. Lab. Code Secs. 1194 and 1198 (Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation); (3) Cal. Lab. Code Secs. 226.7 and 512 (Failure to Provide Meal Periods); (4) Cal. Lab. Code Sec. 226.7 (Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Breaks); (5) Cal. Lab. Code Sec. 2802 (Failure to Indemnify Necessary Business Expenses); (6) Cal. Lab. Code Secs. 201–03 (Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at Termination); (7) Cal. Lab. Code Sec. 226 (Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements); and (8) Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Secs. 17200, et seq. (Unfair Business Practices). After granting the parties' Stipulation to Dismiss Causes of Action Without Prejudice, only two claims remain: (1) Failure to Indemnify Necessary Business Expenses (Cal. Lab. Code Sec. 2802); and (2) Unfair Business Practices (Bus. & Prof. Code Secs. 17200, et seq.). Defendant removed the action to federal court on April 17, 2024. In the Notice of Removal, Defendant argues this court has jurisdiction over this case under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1332(d), 1441, 1446, and 1453. Defendant further states: (1) Plaintiff is a citizen of a different state than Defendant, (2) there are more than 100 members in Plaintiff's proposed class, and (3) the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs. As the parties do not contest CAFA's jurisdictional requirement of class numerosity, the two remaining disputes are: (1) whether minimum diversity exists, and (2) whether Plaintiff's remaining claims exceed CAFA's $5 million amount in controversy requirement. Plaintiff argues Defendant has not met its burden of establishing minimal diversity because "Defendant alleges only that Plaintiff is a resident of California" without alleging that Plaintiff is domiciled in California. Stating that Plaintiff is a resident of California is sufficient to establish minimal diversity. Plaintiff also argues Defendant has failed to show the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million as required under CAFA. Defendant supplied various support for its calculations, including declarations. The Court finds Defendant has satisfied its burden, by a preponderance of the evidence, for the amount in controversy based on three of Plaintiff's claims -- meal period premiums, rest break premiums, and waiting time penalties -- which collectively exceed the $5 million threshold. A copy of the Court's Order dated August 4, 2025, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Sg5qaI from PacerMonitor.com. SANOFI-AVENTIS: Judgment in Mosaic, et al. Antitrust Suit Vacated ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the appeal styled MOSAIC HEALTH, INC., CENTRAL VIRGINIA HEALTH SERVICES, INC., INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S., LLC, ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, LILLY USA, LLC, NOVO NORDISK INC., ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, Defendants-Appellees, No. 24-598 (2nd Cir.), Judges Myrna Perez, Alison J. Nathan, and Maria Araújo Kahn of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacate the judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York dismissing the plaintiffs' first amended complaint and denying leave to amend and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings. Plaintiffs filed a putative class action alleging that Defendants violated state and federal antitrust laws, as well as state common law, by engaging in a horizontal price-fixing conspiracy. Specifically, they allege that Defendants conspired, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, to limit a drug discount offered to safety-net hospitals and clinics that purchase diabetes drugs filled at retail pharmacies. Plaintiffs Mosaic Health, Inc. and Central Virginia Health Services, Inc. are two federally funded health centers operating safety-net clinics that serve low-income, underserved patient populations and provide medications to patients in need with sliding-fee discounts. Defendants Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC, Eli Lilly and Company and Lilly USA, LLC, Novo Nordisk Inc., and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP are a group of drug manufacturers who produce drugs covered by Medicare and Medicaid. Defendants control three diabetes drug production markets: (i) rapid-acting analog insulins, (ii) long-acting analog insulins, and (iii) incretin mimetics. Defendants compete against each other as horizontal competitors in these diabetes drug production markets. The drug discount that Defendants allegedly conspired to limit was offered through their participation in a program created pursuant to Section 340B of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 256b. Collectively, all four Defendants imposed Section 340B Drug Discount restrictions that Plaintiffs allege resulted in significant financial loss to safety-net hospitals and clinics. Plaintiff Mosaic Health, Inc. filed a class action complaint against Defendants alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws, as well as state common law. Central Virginia Health Services, Inc. joined as a plaintiff in an amended complaint. Defendants successfully moved to dismiss the first amended complaint. Plaintiffs then moved for leave to file the proposed second amended complaint. The district court denied the Plaintiffs' motion, reasoning that Plaintiffs failed to allege parallel conduct and failed to plausibly allege the requisite factual circumstances giving rise to an inference of conspiracy. Plaintiffs timely appealed. As a threshold matter, Defendants argue that the Supreme Court's decisions in Astra USA, Inc. v. Santa Clara County, 563 U.S. 110 (2011), and Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977), bar Plaintiffs from asserting claims under the Sherman Act and seeking damages, on the grounds that Plaintiffs are indirect purchasers of Defendants' drugs and therefore lack antitrust standing. The Second Circuit finds the Supreme Court's decisions in Astra and Illinois Brick Co. do not bar Plaintiffs from bringing this action alleging antitrust violations. Parallel Conduct The Second Circuit concludes that the proposed second amended complaint pleads sufficient facts to support a plausible inference of a horizontal price-fixing conspiracy through circumstantial allegations, where both: (1) the conduct that Plaintiffs allege was sufficiently parallel, as the Defendants' announced policies were similar enough in substance, timing, and effect; and (2) Plaintiffs alleged sufficient circumstantial plus factors, including a common motive to conspire, parallel conduct contrary to the Defendants' individual economic self-interest, and a high level of interfirm communications. The Circuit Judges hold, "Accordingly, the district court erred in denying Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint as futile and ultimately dismissing Plaintiffs' complaint. We therefore vacate the district court's judgment dismissing Plaintiffs' suit and denying leave to amend and remand for the district court to grant Plaintiffs leave to file their second amended complaint." A copy of the Court's decision dated August 6, 2025, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ECeigE SCOTTEVEST INC: Battle Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind --------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRE BATTLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SCOTTEVEST, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09107 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 1, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.scottevest.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Scottevest, Inc. designs and manufactures apparel. The Company offers shirts, tops, pants, jackets, hoodies, vests, travel accessories, as well as hats. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8706 Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com SEGWAY INC: E-Scooters Have Defective Folding Mechanism, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ PAUL HANSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SEGWAY INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-01436 (W.D. Wash., July 31, 2025) alleges that the Defendant's expensive E-Scooters contain a dangerous defect in their folding mechanism, such that the handlebars of the E-Scooter can fold and collapse while in use, sometimes flinging consumers off the E-Scooter at high speeds. Specifically, the folding mechanism's Defect causes the E-Scooter's stem leading to the handlebars to become progressively looser with use. The Defendant and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission announced on March 20, 2025, a recall of approximately 220,000 E-Scooters manufactured with a defective folding mechanism (the Recall). As part of the Recall, consumers have been advised to "immediately stop using the recalled Scooters" to avoid injury from the dangerous Defect. Moreover, the Recall itself is entirely inadequate. As an initial matter, it provides no monetary remedy whatsoever. Rather than actually recalling and refunding or replacing the, unsafe E-Scooters, Defendant instead offers only to send consumers a "free maintenance kit" "including tools and instructions for checking and tightening the folding mechanism and keeping it properly maintained, says the suit. Segway manufactures and sells a variety of expensive, luxury e-scooters and other forms of mechanized transit. From January 2020 through February 2025, the Defendant sold approximately 220,000 Segway Ninebot Max 30p and Max G30LP Kickscooters (E-Scooters) for between $600 and $1,000. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Fuller, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY LLP 1809 7th Avenue, Suite 1610 Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 970-8181 E-mail: kswope@cpmlegal.com afuller@cpmlegal.com - and - Brian Danitz, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY LLP 840 Malcom Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 E-mail: bdanitz@cpmlegal.com - and - Laurence D. King, Esq. Matthew B. George, Esq. Clarissa R. Olivares, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 772-4700 Facsimile: (415) 772-4707 E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com mgeorge@kaplanfox.com colivares@kaplanfox.com SIGNANT HEALTH: Morgan Suit Removed from State Ct. to. N.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as NICHOLAS MORGAN, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. SIGNANT HEALTH GLOBAL LLC, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-100, Case No. CGC-25-6266 (Filed June 24, 2025) was removed from the Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on Aug. 1, 2025. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-06523 to the proceeding. The Complaint alleges putative class-action claims under California law for illegal noncompete agreements, failure to pay minimum wage for all hours worked, and failure to pay overtime wages. Signant Health operates as a software company.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Mara D. Curtis, Esq. Rafael N. Tumanyan, Esq. Andrew B. Workman, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 515 South Flower Street, Suite 4300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 457 8000 Facsimile: (213) 457 8080 E-mail: mcurtis@reedsmith.com rtumanyan@reedsmith.com aworkman@reedsmith.com SLEEP DOCTOR: Faces Rodriguez Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages ----------------------------------------------------------------- REBEKA RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SLEEP DOCTOR HOLDINGS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 3:25-cv-01962-RBM-JLB (S.D. Cal., July 31, 2025) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff is the regular user of the telephone number that received the above solicitations. Plaintiff utilizes the cellular telephone number that received Defendant's telephone solicitations for personal purposes and the number is Plaintiff's residential telephone line and primary means of reaching Plaintiff at home. Accordingly, the Plaintiff never signed any type of authorization specifically permitting or allowing Defendant to send telephone solicitations before 8 am or after 9 pm. 10. The Defendant's unlawful conduct resulted in intrusion into the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal to Plaintiff and the Class members. The Defendant is a sleep health company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com SMTC MANUFACTURING: Nguyen Wage Lawsuit Remanded to State Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted Plaintiff Momo Nguyen's motion to remand the case captioned as MOMO NGUYEN, Plaintiff, v. SMTC MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-07394-JST (N.D. Cal.) to Alameda County Superior Court. Nguyen originally filed this action in Alameda County Superior Court on January 18, 2023, against Defendants SMTC Manufacturing Corporation of California and CheckOne, Inc. Nguyen alleged that Defendants: (1) failed to pay all overtime wages; (2) failed to pay all sick time; (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 reimburse necessary business expenses; and (8) violated California's Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200 et seq. She filed the action on behalf of herself and the following proposed classes: (1) all non-exempt employees who work or worked for Defendants in California, during the four years immediately preceding the filing of the Complaint through the date of trial; (2) all non-exempt employees who worked for Defendants in California and who worked overtime hours during at least one shift, during the four years immediately preceding the filing of the Complaint through the date of trial; (3) all employees who work or worked for Defendants in California, during the one year immediately preceding the filing of the Complaint through the date of trial; and (4) all employees who work or worked for Defendants in California and who left their employ during the three years immediately preceding the filing of the Complaint through the date of trial. On May 24, 2023, Nguyen added 40 HRS, Inc. as a defendant in the action. On June 12, 2024, Nguyen, SMTC Manufacturing, CheckOne, Inc., and 40 HRS, Inc. attended an all-day mediation. During the mediation, Nguyen made a settlement demand above $5 million. Id.1 On October 15, 2024, Nguyen filed another amendment to her complaint, identifying SMTC Corporation as an additional defendant. On October 23, 2024, SMTC Corporation filed a notice of removal of the case to this Court, invoking subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d). On November 13, 2024, 40 HRS, Inc. filed a motion to compel arbitration. That same day, the SMTC Defendants also filed a motion to compel arbitration as well as a motion to deny class certification. On November 22, 2024, Nguyen filed the motion to remand currently before the Court. Nguyen argues that this case should be remanded because: (1) SMTC Corporation's notice of removal was untimely, and (2) the SMTC Defendants fail to prove that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. Because the Court grants the motion on the basis that the SMTC Defendants failed to carry their burden to prove that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, it does not reach Nguyen's argument regarding timeliness of removal. In total, the SMTC Defendants assert $6,974,421.25 in controversy. The SMTC Defendants argue that the amount-in-controversy requirement is satisfied because Nguyen made a demand in the parties' mediation above $5 million. The Court notes as a preliminary matter, the parties disagree over whether the settlement demand is admissible at all in this context as evidence of the amount in controversy. The Court assumes without deciding that the settlement demand is admissible for determining the amount in controversy because it finds that, even if admissible, the settlement demand is not reliable enough to allow the SMTC Defendants to carry their burden. When Nguyen asserted during the mediation that the claims in this case put more than $5 million in controversy, she based that contention on the putative class count provided by the SMTC Defendants prior to the mediation. But Defendants subsequently revised that figure downward: five months after the mediation took place, the SMTC Defendants sent an email to Nguyen's counsel stating that they have learned that the putative class count they provided in advance of mediation was inflated because" they inadvertently double counted "a significant number of individuals who were employed by 40 HRS, Inc. and placed at SMTC Corporation, who later were hired directly by SMTC Corporation." Id. That reduction undermined whatever figures were based on Defendants' prior, higher class count. The SMTC Defendants try to explain that the "reduction in the number of putative class members is insufficient to rebut the fact that Plaintiff's valuation of her own case exceeds $5 million because: (1) Nguyen has not offered any evidence that the reduction of putative class members reduces her valuation of the case below $5 million; (2) while the SMTC Defendants confirmed a reduction in the number of putative class members, they confirmed that their count of the number of workweeks worked by the putative class members remained the same; (3) the amount placed in controversy has increased by another six-month period since the pre-mediation data disclosure; and (4) Nguyen has "offered no other evidence indicating that her case puts less than $5 million in controversy." The Court finds these arguments are not persuasive. According to the Court, Nguyen has no obligation to put forward evidence affirmatively proving that her case puts less than $5 million in controversy. The Court emphasizes that while the double counting of the putative class members may not have affected the number of workweeks worked by individual class members, it nonetheless affected the total potential damages. While the amount placed in controversy may have increased since the pre-mediation data disclosure, the Court has no way of calculating whether and how this amount offsets the amount inflated by the double counting of putative class members. The Court concludes given the various issues with the calculations underlying Nguyen's mediation settlement demand, the better course would be to examine the updated figures offered now by the SMTC Defendants for the purpose of specifically evaluating the amount in controversy. Rest Break Claim The parties' main dispute is over the SMTC Defendants' assumed violation rate. The SMTC Defendants assumed a violation rate of 100%, meaning they assumed that there was a rest-break violation for every single qualifying shift in this time period. Nguyen contends that the SMTC Defendants assume an inflated violation rate that is neither supported by any evidence nor based on the allegations of the complaint. Aside from relying on the language of the complaint, the Court finds SMTC Defendants do not provide any actual evidence or explanation as to why a 100% violation rate would accurately reflect the amount put in controversy by the rest-break claim. Applying a 20% violation rate reduces the amount in controversy for the rest break claim to $569,917.40. Waiting Time and Wage Statement Penalty As with Nguyen's rest-break claim, the SMTC Defendants assume a violation rate of 100% for Nguyen's waiting-time and wage-statement-penalty claim. Because Nguyen's complaint itself alleges that at least Nguyen and the "Waiting Time Subclass" are entitled to the statutory maximum 30-day waiting time penalty, the only question is whether it is reasonable to assume that 100% of all Class Members were owed at least some wages for more than 30 days after their separation from employment. The Court concludes that it is. A 100% violation rate is reasonable as there is nothing in the complaint or the record to suggest that SMTC Defendants paid employees these unpaid wages for the rest break violations suffered at an assumed rate of once per week per employee at some point during the month after they separated from employment. For similar reasons as those stated in analyzing the waiting time penalty claim, the Court finds that this 100% violation rate for Nguyen's wage statement claim is a reasonable assumption, given that an assumed violation of one missed rest break per week for each class member would result in an inaccurate wage statement for every pay period for all class members. Attorneys' Fees The SMTC Defendants argue that the Court should add 25% of the total amount put in controversy by the claims above to account for attorneys' fees at stake in the litigation. The aggregate amount placed in controversy by Nguyen's rest period claim ($569,917.40), waiting time claim ($1,646,400), and wage statement penalty claim ($1,083,550) is $3,299,867.40. Even if the Court were to add a 25% attorney's fee of $824,966.85, the evidence would only support an amount in controversy of $4,124,834.25. This figure falls short of the $5,000,000 threshold required by CAFA, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d), the Court concludes. While it is possible that the SMTC Defendants could have satisfied the $5,000,000 threshold had they made a showing as to the potential damages resulting from those claims, they have chosen not to do so in this case, and the Court may not carry their burden for them. Nguyen moves for attorneys' fees relating to her motion to remand. Because the SMTC Defendants raised legitimate arguments in support of their notice of removal, the Court concludes that attorneys' fees are not warranted. Motion to Compel Arbitration and Motion to Deny Class Certification Because the Court has resolved the jurisdictional question and determined that it lacks jurisdiction over this case, the Court does not address the motions to compel arbitration or the motion to deny class certification. A copy of the Court's Order dated August 6, 2025, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uNfy1w from PacerMonitor.com. STOCKX LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Ashworth Claims ------------------------------------------------------- BETH SARVER ASHWORTH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STOCKX LLC, Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-01470-JSS-LHP (M.D. Fla., July 31, 2025) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. StockX LLC, doing business as SMOT, operates as an online marketplace. The Company offers buying and selling of sneakers, apparel, electronics, collectibles, trading cards, and accessories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 South Dixie Highway, 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com rachel@kaufmanpa.com SUSSEX CORRECTIONAL: Court Tosses Parkell Civil Rights Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Gregory B. Williams of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware dismissed with prejudice the case captioned as DONALD D. PARKELL, et al, Plaintiffs, v. VERY SHORT JUAN DOE, Defendant, Case No. 25-cv-00723-GBW (D. Del.). Plaintiff Donald D. Parkell, who is currently in custody at the Sussex Correctional Institution in Georgetown, Delaware, filed a class action complaint pro se, alleging federal civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. The complaint is subject to this Court's sua sponte review and dismissal upon a determination that the pleading 1s frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief from defendants who are immune from such relief. At this early stage of the case, this Court accepts the facts alleged in Plaintiff's pro se pleading as true, draws all reasonable inferences in Plaintiff's favor, and asks only whether the complaint, liberally construed, contains facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. According to the class action complaint, a correctional officer, identified as "Very Short Juan Doe," used disproportionate or excessive force on June 1, 2025, in violation of the constitutional rights of Plaintiff, and all other inmates housed in D-Quad at SCI. Specifically, Defendant is alleged to have ordered all inmates in D-Quad to lie down on their bed for 30 minutes as punishment for disrespecting him, when Defendant thought inmates in D-Quad were making fun of or disrespecting him. The complaint maintains that inmates were not, in fact, making fun of Defendant or disrespecting him. The language and tone of the complaint casts some doubt on this claim. Judge Williams holds, "Regardless, the complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915A(b)(1). First, Plaintiff has not held himself out as a lawyer, and non-lawyer pro se litigants are unable to represent other members of a class in a class-action proceeding. Second, no action by Defendant in this case also alleged rises to level of a constitutional rights violation." A copy of the Court's Memorandum Order dated August 1, 2025, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=c9W5yy from PacerMonitor.com. TARGET BRANDS: Oh Sues Over Mislabeled Freeze-Dried Peach Slices ---------------------------------------------------------------- SIMON OH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TARGET BRANDS, INC. d/b/a GOOD AND GATHER, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-06843 (C.D. Cal., July 25, 2025) alleges that the Defendant deceptively sells its products in oversized packaging that does not reasonably inform consumers that they are over half empty. According to the complaint, the Defendant's slack-fill scam extends to its 1.25-ounce "Freeze-Dried Peach Slices" product sold in opaque containers (the "Product"). Defendant dupes unsuspecting consumers across America to pay premium prices for empty space. In one version of the Product, the opaque container below is a true and correct image of the Freeze-Dried Peach Slices, evidencing the deception. The Plaintiff and the Class have suffered injury in fact and have lost money as a result of the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading representations. Target Brands, Inc. operates the Good & Gather brand, which is a private-label food and beverage line. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com TAYLOR FARMS: Faces Vila Suit Over Mislabeled Farm Products ----------------------------------------------------------- JUAN VILA; ARTHUR SCHMIDT; and LESLIE RUGGIERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TAYLOR FARMS RETAIL, INC.; and TAYLOR FRESH FOODS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-06255 (N.D. Cal., July 25, 2025) seeks to redress the Defendants' unlawful and deceptive practices in labeling and marketing of consumer food products, including, but not limited to, Chopped Salad Kits in Chipotle Ranch and Bacon Caesar varieties, and Mini Chopped Salad Kits in Caesar, Citrus Crunch, Green Goddess Ranch, Maple Bourbon, Nashville Hot, Pizza Ranch, Sweet Kale, and Taco Ranch varieties, and any other Taylor Farms products. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Taylor Farms products has a protein claim on the front label of the product but failed to include the percent of daily value for protein in the Nutrition Facts Panel at any time during the last four years. The Plaintiff and members of the Class have been economically damaged by their purchase of the Products because the advertising for the Products was and is untrue and misleading under state law and the products are misbranded. As a direct and proximate result of such actions, the Plaintiffs and the other members have suffered, and continue to suffer, injury in fact and have lost money and property as a result of such false, deceptive and misleading advertising, says the suit. Taylor Farms Retail, Inc. distributes and supplies produce to the foodservice industry. The Company offers salads, cut fruits, and vegetables. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Hayley A. Reynolds, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 Email: seth@gutridesafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com hayley@gutridesafier.com TEA DATING: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Doe Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------- JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TEA DATING ADVICE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06285 (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2025) is an action against the Defendant as a result of its failure to safeguard and protect anonymous information of the Plaintiff and the Class. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant should have taken reasonable measures to keep the information private. The Defendant could have encrypted the information, stored it in internal databases, and have aggregated it. But the Defendant failed to take any measures at all, and in turn put the Plaintiff and the Class Members in danger. Tea Dating Advice, Inc. is the company behind the Tea app, a dating app designed to help women navigate the dating world by providing a platform for sharing information and advice about men they are interested in or have dated. The app allows women to anonymously post about their experiences, including potential "red flags" or "green flags," to help other women make informed decisions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alec M. Lelie, Esq. Spencer N. Migotsky, Esq. Caroline C. Donovan, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: aleslie@bursor.com smigotsky@bursor.com cdonovan@bursor.com TESLA INC: Transmit User Data to Third-Party Servers, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- PETER DAWIDZIK, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons v. TESLA, INC., a Texas corporation, Case No. 5:25-cv-01982 (C.D. Cal., July 31, 2025) is a class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and on behalf of all California residents who have accessed the Website, www.tesla.com. According to the complaint, a pixel tracker, also known as a web beacon, is a tracking mechanism embedded in a website that monitors user interactions. It typically appears as a small, transparent 1x1 image or a lightweight JavaScript snippet that activates when a webpage is loaded or a user performs a tracked action. When triggered, the pixel transmits data from the user's browser to a third-party server. This data typically includes page views, session duration, referrer URLs, IP address, browser and device details, and other interaction metadata, says the suit. When users visit the Website, the Defendant causes tracking technologies to be installed, executed, embedded, or injected in visitors' browsers. These include, but are not limited to, the following: -- Google Ads / DoubleClick Tracker -- Twitter Tracker -- Optimizely Tracker The third parties who operate the trackers use pieces of User Information collected via the Website as described herein for their own independent purposes tied to broader advertising ecosystems, profiling, and data monetization strategies that go beyond Defendant's direct needs for their own financial gain. The Defendant enables these trackers, which transmit user data to third-party servers to identify users and support advertising, profiling, and data monetization activities. Through the Trackers, the Third Parties collect detailed user information including IP addresses, browser and device type, screen resolution, operating system, pages visited, session duration, scroll depth, mouse movements, click behavior referring URLs, unique identifiers (such as cookies and ad IDs), and geolocation based on IP, the suit further asserts. Tesla is an American automotive and clean energy company. Headquartered in Austin, Texas, it designs, manufactures, and sells electric vehicles, stationary battery energy storage devices, solar panels, and related products and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (949) 270-2798 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC 40729 Village Dr., Suite 8 - 1989 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Telephone: (562) 612-1708 E-mail: rc@rosscornelllaw.com TFORCE FREIGHT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Adams Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY ADAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TFORCE FREIGHT, INC.; TFI INTERNATIONAL INC.; and UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Defendants, Case: 1:25-cv-09147 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 1, 2025) alleges violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff took short-term military leave from TForce Freight since 2005 and did not receive compensation and paid leave from TForce Freight during such short-term military leave. TForce Freight Inc., a subsidiary of TFI International, is a truckload freight carrier based in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Derek Y. Brandt, Esq. Bryan P. Thompson, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 875 North Michigan Avenue, 31st Floor Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (312) 300-6820 Email: dbrandt@clarksonlawfirm.com bthompson@clarksonlawfirm.com - and - Glenn A. Danas, Esq. Maksim Gorbunov, Esq. Michael A. Boelter, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Email: gdanas@clarksonlawfirm.com mgorbunov@clarksonlawfirm.com mboelter@clarksonlawfirm.com - and - Jamie K. Serb, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, PC 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Email: jamie@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com TILE INC: Wins Bid to Dismiss Ireland-Gordys' Claims ---------------------------------------------------- Judge Rita F. Lin of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California ruled on the motions to dismiss filed by Tile, Inc. and Amazon.com, Inc. in the case captioned as SHANNON IRELAND-GORDY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TILE, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 23-cv-04119-RFL (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs are four stalking victims whose stalkers allegedly tracked them using hidden location devices designed and sold by Defendants Tile, Inc. and Life360 Inc., in partnership with Defendant Amazon.com, Inc. They bring this putative class action alleging that Tile's trackers facilitated stalking. They contend that Tile was repeatedly warned that its trackers were being used by stalkers, but refused to adopt commonsense safety precautions that would allow stalking victims to detect, search for, or disable the trackers. Instead, Tile allegedly marketed its trackers in a way that subtly promoted their use for stalking and introduced features making a stalker's tracker even more difficult to disable. The Court previously granted in part Tile's motion to compel arbitration and stay the case as to Plaintiffs Broad and Doe's claims against Tile. However, the case proceeded as to Broad and Doe's claims against Amazon, and Plaintiffs the Ireland-Gordys' claims against all Defendants. Defendants now move to dismiss. The Ireland-Gordys allege that they became aware that their stalker was using a Tile tracker to track their location on March 10, 2017. They also allege public information indicating that Tile trackers could be used for stalking existed as early as 2013. Because the Ireland-Gordys' claims against Tile are premised on these facts, their claims were ripe by March 10, 2017. Furthermore, it is undisputed that the statute of limitations applicable to the Ireland-Gordys' claims range from one year to four years. Therefore, absent tolling or some other basis to extend or disregard the limitations period, the statute of limitations on the Ireland-Gordys' claims had passed by the time they filed suit on August 14, 2023. The Ireland-Gordys argue that the statute of limitations should be extended or disregarded for several reasons: (i) because the alleged harm constitutes a continuing violation; (ii) because they could not have discovered the basis for their claims in 2017; (iii) because equitable estoppel and/or tolling doctrines apply due to Tile's misconduct and its notice of their claims. None of these arguments provide a basis to avoid the conclusion that their claims are time-barred, the Court concludes. The Court finds because the Ireland-Gordys' claims are time-barred, Tile and Amazon's motions to dismiss their claims are granted. That leaves Broad and Doe as the only remaining Plaintiffs. A portion of their claims against Tile had been stayed pending arbitration, and the remainder were automatically stayed upon Tile's appeal from the denial of the motion to compel arbitration as to the remaining claims. According to the Court, that stay is now extended to their claims against Amazon as well, since those claims will overlap significantly with the Tile claims. Amazon's motion to dismiss Broad and Doe's claims is therefore denied without prejudice to renewal when the stay is lifted, the Court holds. A copy of the Court's Order dated August 6, 2025, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CPGmMk from PacerMonitor.com. WESTERN STONE: Removes Bauer Suit to C.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------ The Defendant in the case of ASIA L. BAUER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WESTERN STONE & METAL CORP.; SHANE CO.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo (Case No. 25-CIV-04699) to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 31, 2025. The clerk of court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-06466 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Judge Alex G. Tse. Western Stone & Metal Corp. is a private corporation that operates as the parent company for Shane Co., a large, privately owned jewelry retailer in the United States that specializes in selling diamonds, rubies, and sapphires. The Defendant is represented by: Christopher Braham, Esq. McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3200 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206 Telephone: (310) 277-4110 Email: cbraham@mwe.com WHIRLPOOL CORP: Ruling in Defective Product Suit Affirmed in Part ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the appeal styled JODI TAPPLY, JEANNETTE BUSCHMAN, MICHAEL PARTIPILO, BARBARA LESTER, and VICKI MEYERHOLZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee, No. 23-1666 (6th Cir.), Judges R. Guy Cole, Jr., Karen Nelson Moore and Joan L. Larsen of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan granting the motion of Whirlpool Corporation to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint. Plaintiffs Jodi Tapply, Jeannette Buschman, Michael Partipilo, Barbara Lester, and Vicki Meyerholz span five states -- Michigan, Illinois, Oklahoma, New Hampshire, and Nevada -- and allege common law fraud and consumer protection claims under each state's laws. They purchased ovens with stovetop ranges, all of which were manufactured by defendant Whirlpool Corporation. The products are single-device ovens with stovetop burners, each containing front-mounted control knobs that actuate the burners atop the stove (the Range), which plaintiffs claim actuate unintentionally (the Defect). These front-mounted knobs -- including (A) the Range's alleged Defect and (B) what Whirlpool knew about the Defect prior to sale -- are the focus of plaintiffs' amended complaint. Plaintiffs purchased their respective Ranges between November 2018 and August 2021. Each plaintiff experienced their Range actuating unintentionally, noticing the Range was on only once they smelled gas in their home. Plaintiffs allege that consumers, including themselves, expect their Ranges to be actuated by intentional and deliberate action and not by this inadvertent contact with the burner knobs. Additionally, the Range does not have any guards over the knobs to reduce the risk of unintentional actuation, nor does the oven door handle act as an effective barrier between a user and the knobs. Plaintiffs allege that the Defect is hazardous and renders the Range unsafe for use, though plaintiffs continue to use theirs. Plaintiffs' amended complaint alleges that, while plaintiffs did not know about the Defect at the point of sale, Whirlpool has known that the Range is inherently defective and unfit for its intended use due to unintentional actuation. These allegations of knowledge arise from incident reports submitted to the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission and consumer reviews on Whirlpool's website. Plaintiffs brought a class action complaint on behalf of a purported nationwide class of persons who purchased a Range with the Defect, as well as sub-classes for residents of Michigan, Illinois, Nevada, Oklahoma, and New Hampshire. Their amended complaint brings ten counts alleging violations of federal warranty law, fraud by omission, breach of express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment, and violation of state consumer protection statutes. Whirlpool argued that the amended complaint should be dismissed for two reasons. It argued that plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to bring their claims. It contended that plaintiffs' amended complaint failed to state a plausible claim for relief. The district court rejected Whirlpool's first argument and found that plaintiffs alleged a sufficiently concrete injury to satisfy Article III's standing requirements. Nevertheless, the district court dismissed each of plaintiffs' claims for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs timely appealed the district court's dismissal of their state common law fraud and statutory consumer protection claims. Whirlpool argues that the court should reverse the district court's finding of Article III standing and dismiss plaintiffs' case on jurisdictional grounds, or, alternatively, affirm the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' claims on the merits. Article III Standing Although Whirlpool does not contest that plaintiffs' claims are traceable and redressable, it argues the district court erred by finding that plaintiffs suffered a concrete injury-in-fact. According to the Circuit Judges, "Here, each of the named plaintiffs alleges that they suffered a concrete economic injury because they were deprived of the benefit of their bargain -- a Range that turns on through only intentional and deliberate action. Each plaintiff alleges that their Range turned on unexpectedly, causing gas fumes to fill their homes. And each plaintiff alleges that, had Whirlpool disclosed the Defect, they would have paid far less for their Range or foregone the purchase altogether. Thus, the amended complaint alleges that plaintiffs reasonably expected their Range to turn on through only deliberate action, and that their Range deviates from this expected benefit. Therefore, plaintiffs suffered concrete injuries that satisfy the requirements of Article III." Plaintiffs also plausibly alleged knowledge of the Defect and its related safety risks. According to the Sixth Circuit, the district court erred in ruling to the contrary. The district court found that, even if plaintiffs had plausibly alleged pre-sale knowledge, plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed for failing to plausibly allege that Whirlpool had a duty to disclose the Defect. Consumers are not, as Whirlpool argues, required to inquire about a defect to trigger a manufacturer's duty to disclose. Whirlpool contends that, even if a duty to disclose arises out of superior knowledge, they lack such superior knowledge. Because consumer complaints about the Defect were publicly available online, Whirlpool argues that plaintiffs had access to the same information as Whirlpool. The plaintiffs adequately pleaded a duty to disclose the Defect under Michigan law. The Sixth Circuit reverses the district court's decision to the contrary. In this case, plaintiffs do not plausibly allege that Whirlpool had a duty to disclose under Illinois law. Plaintiffs concede they lacked a confidential or fiduciary relationship with Whirlpool but argue that Whirlpool concealed material facts. Their allegations do not, however, specify how Whirlpool concealed those facts, seeming instead to rely on a few courts' decisions finding that a safety risk imposes a duty to disclose under Illinois common law. The Sixth Circuit affirms the district court's determination that plaintiffs did not sufficiently plead a duty to disclose the Defect under Illinois law. Because the amended complaint plausibly alleges that Whirlpool had superior knowledge over the ordinary consumer, plaintiffs plausibly alleged a duty to disclose under Oklahoma law. The Sixth Circuit reverses the district court's decision finding otherwise. Because plaintiffs plausibly pleaded Whirlpool's knowledge, however, they plausibly pleaded Whirlpool's duty to disclose under New Hampshire law. Therefore, the Sixth Circuit reverses the district court's decision dismissing plaintiffs' claim under New Hampshire law. Fraud Claim Whirlpool did not move to dismiss plaintiffs' Nevada fraud claim for lack of a duty to disclose. Accordingly, plaintiffs' Nevada claim will be reinstated, the Sixth Circuit holds. Consumer Protection Claims Plaintiffs allege Whirlpool violated the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, Mich. Comp. Laws Sec. 445.901, et seq. Plaintiffs argue that they need not prove that Whirlpool knowingly made false statements or had a duty to disclose the Defect. Whirlpool counters that, even if the Michigan Act does not require its knowledge of the defect, plaintiffs' claim fails because where the means of knowledge regarding the truthfulness of the representation are available to the plaintiff, a plaintiff cannot maintain a claim. According to the Sixth Circuit, Whirlpool's argument lacks merit. Plaintiffs could not discover the Defect prior to purchasing their Ranges through an online or visual inspection -- the Defect is purely physical, and plaintiffs plausibly alleged Whirlpool had superior knowledge. Accordingly, plaintiffs plead plausible claims under the Michigan Act, the Sixth Circuit concludes. Plaintiffs allege Whirlpool violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. Sec. 505/1, et seq. While plaintiffs' claim under Illinois common law fails for failure to plausibly allege a duty to disclose, no such duty is required under the Illinois Act. They, therefore, plausibly allege a claim under the Illinois Act, the Sixth Circuit finds. Plaintiffs allege Whirlpool violated the New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act, N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. Sec. 358-A:1, et seq. According to the Sixth Circuit, because plaintiffs plausibly alleged pre-sale knowledge, they plausibly allege claims under the New Hampshire Act. Plaintiffs allege Whirlpool violated the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Nev. Rev. Stat. Sec. 598.0999, et seq. Because plaintiffs plausibly alleged pre-sale knowledge, they plausibly allege claims under the Act, the Sixth Circuit holds. A copy of the Court's Opinion dated August 6, 2025, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OuDNhb ********* 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 ***