250814.mbx

250814.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, August 14, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 162 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due July 24, 2026 ADOBE INC: Wohlfiel Sues Over Deceptive Subscription Services ADP INC: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in MML ALBUQUERQUE, NM: Underpays Behavior Health Responders, Little Says ALERA GROUP: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over 2024 Data Breach ALERA GROUP: Hegarty Sues Over Failure to Protect Customers' Info ALLIANCE SOLUTIONS: Christian Seeks Final OK of Class Settlement ALLIANZ LIFE: Fematt Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Clients' Info ALTIMMUNE INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Court Dismisses Bretto Class Suit AMERICAN CRUISE: Kirk Appeals Class Cert. Ruling to 2nd Circuit AMERICAN PHOENIX: Prelim OK Bid of Settlement Reset to August 20 APPLE INC: Adjudication Schedule of Class Cert in Hughes Extended APPLE INC: Class Certification Briefing Deadlines Sought ARGOS NORTH: Bid for Protective Order Tossed in Pro Sab Lawsuit ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN: Faces Durbal Antitrust Suit in D.D.C. ATG ENTERTAINMENT: Agrees to Settle Ticket Fees' Suit for $997,000 AWH ORLANDO: Class Cert Bid Filing in Arab Suit Due Jan. 20, 2026 BALENCIAGA AMERICA: General Pretrial Management Entered in Enholm BECKMAN COULTER: Initial Case Order Entered in Moore Class Suit BELLRING BRANDS: Bleichmar Probes Potential Securities Claims BJC HEALTHCARE: Deadline to File Settlement Claim Form Set Oct 8 BOSLEY INC: Discloses Patients' Info to 3rd Parties, Sisti Says BRAD RAFFENSPERGER: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Reply Brief BRONSON REAL ESTATE: White Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Property BUCKBEE SEED: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Brewer Suit Alleges CARLOTZ INC: Wang Appeals Final Judgment in Securities Litigation CARPENTERS OF WESTERN: Class Cert Filing Extended to Jan. 12, 2026 CENTENE CORPORATION: Faces Lunstrom Securities Suit over SEC Filing CHA LA MIRADA: Grijalva Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Housekeepers CHATTEM INC: Faces Class Action Over Flavored Chews' False Ads CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Continues to Defend Stradford Class Suit CLEAN HARBORS: Hourly Employee Class Gets Certification CME GROUP INC: Trial over Securities Suit Ongoing COASTAL PALMS: Misclassifies Workers, Gretsinger Suit Claims COMFORT MANAGEMENT: Cole Sues Over Blind Inaccessible Website COMPASS GROUP: Agrees to Settle Vending Machine Suit for $6.94MM COSTA DEL MAR: Reed Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Reply CREDIT ONE: Agrees to Settle Robocall Class Suit for $14-Mil. CT MEDIA: Faces Randolph Suit Over Blind's Equal Access to Website DAILY WIRE: Hearing for Settlement Final Approval Set October 22 DANIEL BEERS: Glasgow "Health Plan" Suit Seeks to Certify Class DI OVERNITE: Failed to Pay for All Hours Worked, Gomez Alleges DIAGEO NORTH AMERICA: Haschemie Suit Removed to S.D. Fla. DICK'S SPORTING: Tate Privacy Suit Removed to E.D. Calif. DK HOUSEHOLD: Douglass Sues Over Online Store's Access Barriers DOCKSIDE AT VENTURA: Class Cert Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice DOMINO'S PIZZA: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert by Jan. 12, 2026 DONALD TRUMP: Court Certifies Three Subclasses in Pacito Suit DONALD TRUMP: Young Suit Seeks to Certify Nationwide Class DRG MEDICAL: Wigder Appeals Court Order to N.Y. Appellate Division DUFF CAPITAL: Gabrielsen Sues Over Unprotected Private Information ECKERT SEAMANS: Fails to Secure Clients' Personal Info, Suit Says ELSEVIER INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Nguyen Due June 8, 2026 ENERGY INC: SageView 's Bid to Modify Class Cert Briefing Tossed EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Trotman Suit Seeks to Certify Class EXXONMOBIL CORP: Harris Appeals Denied Amend Bid to 6th Cir. EYEMED VISION: Class Settlement in Tate Suit Gets Initial Nod FARHA ROOFING: Court Certifies Class Action for Settlement Purposes FINASTRA TECHNOLOGY: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines FLEET QUEST: Must File Class Certification Response by August 18 FLUOR CORP: Bleichmar Probes Potential Securities Law Violations FLYWIRE CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due September 23 FLYWIRE CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due September 23 FORT LAUDERDALE, FL: Jackson Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. FREMONT COMPANY: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Baker Suit Okayed FULLBEAUTY BRANDS: Class Certification Bid Amended to Feb. 5, 2026 GAP INC: Misrepresents Value of Store Cards, Miller Suit Claims GOLDEN TOUCH: Goularte Sues Over Labor Law Breaches GOOGLE LLC: Taylor Considers Sealing of Class Docs GRACE KNUTSON: Filing for Renewed Class Cert Bid Due August 15 GREIF INC: Ryan Class Cert Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice HIGHGATE HOTELS: Murthada Seeks Conditional Collective Status HOLY SEE: Court Upholds Dismissal Under Sovereign Immunity HOT ARCHERY: Inflates Prices of Archery Products, Close Suit Claims HOTELENGINE INC: Albines Labor Suit Moved From D. Del. to D. Colo. HOYT ARCHERY: Controls Archery Equipment Prices, Montpetit Claims HYATT CORP: Bid for Sanctions in Jimenez ADA Suit Granted in Part HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Class Suit Over Palisades Braking System IDVC LLC: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Lopez Suit Alleges IDVC LLC: Faces Lopez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store ILLINOIS: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response J&D TRANSIT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gorley and Hoover Allege J&T HARVESTING: Class Cert Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge J.M. SMUCKER: Bleichmar Probes Potential Securities Law Violations JLM DECORATING: Court Decertifies Rule 23 Class in Martinez KRISTI NOEM: C.M. Plaintiffs File Renewed Class Certification Bid KRISTI NOEM: Class Cert Bid in C.M. Suit Tossed as Moot LATINOS RESTAURANTE: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Castro Suit Says LIBERTY MUTUAL: Seeks Leave to Seal Class Cert Opposition Bid LIGHTFIRE PARTNERS: Bid to Decertify Class in Aley Case Granted LIME ROCK: Court Strikes Class Allegations in Oil Royalty Dispute MANHATTAN ASSOCIATES: Cops' Fund Suit Merged with Another Action MANHATTAN ASSOCIATES: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Georgia MERCEDES-BENZ US: Failed to Pay All Hours Worked, Ford Says MICHAEL'S MANAGEMENT: Class Cert Proceedings in Damare Stayed MICHAELS STORES: Seeks to Continue Class Cert Hearing to Oct. 1 MIKE'S WOOD: Nieves Sues Over Unpaid Overtime & Misclassification MITRA-9 BRANDS: Kratom Products Pose Same Risk of Opioid Addiction MONROE CAPITAL: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Lending Scheme NACG TEXAS: Santos Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Mining Workers NAJI DOUMIT: Standing Order Entered in Realworldfare Suit NATIONAL GRID: Constantine Seeks to Certify Monthly Pay Class NAVIENT CORP: Anthony Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit NEW YORK, NY Gould Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class NEW YORK, NY: General Pretrial Management Entered in Forbes Suit NHC INC: Seeks to Certify Summary Judgment in Allied World Suit NOAH'S ARK: Faces Graiche Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. NORTH OKLAHOMA: Filing of Breach Settlement Claim Form Set Oct. 11 NORTH WIND: Court Sets Aug 22 Deadline for Amended Complaint NUVISION CREDIT: Judge Grants Initial Approval of Class Settlement OAKBERRY ACAI: Acai Products Contain Citric Acid, Pitre Suit Says ONLY WHAT YOU NEED: Faces Class Suit Over Supplements' Lead Content OREGON COMMUNITY: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Arthur Due Dec. 1 PENNSYLVANIA: Discriminates Against Disabled People, Shappee Claims PEPSICO INC: Sued Over Discriminatory Beverages' Pricing Practices PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY: Witas Sues Over Unsecured Personal Info PIONEER PROPERTIES: Pardo Sues Over Disabled's Access to Property QH HOLDINGS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Fernandez Claims REFLECTANCE ENERGY: May Seeks Equipment Operators' Unpaid Overtime ROCKY BRANDS: Dalton Sues Over Online Store's Access Barriers SIMPLISAFE INC: Appeals Arbitration Order in Schlueter Class Suit SKINNY MIXES: Faces Reese Suit Over Syrups' Harmful Effects SLICE OF ITALY: Server Class in Ray Suit Gets Class Certification SUBARU OF AMERICA: Settles Systems' Defect Suit With Warranties SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Orellana Wins Bid for Class Certification TEA DATING: Faces Doe Suit Over Alleged Private Data Breach TESLA INC: Faces Morand Suit Over 6.05% Drop of Stock Price TESLA INC: Faces Securities Class Action Suit in W.D. Texas THR PROPERTY: Glasbrenner Seeks to Appoint Interim Class Counsel TOURO COLLEGE: Yodice Suit Seeks Class Certification TRINITY HEALTH: Owens Seek Wages for All Hours Worked Under FLSA TRUIST BANK: Hearing for Settlement Final Approval Set October 16 UNION PACIFIC: Class Certification Discovery in Black Due Sept. 3 UNION PACIFIC: Continues to Defend Illinois BIPA Class Suit UNITED STATES: Danziger Balks at Services Contractors' Termination UNITED STATES: Henkel Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Bid UNITED STATES: Initial Disclosures in Wise Suit Due Sept. 2 UNITED SURGICAL: Class Settlement in Perkins Gets Initial Nod UTAH: Medina Appeals Second Amended Suit Dismissal to 10th Circuit VALVE CORP: Refuses to Arbitrate Antitrust Claims, Smith Alleges VELOCITY RISK: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Colton Says VOLTAGE PICTURES: Class Cert. Bid in Copyright Suit Dismissed WELLS FARGO: Production of SEC Docs Extended to August 14 WEST PHARMACEUTICAL: Continues to Defend New England Teamster Suit WILSON ELECTRIC: Andrews Wins Class Certification Bid WOLFF RENOVATIONS: Corredor Sues Over Labor Law Violations WOW VEGAS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Illegal Online Casino YATTA OUTSOURCED: Webb Sues Over Illegal Tribal Lending Scheme ZENNI HOLDINGS: Cox Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & ERISA Benefits ********* 3M COMPANY: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due July 24, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAYDEN VARLINE, et al., v. THE 3M COMPANY, Case No. 3:24-cv-00859-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Anita Marie Boor entered a preliminary pretrial conference order. 1. Motions & Briefs to Certify Class/ July 24, 2026 Decertify Collective: 2. Deadline for filing dispositive March 22, 2027 motions: 3. Discovery Cutoff: Aug. 27, 2027 4. Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures and all Sept. 10, 2027 motions in limine: Objections: Oct. 1, 2027 5. First Final Pretrial Conference: Oct. 20, 2027 6. Second Final Pretrial Conference: Oct. 27, 2027 3M is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, and consumer goods. A copy of the Court's order dated July 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bsYyXI at no extra charge.[CC] ADOBE INC: Wohlfiel Sues Over Deceptive Subscription Services ------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHANIE WOHLFIEL and VIANCA MARQUEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ADOBE INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-06562 (N.D. Cal., August 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law, and California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, conversion, unjust enrichment/restitution, and negligent misrepresentation. The case arises from Adobe's alleged unlawful and deceptive practices related to its subscription services. According to the complaint, Adobe deploys misleading enrollment and automatic renewal schemes intended to induce consumers to unwittingly enroll in costly subscriptions. Adobe's cancellation procedures are also intentionally burdensome, further trapping consumers into unwanted subscriptions, suit says. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful business practices, the Plaintiffs and similarly situated consumers suffered damages. Adobe Inc. is a software corporation with its principal place of business in San Jose, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq. COULSON PC 300 River Place Drive, Suite 1700 Detroit, MI 48207 Telephone: (313) 644-2685 Email: Nick@CoulsonPC.com ADP INC: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in MML --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MASTER MOBILELINK, LLC, v. ADP, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-05382-VSB-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management: All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses. Parties and counsel are cautioned: Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and § 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. It is this Court's practice to decide discovery disputes at the Rule 37.2 conference, based on the parties' letters, unless the Court determines that more formal briefing is required. For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion conferences are not required, but may be requested where counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues. Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court proceeding (including a telephonic court conference), or to extend a deadline, must be made in writing and in compliance with § 2(a) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. Telephone requests for adjournments or extensions will not be entertained. Counsel for the plaintiff must serve a copy of this Order on any defendant previously served with the summons and complaint, must serve this Order along with the summons and complaint on all defendants served hereafter, and must file proof of such service with the Court. ADP is a provider of human capital management (HCM) solution. A copy of the Court's order dated July 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TBoOx0 at no extra charge.[CC] ALBUQUERQUE, NM: Underpays Behavior Health Responders, Little Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ CRYSTAL LITTLE, SHERII MIERA, VANESSA JARAMILLO, JACOB CHRISTISON, STEPHEN CHAVEZ, SAMANTHA COOKE, ISRAEL SISNEROS, NEVADA CAVALLO-SANCHEZ, COLIN KELLY, FELISHA CHAVEZ, and HEATHER CARNES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00737-KRS-SCY (D.N.M., August 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant as behavioral health responders for Albuquerque Community Safety Department. City of Albuquerque is a municipal government in New Mexico. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shane C. Youtz, Esq. Stephen Curtice, Esq. James A. Montalbano, Esq. Grace Rhodehouse Barberena, Esq. YOUTZ AND VALDEZ, PC 900 Gold Ave. SW Albuquerque, NM 87102 Telephone: (505) 244-1200 Email: shane@youtzvaldez.com stephen@youtzvaldez.com james@youtzvaldez.com grace@youtzvaldez.com ALERA GROUP: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over 2024 Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- Gavin Souter, writing for Business Insurance, reports that a lawsuit was filed Aug. 4 against Alera, alleging the brokerage failed to adequately protect private data accessed during a data breach last year. The suit, Danielle Hegarty, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Alera Group Inc., was filed in federal court in Chicago and seeks class-action status. In the case, a former Alera customer alleges that the brokerage failed "to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and thousands of Class Members' sensitive personal identifying information, which as a result, remains in the hands of those cyber-criminals." In April, Alera disclosed that personal information might have been removed from its network during a breach that occurred between July 19 and Aug. 4, 2024. Last week, the company began issuing notices to potentially affected individuals specifying that their personal information may have been accessed, the suit says. The personal information accessed should have been protected through encryption and other security measures, the suit says. Alera's offer of two years of credit monitoring is "wholly inadequate" to compensate the victims of the breach, the complaint says. Alera did not immediately respond to a request for comment. [GN] ALERA GROUP: Hegarty Sues Over Failure to Protect Customers' Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- DANIELLE HEGARTY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALERA GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09169 (N.D. Ill., August 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidence, and unjust enrichment/quasi contract. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach between July 19, 2024, and August 4, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Alera Group, Inc. is an insurance brokerage firm, headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Steven Sukert, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com sukert@kolawyers.com ALLIANCE SOLUTIONS: Christian Seeks Final OK of Class Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Christian v. Alliance Solutions Group, LLC (re TalentLaunch Data Breach Litigation), Case No. 1:24-cv-00456-PAB (N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- granting final approval of the class action settlement, and -- granting the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and class representative service awards, the hearing on which is scheduled for Aug. 12, 2025. Alliance is a privately held company, specializing in information technology, manufacturing, and staffing solutions. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SMACEQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Terence R. Coates, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 East Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Brian D. Flick, Esq. Marc E. Dann, Esq. Marita I. Ramirez, Esq. DANNLAW 15000 Madison Ave. Lakewood, OH 44107 Telephone: (216) 373-0539 Facsimile: (216) 373-0536 E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com - and - Mason A. Barney, Esq. Tyler J. Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: mbarney@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com - and - Cassandra P. Miller, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Ave. Ste. 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: cmiller@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com ALLIANZ LIFE: Fematt Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Clients' Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD MANUEL FEMATT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-03133-KMM-JFD (D. Minn., August 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, and breach of implied contract. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on or about July 16, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America is an insurance company based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. [BN] The Plaintiff is 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 Email: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com michael.laird@zimmreed.com madison.demaris@zimmreed.com - and - Sabita Soneji, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Email: soneji@tzleagal.com ALTIMMUNE INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------- The Gross Law Firm issues a notice to shareholders of Altimmune, Inc. (NASDAQ: ALT). Shareholders who purchased shares of ALT during the class period listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible lead plaintiff appointment. Appointment as lead plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery. CLASS PERIOD: August 10, 2023 to June 25, 2025 ALLEGATIONS: According to the complaint, on June 26, 2025, Altimmune published a press release announcing topline results from the IMPACT Phase 2b MASH trial of Pemvidutide in the Treatment of MASH. While defendants had continuously provided inflated expectations ahead of these results, the analysis showed a pointed failure by the Company to achieve statistical significance in its analysis of the fibrosis reduction primary endpoint in its IMPACT Phase 2b MASH trial. In particular, while a positive trend in fibrosis improvement was observed, statistical significance was not met due to a higher-than-expected placebo response. When questioned about this concerning miss, defendants answered indifferently, attributing this result to the Phase 2 nature of the trial and stated that Altimmune was hoping for better results following the Phase 3 trial. Following this news, the price of Altimmune's common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $7.71 per share on June 25, 2025, Altimmune's stock price fell to $3.61 per share on June 26, 2025, a decline of 53.2% in the span of just a single day. DEADLINE: October 6, 2025 Shareholders should not delay in registering for this class action. Register your information here: https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/altimmune-inc-loss-submission-form-2/?id=159962&from=4 NEXT STEPS FOR SHAREHOLDERS: Once you register as a shareholder who purchased shares of ALT during the timeframe listed above, you will be enrolled in a portfolio monitoring software to provide you with status updates throughout the lifecycle of the case. The deadline to seek to be a lead plaintiff is October 6, 2025. There is no cost or obligation to you to participate in this case. WHY GROSS LAW FIRM? The Gross Law Firm is a nationally recognized class action law firm, and our mission is to protect the rights of all investors who have suffered as a result of deceit, fraud, and illegal business practices. The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a company lead to artificial inflation of the company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: The Gross Law Firm 15 West 38th Street, 12th floor New York, NY, 10018 Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com Phone: (646) 453-8903 [GN] AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Court Dismisses Bretto Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASMINE BRETTO and NAOMI KOPINSKY, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. AMC ENTERTAINMENT HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-02317-DDC-ADM (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Daniel D. Crabtree entered an order granting AMC's renewed motion to dismiss Bretto Action. The Plaintiffs Jasmine Bretto and Naomi Kopinsky, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, brought this proposed class action lawsuit against defendant AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. The Plaintiffs allege that defendant violated the Video Protection Privacy Act (VPPA), by sharing statutorily protected information with Facebook after plaintiffs purchased movie tickets from defendant's website. In a nutshell, defendant argues that it doesn't qualify as a "video tape service provider" under the VPPA. Thus, defendant contends, plaintiffs have no cause of action. The court agrees. This Order grants defendant's Renewed Motion to Dismiss and directs the Clerk to close this case. AMC is one of the largest movie theater operators in the world. A copy of the Court's order dated July 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qAZNkB at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICAN CRUISE: Kirk Appeals Class Cert. Ruling to 2nd Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- DARIU KIRK is taking an appeal from a court order denying his motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Dariu Kirk, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. American Cruise Lines, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-1057, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, has filed a class action complaint alleging that the Defendant violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, by failing to provide written notice of job applicants' rights under the FCRA and failing to provide a copy of the background check report before making an adverse decision. On Dec. 13, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class. On July 16, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a joint motion to stay trial deadlines. On July 18, 2025, Judge Victor A. Bolden entered an Order denying the Plaintiff's motion to certify class and motion to stay. Accordingly, the Court will not certify a class that includes members who did not dispute the accuracy of their background check reports, as the allegations do not support a finding that those members have suffered a concrete injury, and they therefore lack standing. The appellate case is captioned Kirk v. American Cruise Lines, Inc., Case No. 25-1891, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on August 4, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner DARIU KIRK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: James A. Francis, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS PC 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 Defendant-Respondent AMERICAN CRUISE LINES, INC. is represented by: Michael J. Dugan, Esq. LITCHFIELD CAVO LLP 82 Hopmeadow Street, Suite 2100 Simsbury, CT 06089 AMERICAN PHOENIX: Prelim OK Bid of Settlement Reset to August 20 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Charles, Monte v. American Phoenix, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-00255 (W.D. Wisc., Filed April 17, 2024), the Hon. Judge James D. Peterson entered an order that the parties' deadline to file their joint motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is reset to Aug. 20, 2025, along with the deadline for class certification motions. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Defendant provides rubber mixing services.[CC] APPLE INC: Adjudication Schedule of Class Cert in Hughes Extended ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hughes, et al., v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-07668 (N.D. Cal., Filed Dec. 5, 2022), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order granting the parties stipulation to extend the schedule for adjudication of the class certification motion. The Court is concerned that the parties have not moved this case along in diligent fashion. In particular, the Court is confused as to why the plaintiffs, after all this time, have failed to produce any medical records. Accordingly, no further extensions will be granted, and any failure to produce discovery by either side will be held against them at the class certification stage. The hearing on the motion for class certification is set for March 5, 2026, 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 04, 17th Floor before Judge Vince Chhabria. The nature of suit states Statutory Actions. Apple is an American multinational corporation and technology company.[CC] APPLE INC: Class Certification Briefing Deadlines Sought -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN HUGHES, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. APPLE INC., a California corporation, Case No. 3:22-cv-07668-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order deadlines related to the class certification briefing schedule as follows: Event Proposed Deadline Apple's opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for Dec. 19, 2025 class certification: Plaintiffs' reply in support of the Plaintiffs' Feb. 6, 2026 motion for class certification: Class Certification Hearing: Court's discretion Apple is an American multinational corporation and technology company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wTAghA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gillian L. Wade, Esq. Sara D. Avila, Esq. Marc A. Castaneda, Esq. Collins Kilgore, Esq. David Slade, Esq. WADE KILPELA SLADE LLP 2450 Colorado Ave., Suite 100E, Santa Monica, CA 90404 Telephone: (501) 417-6445 E-mail: gwade@waykayslay.com sara@waykayslay.com marc@waykayslay.com slade@ waykayslay.com ckilgore@waykayslay.com The Defendant is represented by: Tiffany Cheung, Esq. Julie Y. Park, Esq. Melody E. Wong, Esq. Victor Lopez, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 E-mail: TCheung@mofo.com JuliePark@mofo.com MelodyWong@mofo.com JGreer@mofo.com VLopez@mofo.com ARGOS NORTH: Bid for Protective Order Tossed in Pro Sab Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pro Slab Inc. v. Argos North America Corp., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-03185 (D.S.C., Filed Nov. 22, 2017), the Hon. Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks entered an order denying Motion for Protective Order. After review, the Court finds no reason why Argos Defendants should be prohibited from deposing Terry Varnadore under the circumstances. Instead, the Court finds that Defendants have articulated a particularized need for Varnedore's testimony where Plaintiffs have placed Varnedore's knowledge at issue by relying on his testimony in their complaint, class certification briefings, and expert reports. Thus, even though Varnadore happens to own an absent member of the putative class, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to meet the burden of establishing good cause for a protective order under the specific circumstances of this case. The nature of suit states Antitrust Litigation. Argos manufactures and distributes building products.[CC] ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN: Faces Durbal Antitrust Suit in D.D.C. -------------------------------------------------------------- NIRVANA DURBAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLEGES, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02537 (D.D.C., August 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the District of Columbia's Consumer Protection Procedures Act. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged monopoly of the market for medical school application platforms by fixing exorbitant prices for medical school primary applications. The unnecessary and price-fixed fees for primary applications burden aspiring doctors, especially students relying on loans to pay for their education, suit says. The Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals seek injunctive relief, treble damages, and other remedies as a result of the Defendant's unlawful practices. Association of American Medical Colleges is a not-for-profit membership corporation with its principal place of business in Washington, D.C. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Burns, Esq. HILGERS GRABEN PLLC 601 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W. South Building, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 985-1664 Email: mburns@hilgersgraben.com - and - William Burgess, Esq. 1230 Peachtree Street N.E., 19th Floor Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 595-7747 Email: wburgess@hilgersgraben.com - and - Bennett Rawicki, Esq. 7859 Walnut Hill Lane, Suite 335 Dallas, TX 75230 Telephone: (469) 640-6842 Email: brawicki@hilgersgraben.com ATG ENTERTAINMENT: Agrees to Settle Ticket Fees' Suit for $997,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a $997,380 settlement will resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged ATG Tickets illegally hid certain fees during the ticket-purchasing process. The ATG Tickets class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on June 17, 2025 and covers anyone in the United States who paid an order processing fee on: -- The Lyric Theatre website between August 29, 2022 and March 12, 2024; -- The Hudson Theatre Website between August 29, 2022 and March 12, 2024; and -- The Kings Theatre website between March 27, 2023 and March 12, 2024 for seated tickets or between March 27, 2023 and March 27, 2024 for general admission pit tickets. The court-approved website for the ATG Tickets settlement can be found at ATGTicketsFeeSettlement.com. ATG Tickets settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form will receive a $5 cash payment if they were charged an order processing fee at Kings Theatre, a $3 payment for Hudson Theatre, or a $3.50 payment for Lyric Theatre. Each class member may submit only one claim form, the class action settlement website says. To submit a claim form online, class members must visit this page of the settlement website and log in with the unique notice ID and confirmation code 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 form. All claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by November 24, 2025. Additionally, ATG Tickets has agreed to alter the purchasing process on the Kings Theatre, Hudson Theatre and Lyric Theatre websites, and the court has found the company to be in compliance with applicable laws. A hearing is set for October 23, 2025 to determine whether the settlement will receive final court approval. Class action settlement payments will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The ATG Tickets class action lawsuit alleged that the company -- which managed ticket purchases on the Kings Theatre, Hudson Theatre and Lyric Theatre websites -- illegally hid an "order processing fee" from consumers until they were already well into the payment process, violating New York's Art and Cultural Affairs Law. [GN] AWH ORLANDO: Class Cert Bid Filing in Arab Suit Due Jan. 20, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARAB AMERICA FOUNDATION, ADEL HENAWI, KARIM KARAM, LILY KARAM, LINA SHATARA, OMAR KURDI, STEFAN ATEEK and WALLY YAZBAK, v. AWH ORLANDO PROPERTY, LLC, CRESCENT HOTELS & RESORTS, LLC and HILTON WORLDWIDE HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 6:25-cv-00882-GAP-RMN (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Gregory Presnell entered a case management and scheduling order: Class discovery deadline: Dec. 17, 2025 The Plaintiff's motion for class Jan. 20, 2026 certification: The Defendant's response: Feb. 17, 2026 The Plaintiff's rebuttal: March 11, 2026 The Court will issue a subsequent Case Management and Scheduling Order once the class certification issue is resolved. Awh operates public hotels and motels. A copy of the Court's order dated July 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BVAYwg at no extra charge.[CC] BALENCIAGA AMERICA: General Pretrial Management Entered in Enholm ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KYLE ENHOLM, v. BALENCIAGA AMERICA, INC., et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01828-VSB-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sarah L. Cave entered an order a general pretrial management, including scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive pretrial motions and settlement. All pretrial motions and applications, including those relating to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Magistrate Judge Cave and must comply with her Individual Practices, available on the Court’s website at https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-sarah-l-cave. The action has also been referred to mediation. Pursuant to ECF No. 10, the parties must participate in a mediation session within 60 days of the filing of an Answer. The Defendants having filed the Answer on July 28, 2025, the parties must participate in a mediation session by Sept. 26, 2025. Balenciaga offers ready-to-wear, shoes, bags, sunglasses, caps, and jewelry. A copy of the Court's order dated July 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CfnhiM at no extra charge.[CC] BECKMAN COULTER: Initial Case Order Entered in Moore Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIANNA MOORE, v. BECKMAN COULTER, INC., Case No. 6:25-cv-01399-JSS-LHP (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Julie Sneed entered an initial case order: No later than 14 days from the date of this Order, Lead Counsel and any pro se plaintiff shall file a notice as to whether a related action is pending in the Middle District or elsewhere as required under Local Rule 1.07(c). The court screens every case to identify parties and interested corporations in which any assigned judge may be a shareholder, as well as for other matters that might require consideration of recusal. When required by Local Rule 3.02, counsel and any unrepresented party shall confer and file a Case Management Report using the standard form on the court’s website (1) within 40 days after any defendant appears in an action originating in this court, (2) within 40 days after the docketing of an action removed or transferred to this court, or (3) within 70 days after service on the United States attorney in an action against the United States, a United States agency, a United States officer or employee sued only in an official capacity, or a United States officer or employee sued in an individual capacity in connection with a duty performed on behalf of the United States. Under Local Rule 2.0l(b)(l)(G), all attorneys appearing before this court are required to register for CM/ECF docketing within 14 days of their entry of appearance in any action pending before this court. Beckman develops, manufactures, and markets products relevant to biomedical testing. A copy of the Court's order dated July 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tmEqr3 at no extra charge.[CC] BELLRING BRANDS: Bleichmar Probes Potential Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Leading securities law firm Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP announces an investigation into BellRing Brands, Inc. (NYSE: BRBR) for potential violations of the federal securities laws. If you invested in BellRing, you are encouraged to obtain additional information by visiting: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/bellring-brands-inc-class-action-lawsuit. Why is BellRing being Investigated? BellRing operates in the convenient nutrition category. The Company's primary brands include Premier Protein and Dymatize, which offer ready-to-drink protein shakes and powders. During the relevant period, the Company stated that Premier Protein "hit an all-time high in household penetration" and that "demand remains strong." The Company also stated that its growth was "strong in all channels," driven by "distribution expansion, accelerating velocities and incremental promotional activity." In truth, the Company's sales growth during the relevant period may have been driven by temporary trade inventory loading at several key retailers, not sustainable end-consumer demand. The Stock Declines as the Truth is Revealed On May 5, 2025, after market hours, BellRing revealed that starting in Q2 2023, "several key retailers lowered their weeks of supply on hand," which would create a headwind to Q3 2025 growth. The Company also announced it was expanding promotions to boost sales and "offset [] third quarter reductions in retailer trade inventory levels." On this news, the price of BellRing stock fell $13.96 per share, or more than 18%, from $77.34 per share on May 5, 2025, to $63.38 per share on May 6, 2025. What Can You Do? If you invested in BellRing you may have legal options and are encouraged to submit your information to the firm. All representation is on a contingency fee basis, there is no cost to you. Shareholders are not responsible for any court costs or expenses of litigation. The firm will seek court approval for any potential fees and expenses. Submit your information by visiting: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/bellring-brands-inc-class-action-lawsuit Or contact: Ross Shikowitz, Esq. (212) 789-3619 ross@bfalaw.com Why Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP? BFA is a leading international law firm representing plaintiffs in securities class actions and shareholder litigation. It has been named a top plaintiff law firm by Chambers USA, The Legal 500, and ISS SCAS, and its attorneys have been named "Elite Trial Lawyers" by the National Law Journal, among the top "500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers" by Lawdragon, "Titans of the Plaintiffs' Bar" by Law360 and "SuperLawyers" by Thomson Reuters. Among its recent notable successes, BFA recovered over $900 million in value from Tesla, Inc.'s Board of Directors, as well as $420 million from Teva Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd. For more information about BFA and its attorneys, please visit https://www.bfalaw.com. https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/bellring-brands-inc-class-action-lawsuit [GN] BJC HEALTHCARE: Deadline to File Settlement Claim Form Set Oct 8 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a settlement of up to $9.25 million will resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged BJC HealthCare illegally distributed patients' sensitive, personally identifiable information to unrelated third parties without consent. The BJC HealthCare class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on May 14, 2025 and covers anyone who used BJC's MyChart patient portal between June 2017 and August 2022. The court-approved website for the BJC HealthCare settlement can be found at BJCPrivacySettlement.com. BJC HealthCare settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form may receive a cash payment of $35 per person. This settlement payout may be reduced on a pro-rata, or equal-share, basis depending on the total number of claims filed. To file a claim form online, class members can visit this page on the class action settlement website and log in with the unique ID and PIN provided in their copy of the settlement notice. All BJC HealthCare settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by October 8, 2025. A hearing is set for October 16, 2025 to determine whether the settlement will receive final court approval. Settlement payments will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The BJC HealthCare class action lawsuit claimed that the company was distributing patients' sensitive, personally identifiable information entered on BJC.org and/or BarnesJewish.org to unrelated third parties, such as Facebook, SiteScout, Google, Invoca and TradeDesk, without consent. [GN] BOSLEY INC: Discloses Patients' Info to 3rd Parties, Sisti Says --------------------------------------------------------------- ALEXANDER SISTI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOSLEY INC. and BOSLEY MEDICAL GROUP, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-06614 (N.D. Cal., August 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the Maryland Wiretap Act, and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, negligence, invasion of privacy, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' practices of knowingly disclosing the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals who use their website, www.bosley.com. The Defendants have installed online tracking pixels on the website which disclose and transmit the patients' private information to third parties, including, but not necessarily limited to, Meta Platforms, Inc. and TikTok, Inc. As a result of the Defendants' unlawful practices, the Plaintiff and the Class suffered damages. Bosley, Inc. is a hair restoration company that maintains its headquarters in Beverly Hills, California. Bosley Medical Group is a hair restoration company that maintains its headquarters in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Ave., Suite 610 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 Email: fhedin@hedinllp.com BRAD RAFFENSPERGER: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Reply Brief ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NEW GEORGIA PROJECT, et al., v. BRAD RAFFENSPERGER, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-03412-SDG (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time to Aug. 12, 2025, to file a reply brief in support of the pending motion to certify a Defendant Class. On June 10, the Defendants submitted a joint motion for extension of time to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion to certify Defendant Class until July 22, 2025. The Court granted this request. Bradford is an American businessman, civil engineer, and politician. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HDt78Q at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Danielle Lang, Esq. Alice C. Huling, Esq. Valencia Richardson, Esq. Daniel S. Lenz, Esq. Rachel Appel, Esq. Lucas Della Ventura Esq. CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER 1101 14th St NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 736-2200 Facsimile: (202) 736-2222 E-mail: ahuling@campaignlegalcenter.org dlang@campaignlegalcenter.org vrichardson@campaignlegalcenter.org dlenz@campaignlegalcenter.org rappel@campaignlegalcenter.org ldellaventura@campaignlegal.org - and - Katherine L. D'Ambrosio, Esq. Jennifer Virostko, Esq. Ben Watson, Esq. COUNCILL, GUNNEMANN & CHALLY LLC 75 14th Street, NE, Suite 2475 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 407-5250 E-mail: kdambrosio@cgc-law.com jvirostko@cgc-law.com bwatson@cgc-law.com - and - Cory Isaacson, Esq. Akiva Freidlin, Esq. ACLU FOUNDATION OF GEORGIA, INC. Atlanta, GA 30357 Telephone: (678) 310-3699 E-mail: cmay@acluga.org afreidlin@acluga.org - and - Julie M. Houk, Esq. Marlin David Rollins-Boyd, Esq. Ryan Snow, Esq. Samantha Heyward, Esq. Jeremy Lewis, Esq. LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW 1500 K Street NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 662-8600 Facsimile: (202) 783-0857 E-mail: jhouk@lawyerscommittee.org drollins-boyd@lawyerscommittee.org rsnow@lawyerscommittee.org sheyward@lawyerscommittee.org jlewis@lawyerscommittee.org - and - Neil A. Steiner, Esq. Mara Cusker Gonzalez, Esq. Biaunca S. Morris, Esq. Lindsey B. Cohan, Esq. Dechert LLP Three Bryant Park 1095 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 698-3500 Facsimile: (212) 698-3599 E-mail: Neil.steiner@dechert.com Mara.cuskergonzalez@dechert.com Biaunca.morris@dechert.com Lindsey.cohan@dechert.com BRONSON REAL ESTATE: White Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Property --------------------------------------------------------------- JOHNNY WHITE IV, an individual, Plaintiff v. BRONSON REAL ESTATE, LLC, a limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-01125-RWS (E.D. Mo., July 28, 2025) is a class action seeking for an injunctive relief pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities and the ADA's Accessibility Guidelines. The case arises from Defendant's failure to remove physical barriers to access and violations of Title III of the ADA. Allegedly, the Defendant's real property had no sign indicating accessible parking, no van-accessible parking, no ADA compliant route for access, and no ADA compliant access route from the public sidewalk. Bronson Real Estate, LLC owns a real property located at 2178 Chambers Rd., St. Louis, MO. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michelle M. Funkenbusch, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MICHELLE M. FUNKENBUSCH 2901 Dougherty Ferry Rd., Suite 100 St. Louis, MO 63122 Telephone: (314) 338-3500 Mobile: (314) 799-6602 Facsimile: (314) 270-8103 E-mail: FunkenbuschADA@saintlouislegal.com BUCKBEE SEED: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Brewer Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- OLIVIA BREWER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BUCKBEE SEED COMPANY CO LLC SEED II, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-50313 (N.D. Ill., July 28, 2025) seeks redress for Defendant's (i) failure to pay Plaintiff and other employees of Defendant the proper overtime rate for hours worked in excess of 40 hours during a work week; and (ii) improper taking of tips awarded to Plaintiff and other employees of Defendant during the course of their employment. From July 2024 until on or about June 13, 2025, Plaintiff Brewer was employed by Defendant at its retail bakery shop. Despite being an hourly employee, the Plaintiff does not receive one and one-half times her regular hourly rate when she worked over 40 hours in a workweek. In addition, the Plaintiff and other hourly employees were not allowed to keep these gratuities in their entirety. Instead, the Plaintiff and other hourly employees were forced to pool the tip money and share it at the end of each shift with all employees working at the time. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now asserts claims for violations of the the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. Headquartered in Rockford, IL, Buckbee Seed Company Co. LLC owns and operates a retail bakery shop, known as Mrs. Buckbee Wake-N-Bakery. The company is also engaged in the business of marketing and selling hemp products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan Richards, Esq. JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 1800 SE 10th Ave. Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com CARLOTZ INC: Wang Appeals Final Judgment in Securities Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------------- XINBAO WANG, et al. are taking an appeal from a court judgment in the lawsuit entitled In Re: Carlotz, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:21-cv-5906, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Plaintiffs bring this federal securities class action against the Defendants asserting violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the 1933 Securities Act. On July 7, 2025, Judge Arun Subramanian entered final judgment and order of dismissal with prejudice. The Court approves the Settlement and finds that the Settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, adequate to, and in the best interests of the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs' Releasees, and each of the Settlement Class Members. The action and all claims contained therein, as well as all the Settled Claims, are dismissed with prejudice as against each and all of the Defendants' Releasees. Pursuant to and in full compliance with Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court finds and concludes that due and adequate notice was directed to all Settlement Class Members advising them: (a) that Lead Counsel would seek an award of attorneys' fees of up to thirty-three and one-third percent (33 1/3%) of the Settlement Fund and reimbursement of expenses incurred in connection with the prosecution of the Action not to exceed $190,000, as well as awards up to $15,000 to Lead Plaintiff and Additional Plaintiff, collectively; and (b) that Settlement Class Members had a right to object to such application(s). A full and fair opportunity was given to all Persons who are Settlement Class Members to be heard with respect to the application for the award of attorneys' fees and expenses. The Court finds and concludes that the requested fee award is reasonable and awards attorneys' fees of 33 1/3 percent of the Settlement Fund, plus all interest accrued on that amount, plus reimbursement of expenses in the amount of $155,185.13, plus all interest accrued on that amount, both to be paid from the Settlement Fund pursuant to the Stipulation, upon entry of this Order. The Court further finds and concludes that the requested service award is reasonable and awards a service award of $10,000 to Lead Plaintiff David Berger and $5,000 to Additional Plaintiff Craig Bailey. The action is hereby dismissed in its entirety with prejudice as to the Defendants' Releasees. The appellate case is entitled In Re: Carlotz, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 25-1854, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on July 30, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees DAVID BERGER, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Kim Miller, Esq. KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC 250 Park Avenue, 7th Floor New York, NY 10177 - and - Gregory B. Linkh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Avenue, Suite 358 New York, NY 10169 - and - Joseph Alexander Hood, II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 - and - Joseph Eli Levi, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 Objectors-Appellants XINBAO WANG, et al. appear pro se. CARPENTERS OF WESTERN: Class Cert Filing Extended to Jan. 12, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Terrance Johnson, Bret Yahraus, and Jacy Purkiss, individually and as the representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the Carpenters of Western Washington Individual Account Pension Plan and the Carpenters Retirement Plan of Western Washington, v. Carpenters of Western Washington Board of Trustees, Callan LLC, Gerald Auvil, Noe Castillo, Ken Ervin, Jeff Foushee, Kurt Hildebrand, Steve Hoffmann, Martin Holberg, Dan Hutchins, Ryan Hyke, Andrew Ledbetter, Ron Montoya, Jim Osborne, Tim O’Neill, Doug Peterson, Rick Poitras, Danny Robins, Evelyn Shapiro, Bob Susee, Jeff Thorson, Doug Tweedy, and Wilf Wainhouse, Case No. 2:22-cv-01079-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John Chun entered an order extending case schedule: Deadline to complete discovery on class Dec. 15, 2025 Certification: Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file Jan. 12, 2026 motion for class certification: On Jan. 22, 2025, the Court issued an order setting additional case deadlines for the Defendants' responsive pleadings (February 14, 2025), Rule 26(a)(1) initial disclosures (February 28, 2025), and amending the complaint and/or adding parties (May 16, 2025). The Parties have complied with these deadlines. The Parties have scheduled mediation for Sept. 29, 2025. A copy of the Court's order dated July 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7Apb7r at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark E. Thomson, Esq. Carl F. Engstrom, Esq. ENGSTROM LEE LLC 323 N. Washington Ave., Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612)305-8349 E-mail: mthomson@engstromlee.com cengstrom@engstromlee.com - and - Paul B. Derby, Esq. Hajir Ardebili, Esq. John J. O'Kane IV, Esq. SKIERMONT DERBY LLP 633 West Fifth Avenue, Suite 5800 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 788-4500 E-mail: pderby@skiermontderby.com hardebili@skiermontderby.com jokane@skiermontderby.com - and - Marie E. Casciari, Esq. DEBOFSKY LAW, LTD. 3101 Western Ave., Suite 350 Seattle, WA 98121 Telephone: (206) 333-2696 E-mail: mcasciari@debofsky.com The Defendants are represented by: Anthony Todaro, Esq. John J. Hamill, Esq. Amanda L. Morgan, Esq. Brian Benjet, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6900 Seattle, WA 98104-7029 Telephone: (206) 839-4800 E-mail: anthony.todaro@us.dlapiper.com john.hamill@dlapiper.com amanda.morgan@dlapiper.com brian.benjet@dlapiper.com - and - Sarah N. Turner, Esq. Michael C. Tracy, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2100 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 695-5115 E-mail: sturner@grsm.com mtracy@grsm.com - and - William J. Delany, Esq. David N. Levine, Esq. Shaun A. Gates, Esq. GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED 1701 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 857-0620 Facsimile: (202) 659-4503 E-mail: wdelany@groom.com dlevine@groom.com sgates@groom.com CENTENE CORPORATION: Faces Lunstrom Securities Suit over SEC Filing ------------------------------------------------------------------- Centene Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2025, that on July 9, 2025, a putative federal securities class action, "Brock Lunstrom v. Centene Corp., et al.," was filed against the company and certain of its executives in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit allege that the company made false and misleading statements with respect to its 2025 earnings guidance in violation of federal securities laws. The company is a healthcare enterprise that provides fully integrated services to government-sponsored and commercial healthcare programs, including Medicare Prescription Drug Plans. CHA LA MIRADA: Grijalva Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Housekeepers ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA GRIJALVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHA LA MIRADA, LLC, CATHEDRAL HILL ASSOCIATES, INC., and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV22878 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., August 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act including failure to pay for all hours worked, including overtime hours worked; failure to pay all wages owed twice per month; failure to pay minimum wage; failure to pay wages due upon termination; failure to permit compliant meal periods; failure to provide rest breaks; failure to provide suitable resting facilities/breakroom; failure to provide proper cool-down rest periods; failure to provide safe working conditions-excessive heat; failure to provide suitable seating; and failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a housekeeper from January 1, 2025 until February 21, 2025. Cha La Mirada, LLC is a hospitality company based in La Mirada, California. Cathedral Hill Associates, Inc. is a hospitality company based in La Mirada, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nazo Koulloukian, Esq. KOUL LAW FIRM, APC 217 S. Kenwood St. Glendale, CA 91205 Telephone: (213) 325-3032 Facsimile: (818) 561-3938 Email: nazo@koullaw.com - and - Sahag Majarian, Esq. Garen Majarian, Esq. MAJARIAN LAW GROUP, APC 18250 Ventura Blvd. Tarzana, CA 91356 Telephone: (818) 609-0807 Facsimile: (818) 609-0892 Email: sahagii@aol.com garen@majarianlawgroup.com CHATTEM INC: Faces Class Action Over Flavored Chews' False Ads -------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that a new class action lawsuit accuses Chattem Inc. of falsely advertising its Dulcolax fruit-flavored soft chews as being "cramp free." Plaintiff Tamica Westbrook's lawsuit alleges Chattem Inc. falsely advertised its Dulcolax laxative as being "cramp free" despite the fact that its active ingredient, magnesium hydroxide, commonly causes abdominal cramps. Chattem, a Tennessee-based company, sells a variety of over-the-counter medications, including the Dulcolax laxative, which is marketed as a gentle, fruit-flavored chewable tablet. Westbrook's lawsuit claims the company's misrepresentation led consumers to pay more for the product than they would have if they had known about the potential side effect. The product's packaging prominently displays the phrase "Cramp Free!" leading consumers to believe it would not cause abdominal discomfort, Westbrook says. However, she argues that this claim is misleading, citing multiple sources that confirm magnesium hydroxide can cause cramping. The lawsuit points to medical experts and institutions, including the Cleveland Clinic and the Mayo Clinic, which note that magnesium hydroxide can cause abdominal cramping. Westbrook also cites a clinical study that found magnesium hydroxide caused more cramping than other common laxatives, such as polyethylene glycol and lactulose. Dulcolax lawsuit claims consumers paid a premium for a falsely advertised product The Dulcolax class action argues that the plaintiff was caused to pay more than she would have paid for the Product, based on the identified misrepresentations and omissions. The plaintiff claims she relied on the "Cramp Free!" label when purchasing the product between July 2022 and May 2025, paying a premium price of $17.99. She argues that she would have paid less if she had known the product could cause cramps. Westbrook says she still obtained value from the product as a laxative but seeks compensation for the price difference between the product as advertised and its actual effects. Westbrook wants to represent a class of New York residents who purchased Dulcolax fruit-flavored soft chews in the state for personal use during the statute of limitations, claiming Chattem is guilty of violating New York's General Business Law. She demands a jury trial and requests actual damages for herself and all class members. In another class action targeting false claims, the supplement Prevagen was accused of misleading consumers about its memory-improving benefits. The plaintiff is represented by Spencer Sheehan of Sheehan & Associates P.C. The Dulcolax class action lawsuit is Tamica Westbrook v. Chattem Inc., Case No. 812833/2025E, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Bronx. [GN] CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Continues to Defend Stradford Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Stradford shareholder class suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Chipotle and several of its executive officers are defendants in Michael Stradford v. Chipotle et. al., a purported shareholder class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that statements and omissions by Chipotle regarding portion sizes were materially false and misleading, resulting in the market price of Chipotle's stock being artificially inflated during the claimed class period. On April 29, 2025, the lead plaintiff in the case, Lisa Tai, filed an amended complaint, pleading largely the same facts and alleged violations of law as the original Stradford complaint, adding additional factual allegations as well as allegations regarding purportedly improper insider trading by the individual defendants in the case. The case seeks damages on behalf of the purported class in an unspecified amount, interest, an award of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees, and other relief as determined to be appropriate by the court. Chipotle is an American multinational chain of fast casual restaurants specializing in bowls, tacos, and Mission burritos made to order in front of the customer. CLEAN HARBORS: Hourly Employee Class Gets Certification ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as OREESE FOGG and KYLE WALKER, et al., v. CLEAN HARBORS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-07626-MCA-JBC (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Madeline Cox Arleo entered an order: -- Granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; -- Granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion for decertification of collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); -- Appointing Schneider Wallace Cottrell Kim LLP, and Berkowitz Lichstein Kuritsky Giasullo & Gross, LLC, as counsel for the Class; and -- Appointing Oreese Fogg and Kyle Walker as class representatives; and -- Certifying the following class: "All current and former non-exempt, hourly employees of Defendant Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. who worked at one of the Defendant's facilities in New Jersey at any time from March 31, 2019, until the resolution of this action." Clean is a provider of waste management and industrial services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=I8HOQX at no extra charge.[CC] CME GROUP INC: Trial over Securities Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------- CME Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2025, that a trial commenced on July 7, 2025 for a putative class action complaint filed January 15, 2014 in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, against CME Group Inc. and the Board of Trade of the City of Chicago, Inc. The plaintiffs, certain Class B shareholders of CME Group and Class B members of CBOT, allege breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for violations of their core rights granted in the defendants' respective Certificates of Incorporation. On December 2, 2021, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for certification of a damages-only class. In early 2024, the defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. On April 16, 2025, the court granted the motion in part and denied the motion in part, and set the remaining claims for a jury trial. The CME Group Inc. is a security and commodity broker, dealer of exchanges based in Chicago, Illinois. COASTAL PALMS: Misclassifies Workers, Gretsinger Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ TIMOTHY GRETSINGER, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COASTAL PALMS ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING, LLC, LOUIS E. MARTINEZ and EVERTO M. RODRIGUEZ, individually, Defendants, Case No. 8:25-cv-01988 (M.D. Fla., July 29, 2025) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The Plaintiff began his employment on or about July 2024, as an electrician. Throughout his employment with Defendants, the Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per week, for which he was not compensated at the overtime rate. In addition, the Defendant failed to comply with federal and state laws, including but not limited to failure to pay federal payroll taxes and state unemployment taxes as well as other taxes, cost and expenses associated with Defendant's misclassifying employees as independent contractors, says the suit. Coastal Palms Electrical Contracting, LLC is an electrical contractor based in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Miguel Bouzas, Esq. Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq. FLORIN | GRAY 16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100 Lutz, FL 33558 Telephone: (727) 220-4000 E-mail: MBouzas@floringray.com angela@floringray.com Wflorin@floringray.com COMFORT MANAGEMENT: Cole Sues Over Blind Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- MORGAN COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Comfort Management Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08719 (N.D. Ill., July 28, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. Due to Defendant's failure and refusal to remove access barriers to its website, blind individuals have been and are being denied equal access to goods, services and benefits offered to the public through the website. Moreover, the access barriers prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software, says the suit. Comfort Management Corporation owns and operates the website, Comfortoneshoes.com, which offers footwear for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 (630) 478-0856 E-mail: achan@ealg.law COMPASS GROUP: Agrees to Settle Vending Machine Suit for $6.94MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Compass Group USA Inc., doing business as Canteen, has agreed to a $6.94 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims that certain vending machines it owns and operates charged customers more than the displayed price for items when purchased with a debit or credit card. The vending machine settlement benefits consumers who made a purchase from a vending machine owned or operated by Compass Group USA between 2014 and July 9, 2025, who paid with a debit, credit or prepaid card and who were charged more than the price listed for their purchases. The lawsuit alleged that Canteen charged customers' credit, debit or prepaid cards more than the displayed prices for items without informing purchasers of an extra charge for using a card, thus breaching its contract terms. The vending machines at issue are located in several states, including Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and West Virginia. Canteen has not admitted any wrongdoing, but agreed to pay $6.9 million to settle all allegations. Depending on the number of claimants and funds available, class members will receive between $30 and $360, based on the number of purchases they made. The deadline to opt out of or object to the settlement is Oct. 17, 2025. A final approval hearing for the vending machine class action settlement is scheduled for Jan. 9, 2026.The deadline to file a claim is Nov. 14, 2025. Who's Eligible Consumers who made one or more purchases from a vending machine owned by Compass Group USA, doing business as Canteen, between 2014 and July 9, 2025, using a credit, debit or prepaid card are eligible for the Canteen vending machine class action settlement. Potential Award Between $30 and $360 Proof of Purchase You will not need to submit proof of purchases with the claim form. However, you may be asked to provide additional information at a later date. 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 11/14/2025 Case Name Jilek v. Compass Group USA Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00818-JAG-DCK, in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division Joel R. Rhine Ruth A. Sheehan RHINE LAW FIRM P.C. Defense Counsel Joseph C. Wylie Nicole C. Mueller K&L GATES LLP [GN] COSTA DEL MAR: Reed Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Reply -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GERALD E. REED, IV, v. COSTA DEL MAR, INC., Case No. 6:19-cv-01751-RBD-LHP (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for leave to file a reply in support of motion for class certification. The Plaintiff filed the Motion on June 27, 2025. On July 10, 2025, the Court granted the Defendant, a nine-day extension of time to file its response. Costa offers polarized sunglasses for special activities as fishing, boating or for an everyday outdoor lifestyle. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aL3e3I at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter P. Hargitai, Esq. Joshua H. Roberts, Esq. Laura B. Renstrom, Esq. Michael M. Gropper, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Telephone: (904) 353-2000 Facsimile: (904) 358-1872 E-mail: peter.hargitai@hklaw.com josh.roberts@hklaw.com laura.renstrom@hklaw.com michael.gropper@hklaw.com CREDIT ONE: Agrees to Settle Robocall Class Suit for $14-Mil. ------------------------------------------------------------- Sandra V of Union Rayo reports that class action lawsuit against Credit One Bank. Have you ever received automated calls from companies? Well, you should know this is illegal in the United States and you could take measures about it. This is what many people did, filing a class action lawsuit, when they received these calls from Credit One Bank. No matter if it's a big or a small company, class action lawsuits exist to support customers who have been scammed or felt their rights have been violated. So, let's find out what happened in more detail. What happened with Credit One Bank? Credit One Bank is a company that offers credit cards, especially to people who don't have a strong credit history. Between 2014 and 2019, the company made many automated phone calls, known as robocalls, to people using pre-recorded messages or auto-dialing systems. The issue is that many of those people never gave permission to be contacted this way. In the U.S., there's a law that says companies can't use robocalls without your consent. Because of that, a class action lawsuit was filed. That means a group of people who were affected joined together to bring one big case against the company. What did the company decide? Even though Credit One Bank did not admit to any wrongdoing, it agreed to pay $14 million to settle the case. This money will be shared among people who received these unwanted calls. This kind of agreement is called a settlement, which means the company chose to pay money to end the legal case instead of continuing the lawsuit. Who can get money? If you are wondering whether you may be eligible for this compensation, this is what you had to experience: Received an automated phone call from Credit One Bank or one of its affiliates between 2014 and 2019 and did not give permission to be contacted by robocalls or pre-recorded messages. What if you don't have proof? If you don't have any way to prove you received those calls without your permission, you could still receive money but there's a difference: -- If you have proof, like phone records or bills showing Credit One Bank called you, you could get a larger payment. -- But even if you don't have direct proof, you may still qualify for some money, though probably a smaller amount. Let's talk about numbers I'm afraid that amounts is one of the things it isn't confirmed yet because some data is not complete such as how many people file a claim, how much proof is provided, and how the $14 million is divided. Although it's not official, rumor has it that the amount affected people could get is up to $1,000, but this amount may change. What's next? Right now, the official settlement website is not online, and important dates like the deadline to file a claim and the final approval hearing have not yet been announced. So, if you're interested, it's a good idea to check back regularly for updates so you'll know when the claim process begins. What this means for consumers This case shows how people who experience the same issue can come together in a class action and possibly receive compensation. It also highlights how rules exist to protect people from being contacted without their consent. So, if you think you might have received robocalls from Credit One Bank between 2014 and 2019 -- especially without giving them permission -- this could be your chance to take action. You might be eligible to receive part of the $14 million settlement, even if you don't have phone records. So, you'd better keep an eye out for updates. Have you ever received robocalls like these? [GN] CT MEDIA: Faces Randolph Suit Over Blind's Equal Access to Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ ERIKA RANDOLPH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CT MEDIA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09177 (N.D. Ill., August 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://getondown.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, inaccurate drop-down menus, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. CT Media, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com DAILY WIRE: Hearing for Settlement Final Approval Set October 22 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that the Daily Wire has agreed to pay a $2 million settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the media company shared subscribers' personal information with Facebook without permission, in violation of the federal Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA). The court-authorized website for the Daily Wire class action settlement can be found at DWVPPASettlement.com. The deal covers all individuals who, between March 11, 2022 and November 7, 2023, were accountholders and/or digital newsletter subscribers to a Daily Wire website, including DailyWire.com, in the United States and accessed a video through one of the sites while a pixel—a tracking code used for website analytics—was operational. According to the official Daily Wire class action settlement website, eligible class members who file a timely, valid claim form are entitled to receive a cash payment of up to $15. Individual settlement payout amounts may be reduced on a pro rata basis depending on the total number of valid claims that are submitted, the site notes. To receive a Daily Wire settlement payment, consumers must file a claim form online or by mail by September 8, 2025. Head to this page to submit a Daily Wire settlement claim form online. Alternatively, you can download a PDF claim form to print, complete and return by mail to the settlement administrator. To file a claim form, you will need your unique notice ID, which can be located in the personalized settlement notice you may have received in the mail or via email. Online submission also requires a confirmation code that is included in the notice. The settlement agreement received preliminary approval from the court in late March 2025. The parties now await a hearing on October 22, 2025, at which time the court will determine whether to grant final approval to the terms of the deal. Daily Wire settlement payouts will be issued to eligible class members only if the deal receives ultimate court approval, and after any appeals are resolved, the website explains. [GN] DANIEL BEERS: Glasgow "Health Plan" Suit Seeks to Certify Class --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROCHELLE GLASGOW, et al., v. DANIEL J. BEERS, et al., Case No. 5:21-cv-02001-DAR (N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order to: (1) grant the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; (2) certify a Class under Rule 23(b)(3) consisting of the following: "All purchasers of Liberty healthcare plans from 2013 to Present"; (3) appoint the Plaintiffs Rochelle Glasgow, Donna Landry, and William Rooker as Class Representatives; and (4) appoint Michael I. Fistel, Jr., William W. Stone, and Oliver S. tum Suden and their law firm, Johnson Fistel, PLLP, as well as George Cochran and his law firm, The Law Office of George W. Cochran, to serve as Class Counsel under Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and a class of persons similarly situated, move to certify their claims of (i) money had and received and conversion against all Defendants1; (ii) unjust enrichment against Liberty; and (iii) violations of 18 U.S.C. section 1962(c) (federal RICO claim) against Liberty, Daniel J. Beers, MCS, CSS, and SavNet. On Sept. 30, 2022, following motion practice and briefing, the Court entered an Order dismissing without prejudice defendants Benjamin Beers, Rachel Beers, Matt Bellis, and Pamela Johnson from this action and denying the remaining motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 36 and 41) without prejudice in anticipation of Plaintiffs filing an Amended Complaint. On November 14, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the Amended Complaint. Daniel Beers is an ophthalmic surgeon specializing in laser vision correction and cataract surgery. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QMGr5Z at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq. William w. Stone, Esq. Oliver S. Tum Suden, Esq. JOHNSON FISTEL, PLLP 40 Powder Springs Street Marietta, GA 30064 Telephone: (470) 632-6000 Facsimile: (770) 200-3101 E-mail: MichaelF@johnsonfistel.com WilliamS@johnsonfistel.com OliverT@johnsonfistel.com - and - George W. Cochran, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE W. COCHRAN 1981 Crossfield Circle Kent, OH 44240 Telephone: (330) 607-2187 Facsimile: (330) 230-6136 E-mail: lawchrist@gmail.com DI OVERNITE: Failed to Pay for All Hours Worked, Gomez Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- EDDIE GOMEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DI OVERNITE LLC, DBA DELIVER-IT / DI LOGISTICS LLC; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 25NWCV02801 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 4, 2025) alleges that Defendant failed to provide compliant meal periods, failed to provide compliant rest periods, and failed to pay for all hours worked in violation of the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendant classified Plaintiff as an independent contractor rather than an employee. The Plaintiff worked at Defendant's Oxnard Warehouse and Van Nuys Warehouse locations. The Defendant promised to pay Plaintiff $2.00 per stop with an expected 100 to 150 stops per day. The Plaintiff worked five days per week for 8-10 hours per day, the suit says. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from November 2024 to January 2025. The Defendant operartes a logistics company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manny Starr, Esq. Daniel Ginzburg, Esq. FRONTIER LAW CENTER eservice@frontierlawcenter.com 6200 Canoga Ave., Suite 470 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 914-3433 Facsimile: (818) 914-3433 E-mail manny@frontierlawcenter.com dan@frontierlawcenter.com DIAGEO NORTH AMERICA: Haschemie Suit Removed to S.D. Fla. --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled NABIL HASCHEMIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DIAGEO NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2025-009289-CA-01, was removed from the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida in and for Miami-Dade County to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on July 28, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-23367-XXXX to the proceeding. The case alleges three causes of action: (1) violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act; negligent misrepresentation; and unjust enrichment. The complaint claims that the Defendant falsely represented that its Casamigos and Don Julio brand tequilas are "100% agave." Diageo North America, Inc. manufactures and sells alcoholic beverages. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Gerald E. Greenberg, Esq. Shane Grannum, Esq. GELBER SCHACHTER & GREENBERG, P.A. One Southeast Third Avenue, Suite 2600 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 728-0950 E-mail: ggreenberg@gsgpa.com sgrannum@gsgpa.com efilings@gsgpa.com - and - Timothy S. Martin, Esq. Christopher R. Le Coney, Esq. Tasha N. Thompson, Esq. KAPLAN MARTIN LLP 1133 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 1500 New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 315-9500 E-mail: tmartin@kaplanmartin.com clecony@kaplanmartin.com tthompson@kaplanmartin.com DICK'S SPORTING: Tate Privacy Suit Removed to E.D. Calif. --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled CHARMAINE TATE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DICK'S SPORTING GOODS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25CV012660, was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Sacramento to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on July 28, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02108 to the proceeding. The case arises from Defendant Dick's Sporting Goods' alleged use of trackers and cookies to collect identifying information of visitors to its website, www.dickssportinggoods.com, and to intercept information about the interactions of website visitors with the website. The Plaintiff alleges invasion of privacy and violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, and of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Headquartered in Pennsylvania, Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. operates as a chain of sporting goods stores. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: P. Craig Cardon, Esq. Benjamin O. Aigboboh, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6017 Telephone: (310) 228-3700 Facsimile: (310) 228-3701 E-mail: ccardon@sheppardmullin.com baigboboh@sheppardmullin.com DK HOUSEHOLD: Douglass Sues Over Online Store's Access Barriers --------------------------------------------------------------- BLAIR DOUGLASS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DK HOUSEHOLD BRANDS CORP., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01183 (W.D. Pa., August 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's websites contain access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. DK Household Brands Corp. is a company that sells online goods and services in Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin W. Tucker, Esq. Kevin Abramowicz, Esq. Chandler Steiger, Esq. Stephanie Moore, Esq. Kayla Conahan, Esq. Jessica Liu, Esq. EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC 6901 Lynn Way, Suite 503 Pittsburgh, PA 15208 Telephone: (412) 877-5220 Facsimile: (412) 626-7101 Email: ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com csteiger@eastendtrialgroup.com smoore@eastendtrialgroup.com kconahan@eastendtrialgroup.com jliu@eastendtrialgroup.com DOCKSIDE AT VENTURA: Class Cert Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SFR SERVICCES, LLC; and SOUTH FLORIDA REAL ESTATE, LLC, v. DOCKSIDE AT VENTURA CONDOMINIMUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Case No. 6:24-cv-00777-WWB-RMN (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Robert Norway entered an order denying without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs may renew the motion, if necessary, no more than 14 days after the issuance of an order lifting or terminating the automatic stay in this proceeding, the Court says. On June 17, 2025, the Plaintiff filed its Motion for Class Certification. The Defendant offers a range of residential units. A copy of the Court's order dated July 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aPUyr0 at no extra charge.[CC] DOMINO'S PIZZA: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert by Jan. 12, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Hon. Judge James Selna entered an order grating joint motion to amended scheduling order and class certification briefing schedule: 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 Domino's is an American multinational pizza restaurant chain. A copy of the Court's order dated July 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EyMoFl at no extra charge.[CC] DONALD TRUMP: Court Certifies Three Subclasses in Pacito Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PLAINTIFF PACITO; PLAINTIFF ESTHER; PLAINTIFF JOSEPHINE; PLAINTIFF SARA; PLAINTIFF ALYAS; PLAINTIFF MARCOS; PLAINTIFF AHMED; PLAINTIFF RACHEL; PLAINTIFF ALI; HIAS, INC.; CHURCH WORLD SERVICE, INC., and LUTHERAN COMMUNITY SERVICES NORTHWEST, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States; MARCO RUBIO, in his official capacity as Secretary of State; KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security; ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR., in his official capacity as Secretary of Health and Human Services, Case No. 2:25-cv-00255-JNW (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Jamal N. Whitehead entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and approving and certifying the following subclasses: a. The Refugee and Family Member Subclass: "All persons who are being or will be processed for admission to the United States as a refugee or who have applied or will apply for a family member to be processed for admission as a refugee"; b. The Reception & Placement Subclass: "All refugees and Afghan and Iraqi Special Immigrant Visa holders resettled to the United States and within their first ninety days post-resettlement as of Jan. 20, 2025, the issuance date of the Refugee Ban Executive Order, or who currently are, or will be, resettled in the United States and within their first ninety days post-resettlement"; and c. The FTJ Petitioner Subclass: "All persons in the United States who are currently petitioning or will petition for family members to be admitted to the United States under the follow-to-join ("FTJ") refugee program." The Court also appoints the Plaintiffs Pacito, Sara, Alyas, Marcos, Josephine, and Ahmed as representatives of the Refugee and Family Member Subclass; appoints the Plaintiff Ali as representative of the Reception & Placement Subclass; appoints the Plaintiff Esther as representative of the FTJ Petitioner Subclass; and appoints IRAP and Perkins Coie as class counsel. The litigation arises from challenges to executive actions that suspended and defunded the United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP). Donald Trump is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who is the 47th president of the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated July 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PnQK8k at no extra charge.[CC] DONALD TRUMP: Young Suit Seeks to Certify Nationwide Class ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUBIN YOUNG, SYBEL W. LEE, KEITH WILSON, WILLIE A. THOMAS, on behalf of themselves and a1l others similarly situated, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, PAM BONDI, SCOTT HUNTER, RON DESANTIS, JAMES UTHMEIRE, DANIELLE LEVINE CAVA, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-23025-MFE (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for class certification: Specifically, then Plaintiffs seeks to certify a nationwide class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(1), 23(b)(2), and/or 23(b)(3), consisting exclusively and strictly of: "individuals who are lineal descendants of Indigenous peoples native to the lands now known as the United States of America,' and individuals who are direct descendants of formerly enslaved African Americans, with verifiable genealogical, tribal, or documentary proof of ancestry." The class action arises from a continuing national constitutional crisis: the deliberate misapplication of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the abandonment of those it was specifically designed to protect- namely, the descendants of enslaved African Americans and Indigenous Peoples of the United States. Donald Trump is an American politician, media personality, and businessman. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kWy7Nk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff appears pro se: Rubin Young 14060 SW, 258th Street Homestead, FL 33032 Telephone: (786) 847-9111 E-mail: commtrus@yahoo.com DRG MEDICAL: Wigder Appeals Court Order to N.Y. Appellate Division ------------------------------------------------------------------ MALKY WIGDER, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Malky Wigder, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Robert Goodman, et al., Defendants, Case No. 533555/2023, in the Superior Court of New York, Kings County. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit seeks to hold accountable the people and entities who perpetuated Dr. Robert Goodman's abuse for years, causing lasting, irreparable damage to the Plaintiffs and the putative class of victims they represent. Dr. Goodman, an internal medicine physician based in Borough Park, Brooklyn, has regularly sexually assaulted female patients with impunity for more than fifteen years. When female patients came to Dr. Goodman for medical care, he regularly and routinely violated their trust and used his position of authority to grope, molest, and sexually assault them, the suit alleges. The appellate case is captioned Malky Wigder, et al. vs. Robert Goodman, et al., Case No. 25-09155, in the Second Judicial Department of New York Appellate Division, filed on July 31, 2025. [BN] Defendants-Respondents ROBERT GOODMAN, et al. are represented by: Christopher Simone, Esq. SHAUB, AHMUTY, CITRIN & SPRATT, LLP 1983 Marcus Avenue Lake Success, NY 11042 Telephone: (516) 488-3300 Facsimile: (516) 488-2324 Email: csimone@sacslaw.com DUFF CAPITAL: Gabrielsen Sues Over Unprotected Private Information ------------------------------------------------------------------ MIKE GABRIELSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DUFF CAPITAL INVESTORS, LLC and SOUTHERN TIRE MART, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00104-TBM-RPM (S.D. Miss., July 28, 2025) arises from Defendants failure to properly secure and safeguard private information that was entrusted to them, and their accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. Between approximately June 2, 2025, and June 3, 2025, unauthorized access occurred within a limited portion of Defendant Southern Tire Mart's internal network. The Defendants investigation determined that certain files containing sensitive information may have been accessed. Moreover, Defendants failed to take precautions designed to keep individuals' private information secure. As a result of Defendants inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information was exposed to criminals. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings this action individually and on behalf of a Nationwide Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendants for: negligence; negligence per se; unjust enrichment, and breach of implied contract. Headquartered in Columbia, MS, Duff Capital Investors, LLC is engaged in over 20 businesses from trucking, tires, and automotive to construction, energy and insurance. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald J. Diaz, Jr., Esq. Christopher P. Williams, Esq. James R. Segars, III, Esq. DIAZ LAW FIRM, PLLC 208 Waterford Square, Suite 300 Madison, MS 39110 Telephone: (601) 607-3456 Facsimile: (601) 607-3393 E-mail: joey@diazlawfirm.com chris@diazlawfirm.com tripp@diazlawfirm.com ECKERT SEAMANS: Fails to Secure Clients' Personal Info, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ERIN HETTMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01175-MJH (W.D. Pa., August 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, breach of fiduciary duty, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on or around April 17, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC is a law firm, headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob U. Ginsburg, Esq. KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, PC 30 E. Butler Ave. Ambler, PA 19002 Telephone: (267) 468-5374 Email: jginsburg@creditlaw.com - and - Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI, PLLC 980 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: croman@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com ELSEVIER INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Nguyen Due June 8, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMSA NGUYEN, and others, v. ELSEVIER INC., Case No. 5:25-cv-00825-NC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Nathanael Cousins entered a case management order: -- Discovery deadline on class certification issues: May 25, 2026 -- Deadline for Plaintiffs to file Class Certification Motion and Daubert motion on class certification experts (limited to one omnibus Daubert motion re class certification experts): June 8, 2026 -- Deadline for Defendant to file Class Certification Opposition, Daubert motion on class certification experts (limited to one omnibus Daubert motion re class certification experts), and Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Daubert motion: July 15, 2026 -- Hearing on Class Certification and Daubert motions: September 9, 2026, 11:00 a.m. The case is a putative class action asserting a claim under the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA). The Defendant's Request to Stay Discovery: The Court, for lack of good cause shown, denies the Defendant's request to stay discovery until any motion to amend pleadings is resolved. Elsevier is a global information analytics business specializing in scientific, technical, and medical content. A copy of the Court's order dated July 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vvvAxQ at no extra charge.[CC] ENERGY INC: SageView 's Bid to Modify Class Cert Briefing Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Doll, et al., v. Energy, Inc. et al., Case No. 4:25-cv-00043 (W.D. Mo., Filed Jan. 22, 2025), the Hon. Stephen R. Bough entered an order denying SageView 's Unopposed Motion Modification of Schedule for Class Certification Briefing. -- If Defendant SageView needs additional time to respond to the Motion for Class Certification, it can move for an extension after the Motion is filed. The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (E.R.I.S.A.) Evergy is a public utility holding company that operates primarily through its subsidiaries to provide electricity services.[CC] EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Trotman Suit Seeks to Certify Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as IAN C. TROTMAN, v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, TRANSUNION, LLC et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01665-LLA (D.D.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class of: "All persons residing in the United States whose credit reports maintained by the Defendants, TransUnion LLC, et al, at any time from Feb. 28, 2015, to the present contained inaccurate information and who submitted a dispute to the Defendants, Transunion et al., regarding such inaccurate information, which the Defendants faled to reasonably investigate." Equifax is a subsidiary of Equifax, a global data, analytics, and technology company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1dcabK at no extra charge. The Plaintiff appears pro se.[CC] EXXONMOBIL CORP: Harris Appeals Denied Amend Bid to 6th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------ JEFFERY HARRIS is taking an appeal from a court order denying his motions for leave to amend his complaint after final judgment in the lawsuit entitled Jeffery Harris, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ExxonMobil Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00414, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The suit is brought against the Defendants for product liability claims. On June 11, 2025, Judge Pamela A. Barker entered an Order dismissing the Plaintiff's complaint. The Court concludes that the Plaintiff's allegations amount to "unadorned, the-defendant unlawfully-harmed-me accusation[s]," which are insufficient to state a claim for relief in federal court. On June 24, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion to amend complaint. On June 30, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a supplemental motion to amend complaint. On June 11, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to strike class allegations and motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's second amended complaint. On July 9, 2025, Judge Barker entered an Order denying the Plaintiff's motions to amend complaint. The appellate case is entitled Jeffery Harris v. ExxonMobil Corporation, et al., Case No. 25-3605, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on August 5, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JEFFERY HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, appears pro se. EYEMED VISION: Class Settlement in Tate Suit Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHANDRA TATE, et al., v. EYEMED VISION CARE, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00036-DRC (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Douglas Cole entered an order granting the unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The Court further: preliminarily certifies, for settlement purposes only, the nationwide class as defined in the settlement agreement; preliminarily approves the proposed settlement agreement; authorizes the distribution of notice in accordance with the notice plan described in the settlement agreement, and use of the proposed claim form; provisionally appoints Chandra Tate, Barbara Whittom, and Alexus Wynn as class representatives; provisionally appoints Bryan L. Bleichner of Chestnut Cambronne PA, and Lori G. Feldman of George Feldman McDonald, PLLC as counsel for the class; provisionally appoints Kroll Settlement Administration LLC as the settlement administrator; orders that class members shall have one hundred five days from entry of this Opinion and Order to opt out of the class or to object to the proposed settlement, and one hundred thirty-five days to submit settlement claims; orders that any class members who do not timely opt out of the settlement in the manner provided in the proposed settlement agreement will be bound by the terms of the settlement upon final approval of the same; and schedules the final approval hearing for Jan. 7, 2026, at 1:00 p.m., in Courtroom 805. EyeMed is one of the largest vision benefits companies in the country. It offers various plans to more than sixty million members. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated July 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9QEj6Z at no extra charge.[CC] FARHA ROOFING: Court Certifies Class Action for Settlement Purposes ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIANNA FORD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. FARHA ROOFING, LLC, FARHA ROOFING KC, LLC and SUMMA MEDIA, LLC., Case No. 4:23-cv-00635-FJG (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Fernando Gaitan, Jr. Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr. entered an order certifying class action for settlement purposes only, on behalf of the following Class Members with respect to the claims asserted in the Lawsuit: "All persons throughout the United States (1) to whom Summa Media, LLC, Farha Roofing, LLC, or Farha Roofing KC, LLC delivered, or caused to be delivered, more than one text message within a 12-month period, promoting Farha Roofing, LLC's or Farha Roofing KC, LLC's or their business partners' goods or services, (2) from Sept. 13, 2019 to Oct. 16, 2024, and (3) whose residential telephone number is included in the Settlement Class Data." Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, the Court certifies Plaintiff Brianna Ford as the class representative and Alex D. Kruzyk and Bryan A. Giribaldo of Pardell, Kruzyk & Giribaldo, PLLC as class counsel. Pursuant to the Court’s Preliminary Approval Order, the approved class action notices were mailed. The Court finds that the settlement class satisfies the applicable prerequisites for class action treatment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 The Settlement Agreement, which is deemed incorporated herein, is finally approved and must be consummated in accordance with the terms and provisions thereof, except as amended by any order issued by this Court. The material terms of the Settlement Agreement include, but are not limited to, the following: A. Settlement Fund - Defendant will establish a $250,000.00 Settlement Fund. B. Deductions - The following are to be deducted from the Settlement Fund before any other distributions are made: a. The costs and expenses for the administration of the settlement and class notice, including expenses necessary to identify potential Settlement Class Members; b. Plaintiff's attorneys’ fees, in the amount of $83,333.00, and the reimbursement of class counsel’s litigation costs and expenses, in the amount of $ 6,875.59; and c. The Incentive Payment to Plaintiff, in the amount of $10,000.00, as acknowledgment of the time and effort she has spent in furtherance of her role in prosecuting this case on behalf of the Class Members, and as a result of the benefits Plaintiff achieved for Class Members. Class counsel's request for reimbursement of reasonable litigation costs and expenses in the amount of $6,875.59 is approved. Plaintiff's request for an incentive award of $10,000.00 is approved. Farha specializes in all types of roof installation and repair for both residential and commercial applications. A copy of the Court's order dated July 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pxgdNJ at no extra charge.[CC] FINASTRA TECHNOLOGY: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Murray v. Finastra Technology, Inc., Case No. 6:25-cv-01406 (M.D. Fla., Filed July 28, 2025), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order directing the parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report. The deadlines should include a deadline for (1) disclosure of expert reports - class action, plaintiff and defendant; (2) discovery -- class action; (3) motion for class certification; (4) response to motion for class certification; and (5) reply to motion for class certification. The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract. Finastra is a financial software and technology solutions provider.[CC] FLEET QUEST: Must File Class Certification Response by August 18 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Hon. Judge entered 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 Court's order dated July 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ud8vZs 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 FLUOR CORP: Bleichmar Probes Potential Securities Law Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Leading securities law firm Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP announces an investigation into Fluor Corporation (NYSE: FLR) for potential violations of the federal securities laws. If you invested in Fluor, you are encouraged to obtain additional information by visiting: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/fluor-corporation-class-action-lawsuit. Why Is Fluor being Investigated? Fluor is a global professional services firm that provides engineering, procurement and construction, fabrication and modularization, and project management services. The Company has three principal segments: Urban Solutions, Energy Solutions and Mission Solutions. Its Urban Solutions segment includes infrastructure teams that provide a broad range of services, including consulting, design, planning, financial structuring, engineering, construction and operation and maintenance services. During the relevant period, the Company touted the strong productivity across its infrastructure portfolio. In truth, several of Fluor’s infrastructure projects experienced undisclosed design errors, delays, and price escalation that significantly impacted its business. The Stock Declines as the Truth Is Revealed On August 1, 2025, before market hours, Fluor reported its fiscal Q2 2025 financial results and held an earnings call. The Company announced disappointing earnings and revealed "a $54 million net impact of cost growth and expected recoveries on three infrastructure projects, due to subcontractor design errors, the related schedule impacts, and price escalation." The Company also announced, "a shift in expected capital spending from some clients." On this news, the price of Fluor stock fell more than 30% during trading on August 1, 2025. What Can You Do? If you invested in Fluor you may have legal options and are encouraged to submit your information to the firm. All representation is on a contingency fee basis, there is no cost to you. Shareholders are not responsible for any court costs or expenses of litigation. The firm will seek court approval for any potential fees and expenses. Submit your information by visiting: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/fluor-corporation-class-action-lawsuit Or contact: Ross Shikowitz, Esq. (212) 789-3619 ross@bfalaw.com Why Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP? BFA is a leading international law firm representing plaintiffs in securities class actions and shareholder litigation. It has been named a top plaintiff law firm by Chambers USA, The Legal 500, and ISS SCAS, and its attorneys have been named "Elite Trial Lawyers" by the National Law Journal, among the top "500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers" by Lawdragon, "Titans of the Plaintiffs’ Bar" by Law360 and "SuperLawyers" by Thomson Reuters. Among its recent notable successes, BFA recovered over $900 million in value from Tesla, Inc.’s Board of Directors, as well as $420 million from Teva Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd. For more information about BFA and its attorneys, please visit https://www.bfalaw.com. https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/fluor-corporation-class-action-lawsuit [GN] FLYWIRE CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due September 23 ------------------------------------------------------------------ WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of securities of Flywire Corporation (NASDAQ: FLYW) between February 28, 2024 and February 25, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 23, 2025. SO WHAT: If you purchased Flywire securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Flywire class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=36539 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for more information. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 23, 2025. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the strength and sustainability of Flywire's revenue growth was overstated; (2) the negative impact that permit- and visa-related restrictions were having and were likely to have on Flywire's business was understated; and (3) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Flywire class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=36539 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for more information. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] FLYWIRE CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due September 23 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Leading securities law firm Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP announces that a lawsuit has been filed against Flywire Corporation (NASDAQ:FLYW) and certain of the Company's senior executives for potential violations of the federal securities laws. If you invested in Flywire, you are encouraged to obtain additional information by visiting: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/flywire-corporation-class-action-lawsuit. Investors have until September 23, 2025, to ask the Court to be appointed to lead the case. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of investors who purchased Flywire securities. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York and is captioned Hickman v. Flywire Corp., et al., No. 1:25-cv-04110. Why Was Flywire Sued for Securities Fraud? Flywire operates as a payments-enablement, and software company. Its largest client vertical is education, the volumes and revenue from which rely on international enrollments and student school preferences. In and around late 2023 and early 2024, the Canadian and Australian governments began to tighten student visa and permitting rules. Despite these headwinds, Flywire consistently touted the sustainability of its revenue growth and financial condition, while downplaying the negative impacts of permit- and visa-related headwinds on the Company's business. In truth, it is alleged that Flywire overstated the strength and sustainability of its revenue growth while understating the negative impacts that the permit- and visa-related restrictions had and were likely to have on Flywire's business. The Stock Declines as the Truth Is Revealed On February 25, 2025, Flywire announced that its business in the education sector had significantly deteriorated due to worsening permit- and visa-related headwinds, including "double digit declines in student visa issuance in our big four geographic markets," with "continued visa policy restrictions" anticipated in 2025. On this news, the price of Flywire stock declined roughly 37%, from $17.64 per share on February 25, 2025, to $11.05 per share on February 26, 2025. Click here for more information: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/flywire-corporation-class-action-lawsuit. What Can You Do? If you invested in Flywire you may have legal options and are encouraged to submit your information to the firm. All representation is on a contingency fee basis, there is no cost to you. Shareholders are not responsible for any court costs or expenses of litigation. The firm will seek court approval for any potential fees and expenses. Submit your information by visiting: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/flywire-corporation-class-action-lawsuit Or contact: Ross Shikowitz, Esq. Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP Tel: (212) 789-3619 E-mail: ross@bfalaw.com Why Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP? BFA is a leading international law firm representing plaintiffs in securities class actions and shareholder litigation. It has been named a top plaintiff law firm by Chambers USA, The Legal 500, and ISS SCAS, and its attorneys have been named "Elite Trial Lawyers" by the National Law Journal, among the top "500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers" by Lawdragon, "Titans of the Plaintiffs' Bar" by Law360 and "SuperLawyers" by Thomson Reuters. Among its recent notable successes, BFA recovered over $900 million in value from Tesla, Inc.'s Board of Directors, as well as $420 million from Teva Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd. For more information about BFA and its attorneys, please visit https://www.bfalaw.com. https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/flywire-corporation-class-action-lawsuit [GN] FORT LAUDERDALE, FL: Jackson Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAYANNA JACKSON, et. al., v. CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, et. al., Case No. 0:24-cv-60935-RS (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time of 14 days to file the motion for class certification. The March 19, 2025, Scheduling Order set the filing date for the Motion for Class Action Certification on July 31, 2025. Fort Lauderdale is a city on Florida's southeastern coast, known for its beaches and boating canals. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UeDRiw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Benedict P. Kuehne, Esq. Michael T. Davis, Esq. Johan D. Dos Santos, Esq. KUEHNE DAVIS LAW, P.A. 100 SE 2 Street, Suite 3650 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 789-5989 Facsimile: (305) 789-5987 E-mail: ben.kuehne@kdlawyerspa.com mdavis@kdlawyerspa.com johand@kdlawyerspa.com efiling@kdlawyerspa.com FREMONT COMPANY: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Baker Suit Okayed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned James Baker, Plaintiff, v. The Fremont Company, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-1762-JRK (N.D. Ohio), Judge James R. Knepp II of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration, and stayed the proceedings. On October 10, 2024, Baker filed this Collective and Class Action Complaint on behalf of himself and others similarly situated against Defendant, his employer, alleging he and similarly situated individuals were not paid overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq. ("FLSA"). Baker and other employees are required to wear a uniform and personal protective equipment ("PPE"), which must be donned before clocking in and removed after clocking out. Baker argues that time spent donning PPE is integral to the employees' activities and therefore is compensable work time under the FLSA. Baker contends Defendant does not compensate employees for the time spent donning and doffing PPE, washing hands, or related walking and waiting time -- all of which occurs off the clock. He alleges this results in unpaid time, including overtime, in violation of the FLSA. Baker also alleges Defendant has on at least one occasion altered his clock-in time, resulting in unpaid work time. On October 22, 2024, opt-in Plaintiff Zach Arnett filed a Notice of Filing Consent form to join the Collective Action. Baker completed an application for employment on August 23, 2023, and Arnett likewise on September 22, 2023. As part of the onboarding process, all new hires are required to review and sign document entitled Agreement To Employer's Right To Elect Arbitration (the "Agreement"). The relevant portion of the Agreement provides: "I understand and acknowledge that if I elect to pursue any matter arising out of my employment or the cessation thereof in either federal or state court, The Fremont Company has the right to elect to have such matter resolved by final and binding arbitration. This Agreement applies to all actions brought by me or on my behalf, under federal, state, and local statutory or common law, including but not limited to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, the law of contract, and the law of tort." The Agreement further states: "The Fremont Company may exercise its election by giving written notice to me or my legal counsel within 60 days after I have informed The Fremont Company in writing of my intention to seek redress through the courts or The Fremont Company's receipt of a formal complaint filed in court, whichever occurs last." The Agreement specifically excludes workers' compensation claims and claims for benefits under a Company plan which provides its own arbitration procedure. Prospective employees are provided a chance to review the Agreement and then asked to sign it, indicating they have read and understand the terms. New hires are then prompted to electronically sign a second time to affirm that they agree to be bound by the Agreement. The new hire then clicks a box affirming again that they are legally bound by the Agreement. Baker signed the Agreement on August 28, 2023. Arnett signed the Agreement on September 26, 2023. Both were hired at Defendant's Rockford, Ohio, plant. Defendant moved to compel arbitration under Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) on the grounds that Plaintiffs each executed a legally enforceable, binding contract when they began employment with Defendant. Defendant requested that the Complaint be dismissed and the proceedings be stayed pending arbitration. Plaintiffs argued the Agreement lacked consideration due to a lack of mutuality of obligation, is both substantively and procedurally unconscionable, and that proper notice to potential class members should be issued before deciding on arbitrability issues. Plaintiffs also filed a Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply. Under the FAA, if a party to an arbitration agreement refuses to comply, the aggrieved party may petition the district court with jurisdiction over the underlying matter for an order to compel arbitration as provided in the agreement. The procedure for determining whether to grant a motion to compel is as follows: "first, [the court] must determine whether the parties agreed to arbitrate; second, it must determine the scope of that agreement; third, if federal statutory claims are asserted, it must consider whether Congress intended those claims to be nonarbitrable; and fourth, if the court concludes that some, but not all, of the claims in the action are subject to arbitration, it must determine whether to stay the remainder of the proceedings pending arbitration." According to the Court, "The burden is on the party opposing arbitration to show that the agreement is not enforceable." Additionally, "any ambiguities in the contract or doubts as to the parties' intentions should be resolved in favor of arbitration" consistent with "the strong federal policy" and "strong presumption in favor of arbitration." At the outset, the Court addressed Baker's Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply Instanter. Baker argued Defendant's Reply contains several new arguments to which Named Plaintiff did not have an opportunity to respond. The Court found that Baker's contentions did not constitute new arguments but merely responses to arguments raised by Plaintiff's opposition. The Court also rejected Plaintiff's argument that Defendant's reply violated page number requirements, finding the motion to compel arbitration constitutes a dispositive motion subject to the 20-page limit. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply Instanter was denied. Defendant contends Plaintiffs contracted to arbitrate claims arising from their employment when they electronically signed the Agreement during their employment application process. Plaintiffs argue there is a lack of consideration for the Agreement due to a lack of mutuality of obligation. The Court's first task was to analyze whether the parties agreed to arbitrate by determining that a valid agreement to arbitrate exists. To do so, courts apply ordinary state-law principles that govern the formation of contracts. For there to be a valid contract under Ohio law, both parties must consent to the terms, there must be a meeting of the minds, and the terms of the contract must be definite and certain. Valid consideration requires that the parties bargain for performances or return promises. Here, the offer from Defendant was employment, with the condition that all claims arising out of employment (excluding certain claims) would be subject to arbitration. The acceptance was when Plaintiffs signed the employment contracts including the arbitration provision. The terms of the Agreement are definite and certain because they include what claims are subject to arbitration, and Plaintiffs consented to those terms when they electronically signed the Agreement. Plaintiffs argued the motion to compel should be denied because the Agreement does not amount to a valid contract for lack of mutuality of obligation. However, the Court opines that the Agreement does not fail for lack of mutuality of obligation or consideration. The Agreement clearly states: "In consideration of employment or continued employment, I agree The Fremont Company has the right to elect binding arbitration, as set forth in this Agreement." It is undisputed that Plaintiffs signed the Arbitration Agreement and continued to work for Defendant thereafter, the Court adds. Plaintiffs asserted the Agreement is unenforceable because it is substantively and procedurally unconscionable. Ohio's unconscionability doctrine has two components: (1) substantive unconscionability, i.e., unfair and unreasonable contract terms, and (2) procedural unconscionability, i.e., individualized circumstances surrounding each of the parties to a contract such that no voluntary meeting of the minds was possible. Both elements must be present to find a contract unconscionable. Plaintiff asserted the Agreement is procedurally unconscionable because: (1) The parties had unequal bargaining power; (2) The terms of the agreement were not explained to him; and (3) he was not represented by counsel. When determining if an agreement is procedurally unconscionable, Ohio courts consider factors including age, education, intelligence, business acumen and experience, relative bargaining power, who drafted the contract, whether the terms were explained to the weaker party, and whether alteration in the printed terms were possible. The Ohio Supreme Court has held, the crucial question is whether 'each party to the contract, considering his obvious education or lack of it, had a reasonable opportunity to understand the terms of the contract, or were the important terms hidden in a maze of fine print'." The Sixth Circuit has further held unequal bargaining power alone is not enough; there must be a vast disparity. Here, the parties' relative bargaining power is unequal due to the nature of an employee-employer relationship; however, it does not appear to be a vast disparity. Although Defendant drafted the Agreement, the Court finds the terms of the Agreement were laid out on one page, in plain English, and not buried in fine print. The Court finds that the language in the Agreement precluding Plaintiffs from pursuing legal action in any state or federal court and specifying they will not have a right to a trial by jury, are direct and easily understandable to an average person without requiring advanced education or specialized business knowledge to comprehend. Further, Plaintiffs were allowed to take however long was necessary to read and understand the terms of the Agreement. Thus, the agreement is not procedurally unconscionable, rules the Court. Because Plaintiff has not demonstrated procedural unconscionability the Court need not examine substantive unconscionability as a showing on both prongs of the test is required, rules Judge Knepp. The Agreement states: "All fees and expenses of the arbitration, including a transcript if either party requests, will be borne by the parties equally." The Supreme Court has held, where, as here, a party seeks to invalidate an arbitration agreement on the ground that arbitration would be prohibitively expensive, that party bears the burden of showing the likelihood of incurring such costs." Plaintiff fails to show arbitration would be prohibitively expensive. Cost-splitting provisions are not per se unconscionable and must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Here, Plaintiffs have not provided evidence that the costs would be so high as to be chilling or have a deterrent effect. Since Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden, the cost-splitting provision stands, notes the Court. Defendant asked the Court to dismiss the proceedings if the case is compelled to arbitration. Plaintiff argued the Court should stay the proceedings rather than dismiss. The Supreme Court recently clarified that the proper procedure is to stay a filed lawsuit when a trial court compels arbitration: "When a district court finds that a lawsuit involves an arbitrable dispute, and a party requests a stay pending arbitration, Section 3 of the FAA compels the court to stay the proceeding. Therefore, the Court stays the proceedings as to Plaintiffs Baker and Arnett. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BOTwco FULLBEAUTY BRANDS: Class Certification Bid Amended to Feb. 5, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA BROOMES, MARY UHT, BARBARA FITCH, JESSICA HILLIS, CHRISTINA THIELE-YANCY, and KELLEY ROBINSON, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, v. FULLBEAUTY BRANDS OPERATIONS, LLC, an Indiana limited liability company, Case No. 3:24-cv-03558-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Rita F. Lin entered an order extending deadlines and modifying scheduling order as follows: Event Proposed New Deadline Joint letter with name of the mediator Nov. 4, 2025 and date of the mediation: Deadline to complete ADR: Jan. 2, 2026 Motion for Class Certification: Feb. 5, 2026 Opposition to Motion for Class Certification: Mar. 16, 2026 Reply in support of Motion for Class Apr. 13, 2026 Certification: Class Certification Motion Hearing: May 5, 2026 On March 5, 2025, the Court held the Initial Case Management Conference and entered the Scheduling Order which set deadlines through class certification and for ADR. On July 18, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file a Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”). The TAC was filed on July 21, 2025. The TAC adds five named plaintiffs and expands the putative class to include purchasers of certain non-Eloquii-brand goods. Fullbeauty offers shirt, paint, shoes, sandals, and other related products. A copy of the Court's order dated July 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4osPN1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alexander E. Wolf, Esq. Caleb Marker, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 South Beverly Drive, Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (872) 365-7060 E-mail: awolf@milberg.com caleb.marker@zimmreed.com - and - Jessica Meng Liu, Esq. Charles Toomajian III, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 6420 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1080 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (877) 500-8780 E-mail: jessica.liu@zimmreed.com charles.toomajian@zimmreed.com - and - Winston S. Hudson, Esq. JENNINGS & EARLEY PLLC 500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 110 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 255-8569 E-mail: winston@jefirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Jacob M. Harper, Esq. Heather F. Canner, Esq. Joseph Elie-Meyers, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 350 South Grand Ave., 27th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 633-6800 E-mail: jacobharper@dwt.com heathercanner@dwt.com josepheliemeyers@dwt.com GAP INC: Misrepresents Value of Store Cards, Miller Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE GAP, INC. and OLD NAVY, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-06550 (N.D. Cal., August 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for unjust enrichment and violations of the California Unfair Competition Law and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The case arises from the Defendants' practice of misrepresenting the value of their merchandise return cards ("store cards"). According to the complaint, these store cards are given to consumers in exchange for the return of products that were purchased at the Defendants' stores. However, the Defendants failed to reveal to consumers that the store cards are completely non-refundable and in fact have no mechanism to refund the value of the store cards, even in situations where state law requires it. Even after the point of sale, the Defendants do not reveal that their store card balances are completely non-refundable until users attempt to obtain their remaining balances. As a result of the Defendants' unfair practice, the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers suffered losses. The Gap, Inc. is an operator of clothing shops, headquartered in San Francisco, California. Old Navy, LLC is an operator of clothing shops, headquartered in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, PA 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com - and - Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, PA 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: sbogdanovich@bursor.com GOLDEN TOUCH: Goularte Sues Over Labor Law Breaches --------------------------------------------------- WILDSON GOULARTE, Plaintiff v. GOLDEN TOUCH LOGISTICS, LLC, and ULUKBEK KHASANOV, individually, Defendants, Case No. 9:25-cv-80933 (S.D. Fla., July 28, 2025) alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Florida Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff was employed as a truck driver with Golden Touch Logistics, LLC from August of 2024 until his constructive discharge on February 17, 2025. Allegedly, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were not compensated for time spent getting fuel, performing minor maintenance on their trucks, and short rest breaks. In addition, GTL forced its drivers to drive around the clock, in violation of Department of Transportation Regulations. Among other things, throughout his employment, GTL also made improper deductions from Plaintiff's pay, says the suit. Golden Touch Logistics, LLC is a trucking company that conducts business throughout the United States, including Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Meagan McCarthy, Esq. SCOTT LAW TEAM 250 South Central Boulevard, Suite 205 Jupiter, FL 33458 Telephone: (561) 653-0008 Facsimile: (561) 653-0020 E-mail: MMcarthy@scottlawteam.com mail@scottlawteam.com GOOGLE LLC: Taylor Considers Sealing of Class Docs -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH TAYLOR, EDWARD MLAKAR, MICK CLEARY, EUGENE ALVIS, and JENNIFER NELSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-07956-VKD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their administrative motion to consider whether another party's material should be sealed with respect to (1) the Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion to exclude expert testimony and supporting materials, and (2) the Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion to certify class under Fed. R. Civ. 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) and supporting materials. The documents and/or portions of documents that have been designated by Google as "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential" pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order entered on August 6, 2024 (ECF 107) in this matter, and which Plaintiffs seek to provisionally file under seal, are listed below: Document Portions to be Sealed The Plaintiffs' reply in support of Document in its entirety motion to exclude expert testimony Ex. C to declaration of Pamela I. Document in its entirety Yaacoub in support of the Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion to exclude expert Testimony, Csupo v. Google Trial Transcript excerpts The Plaintiffs' reply in support of Document in its entirety motion to certify class under Fed. R. Civ. 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) Google operates as a global technology company specializing in internet related services and products. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1XUxRc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Elizabeth M. Pipkin, Esq. Ann M. Ravel, Esq. McMANIS FAULKNER 50 West San Fernando Street, 10th Floor San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 279-8700 Facsimile: (408) 279-3244 E-mail: epipkin@mcmanislaw.com aravel@mcmanislaw.com - and - Glen E. Summers, Esq. Karma M. Giulianelli, Esq. Lindley J. Brenza, Esq. Jonathan Jacob Marsh, Esq. BARTLIT BECK LLP 1801 Wewatta Street, Suite 1200 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 592-3100 - and - Marc A. Wallenstein, Esq. George A. Zelcs, Esq. Ryan Z. Cortazar, Esq. Chad E. Bell, Esq. Pamela I. Yaacoub, Esq. Carol L. O'Keefe, Esq. Michael E. Klenov, Esq. KOREIN TILLERY LLC 205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1950 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 641-9750 Facsimile: (312) 641-9751 GRACE KNUTSON: Filing for Renewed Class Cert Bid Due August 15 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEAN ROBILLARD and SARA DOMRES, v. GRACE KNUTSON and TROY ENGER, Case No. 2:24-cv-01077-JPS (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge J.P. Stadtmueller entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Renewed Motion For Class Aug. 15, 2025 Certification: -- Interim Settlement Report: Jan. 5, 2026 -- Dispositive Motions: Jan. 30, 2026 A copy of the Court's order dated July 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AeR2do at no extra charge.[CC] GREIF INC: Ryan Class Cert Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RYAN et al v. GREIF, INC. et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-40089 (D. Mass., Filed Aug. 2, 2022), the Hon. Judge Margaret R. Guzman entered an order denying without prejudice and with leave to refile Plaintiffs' motion to certify class. The nature of suit states Contract Product Liability. Greif produces industrial packaging and containers.[CC] HIGHGATE HOTELS: Murthada Seeks Conditional Collective Status ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AL SADIK MURTHADA, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, v. HIGHGATE HOTELS, L.P., d/b/a ROYALTON PARK AVENUE HOTEL, 420 PARK FB LLC, and IN GOOD COMPANY HG INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-08615-VSB-HJR (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for conditional collective certification. Highgate is a hotel management, investment, technology and development firm. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kLTrio at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 HOLY SEE: Court Upholds Dismissal Under Sovereign Immunity ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Erik Blecher, James Bruno, Robert Burns, Emmett Caldwell, Louis Castiglione, Kevin Cavanaugh, Brian Compasso, Wayne Compasso, Vincent Dillard, John Gillen, Stephen Hurn, Joseph Jockel, Marianne Agnello, Dianne Mondello, Vernon Allen Jones, Michael Leonard, John O'Connor, Thomas O'Connor, Daniel Rice, Joseph Russo, Tom Sparks, Peter Senatore, Matthew Sexton, Lawrence Smith, Jordan Taylor, Desiree Callender, Jacqueline Regan, Michael Gill, Neil M. Curtis, and Robert Lisiecki, on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The Holy See, AKA The Apostolic See, Defendant-Appellee, Docket No. 22-2840 (2nd Cir.), Circuit Judges Raggi, Lohier, and Carney of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment dismissing the action for lack of jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The Court of Appeals determined that the discretionary function exclusion from the tortious activity exception of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act bars the court from exercising jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant. Plaintiffs alleged Defendant promulgated a mandatory policy of secrecy that governed how its dioceses and bishops handled reports of sexual abuse by clerics. The policy, titled "Instruction on the Manner of Proceeding in Cases of Solicitation" or "Crimen Sollicitationis," was initially promulgated in 1922 and reiterated in documents issued in 1962, 2001, and 2010. According to Plaintiffs' allegations, the policy established specific internal procedures for investigating and responding to allegations and reports of child sexual abuse within the Catholic Church and imposed a requirement of strict secrecy outside of these specified processes, under penalty of excommunication. The policy allegedly mandated that bishops not disclose allegations of abuse to law enforcement, instruct victims and their families not to report incidents of abuse to law enforcement, and provide no warning or disclosure. According to Plaintiffs, the Policy emboldened sexual predators among [the] clergy, created an environment in which predators could engage in child sexual abuse with impunity, and placed children in the dioceses at foreseeable risk of harm. The District Court, presided over by Judge Oetken, initially granted Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The court determined that while the tortious activity exception covered Plaintiffs' claims with respect to the bishops, the discretionary function exclusion from the tortious activity exception nonetheless barred jurisdiction. The District Court concluded that the bishops' challenged conduct was discretionary and found that any alleged decision by bishops about whether to warn or report was susceptible to policy analysis and therefore covered by the discretionary function exclusion. The Court of Appeals applied the Berkovitz/Gaubert test, which establishes a two-pronged framework for determining whether the discretionary function exclusion applies. Under this test, jurisdiction is barred where the challenged act involves an element of judgment or choice and the judgment is grounded in considerations of public policy or susceptible to policy analysis. The court determined that the bishops' challenged conduct involved discretionary acts despite Plaintiffs' arguments to the contrary. Circuit Judge Carney, writing for the court, explained that the alleged breach of the bishops' duty to disclose or report is premised on the discretionary assignment of clergy within the bishops' territory. The court noted that the bishops' day-to-day management decisions regarding how and where to assign clergy is a quintessentially discretionary act, requiring judgment as to which of a range of permissible courses is the wisest. The court emphasized that based on their own account, Plaintiffs would not have been harmed but for discretionary acts by bishops. Addressing Plaintiffs' argument that the discretionary function exclusion should not apply because bishops were following mandatory policy, the court relied on Supreme Court precedent. The court explained that if a regulation mandates particular conduct, and the employee obeys the direction, the Government will be protected because the action will be deemed in furtherance of the policies which led to the promulgation of the regulation. The court concluded that the discretionary function exclusion from the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act's tortious activity exception bars the exercise of jurisdiction over claims that challenge employees' compliance with a foreign sovereign's mandatory policy. The court found this rule makes sense in light of the concerns animating Congress in crafting of the Federal Tort Claims Act's discretionary function exception. For the second prong, the court determined that the bishops' discretionary acts in assigning clergy to particular parishes, churches, and schools are the kind of resource allocation decisions that courts have consistently held to be susceptible to policy analysis. Circuit Judge Carney explained that Defendant's policy confining disclosures of alleged abuse to specified internal mechanisms and the bishops' continuing to assign clergy suspected of abuse to parishes could have been the product of weighing various policy considerations -- not only of factors like parishioners' well-being, but also of factors like the church's reputation, pastoral stability, low ordination rates, or staffing shortages. The Court of Appeals emphasized that while it in no way condones the horrific abuse alleged by Plaintiffs, the question was whether Defendant, a foreign sovereign, is immune under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act from suit in the courts of this country for the bishops' alleged failures to warn and to report, not whether the secrecy policy or the bishops' actions were justifiable. Therefore, the court concluded that because Plaintiffs' allegations of harm hinge on discretionary actions by the bishops and Plaintiffs fail to allege that the bishops' conduct violated Defendant's mandatory secrecy policy, Berkovitz/Gaubert prong one is satisfied. And because the challenged conduct was susceptible to policy analysis, Berkovitz/Gaubert prong two is met. The Court of Appeals decision can be found at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KTr5s7 HOT ARCHERY: Inflates Prices of Archery Products, Close Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- SHANE CLOSE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOYT ARCHERY, INC. ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00617-JNP (D. Utah, July 28, 2025) accuses the Defendants of violating the federal antitrust laws in connection with Defendants' conspiracy to fix the prices in the market for archery products sold in the United States from January 1, 2014 through present. The alleged conspiracy has been orchestrated by Archery Trade Association, Inc., which enforces collective implementation and enforcement of minimum advertised pricing policies. The said MAP policies seek to prevent archery product manufacturers and archery product retailers from competing on prices or otherwise undercutting their horizontal competitors at points of sale, says the suit. Headquartered in Salt Lake City, UT, Hoyt Archery, Inc. manufactures archery and bowhunting equipment. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark W. Pugsley, Esq. PUGSLEY WOOD LLP 350 East 400 Street, Suite 400 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 370-9800 Facsimile: (256) 270-2267 E-mail: mark@pugsleywood.com - and - Michelle C. Clerkin, Esq. Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq. SPIRO HARRISON & NELSON 40 Exchange Place, Suite 1100 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (646) 880-8850 Facsimile: (973) 232-0887 HOTELENGINE INC: Albines Labor Suit Moved From D. Del. to D. Colo. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled MOISES ALBINES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HOTELENGINE, INC. d/b/a Engine, Case No. 1:25-cv-00554, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on August 5, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the District of Colorado assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-02409-CNS to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this suit against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in the Fair Labor Standards Act. HotelEngine, Inc., doing business as Engine, is a travel technology company headquartered in Denver, Colorado. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kimberly A. Evans, Esq. Robert Erikson, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1120 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 499-3601 Email: kim@blockleviton.com robby@blockleviton.com - and - Jason M. Leviton, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398-5600 - and - Melissa L. Stewart, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 Facsimile: (646) 509-2060 - and - Adam Koshkin, Esq. Kaelyn Mahar, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP One California, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (202) 929-0640 Facsimile: (202) 847-4410 - and - Mary Jo Lowrey, Esq. LOWREY PARADY LEBSACK, LLC 1490 Lafayette Street, Suite 304 Denver, CO 80218 Telephone: (303) 593-2595 HOYT ARCHERY: Controls Archery Equipment Prices, Montpetit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- BROCK MONTPETIT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOYT ARCHERY, INC.; ARCHERY TRADE ASSOCIATION, INC.; BOWTECH, INC.; BPS DIRECT, LLC D/B/A BASS PRO SHOPS; CABELA'S LLC; DICK'S SPORTING GOODS, INC.; JAY'S SPORTS, INC. D/B/A JAY'S SPORTING GOODS; KINSEY'S OUTDOORS, INC.; LANCASTER ARCHERY SUPPLY, INC.; MATHEWS ARCHERY, INC.; NEUINTEL, LLC D/B/A/ PRICESPIDER F/K/A ORIS INTELLIGENCE; PRECISION SHOOTING EQUIPMENT, INC.; TRACKSTREET, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00653 (W.D. Wis., August 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act, State Antitrust Laws, and Consumer Protection and Deceptive Trade Practices State Statutes. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged anticompetitive agreement to artificially raise and maintain prices of archery equipment. According to the complaint, the Defendants colluded to implement and enforce minimum advertised pricing policies to create and maintain a supra-competitive price floor for all of their equipment. The Plaintiff and Class members have sustained injury to their property and suffered damages by having paid higher prices for archery equipment than they would have absent the Defendants' illegal, anticompetitive conduct. Hoyt Archery, Inc. is an archery equipment company with its primary place of business in Salt Lake City, Utah. Bowtech, Inc. is an archery equipment company with its primary place of business in Eugene, Oregon. Mathews Archery, Inc. is an archery equipment company with its primary place of business in Sparta, Wisconsin. Precision Shooting Equipment, Inc. is an archery equipment company with its primary place of business in Tucson, Arizona. Cabela's LLC is a retail company with its primary place of business in Sidney, Nebraska. DICK'S Sporting Goods, Inc. is a retail company with its primary place of business in Coraopolis, Pennsylvania. BPS Direct, LLC, doing business as Bass Pro Shops, is a retail company with its primary place of business in Springfield, Missouri. Jay's Sports, Inc., doing business as Jay's Sporting Goods, is a retail company with its primary place of business in Clare, Michigan. Kinsey's Outdoors, Inc. is a retail company with its primary place of business in Mount Joy, Pennsylvania. Lancaster Archery Supply, Inc. is an archery distributor with its primary place of business in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Archery Trade Association is a trade group focused on the sports of archery and bowhunting with its primary place of business in New Ulm, Minnesota. TrackStreet, Inc. is a software provider with its primary place of business in Las Vegas, Nevada. NeuIntel, LLC, doing business as PriceSpider, formerly known as Oris Intelligence, is a software provider with its primary place of business in Irvine, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey D. Klobucar, Esq. Amanda M. Williams, Esq. BASSFORD REMELE 100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1500 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-3000 Facsimile: (612) 333-8829 Email: awilliams@bassford.com HYATT CORP: Bid for Sanctions in Jimenez ADA Suit Granted in Part ----------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Chi Soo Kim of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted in part and denied in part Hyatt Corporation's motion for sanctions in the case captioned as FLOR JIMENEZ, Plaintiff, v. HYATT CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-03028-TLN-CSK (E.D. Cal.). Defendant Hyatt Corporation has moved for terminating sanctions based on Plaintiff Flor Jimenez's alleged willful destruction of evidence or failure to preserve evidence. A hearing was held on June 20, 2025. Plaintiff, a visually impaired and legally blind individual, brings a putative class action against Defendant challenging the accessibility of Defendant's website to visually impaired and blind individuals. Plaintiff brings two claims alleging violations of: (1) the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101, et seq.; and (2) the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civil Code Sec. 51, et seq. Plaintiff alleges that she visited Defendant's website using screen reading software to make hotel reservations for a trip she was planning. When visiting Defendant's website, Plaintiff alleges she encountered multiple access barriers which denied her full and equal access to the facilities, goods, and services offered. This has allegedly resulted in denying Plaintiff the ability to search for and book a hotel room using Defendant's website. She alleges Defendant's website is not properly coded to work with screen reading software. Plaintiff further alleges that these barriers deter her and class members from visiting Defendant's physical locations. The deadline for class certification-related discovery has been extended multiple times at the request of the parties, and is currently set to close on September 26, 2025. The deadline for Plaintiff's motion for class certification is January 16, 2026. Defendant argues terminating sanctions are warranted because Plaintiff willfully destroyed or failed to preserve critical, case dispositive evidence stored on the computer she used to access Hyatt's website, including, for example, data reflecting the URL addresses of the specific webpages she visited, emails purportedly relating to her intent to visit Hyatt's hotels, and her IP address and related computer data that is directly at issue in this case. Due to Plaintiff's destruction or failure to preserve, Defendant contends it cannot determine which webpages Plaintiff allegedly visited where she encountered the accessibility barriers she challenges in this lawsuit, prejudicing Defendant in its ability to defend itself. Plaintiff argues that she did not willfully destroy any evidence, and the deletion of her browser history was due to her computer's automatic deletion of browser history. In addition, Plaintiff contends that her browser history and emails are not relevant. Plaintiff further argues that regardless, she did not have any preservation obligations in May 2023 and October 2023 when she visited the Hyatt website because she did not anticipate litigation at those times. The Court finds Defendant has met its burden to show that Plaintiff failed to preserve or destroyed electronic evidence that she had notice was relevant to litigation before destruction. Plaintiff's preservation obligation began on at least May 15, 2023. Plaintiff's actions establish that she was on notice that this evidence was relevant because she took screenshots of her browsing history on both May 15, 2023, and October 29, 2023. In addition to these actions, Plaintiff was also on notice that this evidence was relevant because she has been filing federal lawsuits challenging website accessibility since at least May 2021. According to the Court, as to Plaintiff's internet browser history, this information should have been preserved. Plaintiff's claims, as an individual and on behalf of a putative class, are based on her access of Defendant Hyatt's website and allegations of website accessibility for visually impaired or blind individuals using screen reading software. The Court declines to decide whether Plaintiff's conduct was willful because less drastic sanctions than dismissal are available. The Court therefore orders Plaintiff to submit her personal computer that was used on May 15, 2023 and October 29, 2023 to access Hyatt's website to Defendant for a forensic examination as outlined in Defendant's July 8, 2025 Supplemental Brief and July 8, 2025 John Jorgensen Declaration. The Court further orders Plaintiff to pay for the forensic examination of her computer, which is required due to Plaintiff's failure to preserve her internet browser history. Though sanctions are warranted for spoliation of Plaintiff's emails related to her bona fide intent to use Hyatt's website to book hotel rooms, the Court declines to decide whether Plaintiff's conduct was willful and terminating sanctions are not warranted based on the information currently before the Court on the pending motion. The Court further declines to impose sanctions as to the emails at this time given the early stage of this action, which is still in Phase I class certification discovery and before any class certification motion has been filed. Defendant is not without recourse given the early stage of this action. As to Plaintiff's IP address(es), it is unclear whether this information may be retrievable. The Court therefore concludes that Defendant has not carried its burden as to its spoliation claim regarding Plaintiff's IP address(es). For all these reasons, the Court rules that: 1. Defendant's request for judicial notice granted. 2. Defendant's motion for sanctions is granted in part and denied in part. A copy of the Court's August 1, 2025 Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xxDdzD from PacerMonitor.com HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Class Suit Over Palisades Braking System ------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Whitaker, writing for The News Wheel, reports that the Hyundai Palisade, a big name in the SUV world, is now caught in a legal wrangle. A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hyundai over issues with the Palisade's braking system. This news affects not only current and future Palisade owners but also puts a spotlight on Hyundai's reputation and finances. How the Hyundai Palisade took off The Hyundai Palisade is the biggest ride in Hyundai's lineup and one of its biggest hits. Launched during a surge in the SUV market and right around the start of the pandemic, it quickly won over many buyers with its roomy design and up-to-date features. But now, safety concerns linked to its braking system might put a damper on its success. Claims of braking glitches A class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, accusing Hyundai of not addressing a serious stopping issue with the Palisade. The suit alleges that defects exist in the anti-lock braking system (ABS) and/or the traction control system of 2023-2025 Hyundai Palisade SUVs. Specifically, it claims that on uneven or rough roads, these vehicles misread wheel speeds, which leads to longer stopping distances. Reportedly, the problem comes from wheel speed sensors that seem to misread wheel slippage and trigger a delayed response from the ABS module (meaning the brakes take a bit longer to act). This flaw raises safety worries for anyone driving on bumpy or uneven roads. A plaintiff's experience and what Hyundai knew One of the plaintiffs, Camille Maldonado, said she noticed this "ABS defect" soon after buying her 2024 Palisade. She mentioned that about once a week, while driving on rough roads, her vehicle would feel like it was sliding and would take longer than expected to stop. Even after she brought it up with her dealer, they told her that this ABS behavior was normal. [GN] IDVC LLC: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Lopez Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IDVC, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06386 (S.D.N.Y., August 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://copperfitusa.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. IDVC, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal IDVC LLC: Faces Lopez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store --------------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IDVC, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06386 (S.D.N.Y., August 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://copperfitusa.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. IDVC, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal ILLINOIS: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Heather Kainz, et al., on behalf of Themselves and a Class of Similarly Situated Persons, v. Illinois Department of Corrections, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01250-JEH-RLH (C.D. Ill.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting them an extension of time, up to and including Sept. 12, 2025, to respond to the Plaintiffs' anticipated class certification motion, and for such further relief this Court deems reasonable and just. DOC Defendants intend to thoroughly examine and respond to the arguments and evidence presented by Plaintiffs and expect that a comprehensive response will require more than the 14 days provided for by Local Rule 7.1(B)(2). On July 24, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Leave to File Memorandum in Excess of Fifteen Pages indicating that they intend to file a motion for class certification on August 1, 2025. The Defendant operates 25 adult correctional centers as well as boot camps, work camps and adult transition centers. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4HTXuL at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: M. Nieves Bolaños, Esq. Patrick Cowlin, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C. 111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2300 Chicago, IL 60601 E-mail: mnbolanos@hq-law.com pcowlin@hq-law.com - and - Patricia A. Stamler, Esq. Elizabeth C. Thomson, Esq. Matthew J. Turchyn, Esq. HERTZ SCHRAM PC 1760 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 300 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 E-mail: pstamler@hertzschram.com sweiss@hertzschram.com lthomson@hertzschram.com mturchyn@hertzschram.com - and - Martin A. Dolan, Esq. DOLAN LAW PC 10 South LaSalle Street #3702 Chicago, IL 60603 E-mail: mdolan@dolanlegal.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael A. Warner Jr., Esq. Hailey M. Golds, Esq. Reva G. Ghadge, Esq. FRANCZEK P.C. 300 S. Wacker Dr. Suite 3400 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 986-0300 E-mail: maw@franczek.com hmg@franczek.com rgg@franczek.com - and - Denise Baker-Seal, Esq. Kara Burke, Esq. Jessica Holliday, Esq. BROWN & JAMES, P.C. Richland Plaza I 525 West Main Street Suite 200 Belleville, IL 62220-1547 E-mail: dbaker-seal@bjpc.com karab@bjpc.com jholliday@bjpc.com - and - Ambrose McCall, Esq. Robert T. Shannon, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 151 North Franklin Street, Suite 2500 Chicago, IL 60606 E-mail: AMcCall@hinshawlaw.com rshannon@hinshawlaw.com J&D TRANSIT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gorley and Hoover Allege ---------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID GORLEY and EVAN HOOVER, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. J&D TRANSIT, INC. and JERRY VERHELST, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-02414 (D. Kan., July 28, 2025) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as a delivery vehicle drivers. Although Plaintiffs and the other vehicle drivers routinely worked over 40 hours in a workweek, the Defendants did not pay them one-and-a-half times their regular rate of pay for all their overtime hours worked, says the suit. J&D Transit, Inc. provides transportation service, package and delivery to the FedEx customers in Kansas and Arkansas. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Barry R. Grissom, Esq. Conner Mitchell, Esq. Jake Miller, Esq. GRISSOM MILLER LAW FIRM, LLC 1600 Genessee Street, Ste. 460 Kansas City, MO 64102 Telephone: (816) 336-1213 Facsimile: (816) 384-1623 E-mail: barry@grissommiller.com cam@grissommiller.com jake@grissommiller.com J&T HARVESTING: Class Cert Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rubio Flores, et al., v. J&T Harvesting LLC, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-02853 (D. Colo., Filed Oct. 15, 2024), the Hon. Judge Daniel D. Domenico entered an order referring motion to Certify Class to Mag. Judge N. Reid Neureiter. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).[CC] J.M. SMUCKER: Bleichmar Probes Potential Securities Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------------------ Leading securities law firm Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP announces an investigation into The J.M. Smucker Company (NYSE: SJM) for potential violations of the federal securities laws. If you invested in J.M. Smucker, you are encouraged to obtain additional information by visiting: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/the-jm-smucker-company-class-action-lawsuit. Why Is J.M. Smucker being Investigated? J.M. Smucker manufactures and markets branded food and beverage products. In November 2023, the company completed an acquisition of Hostess Brands, Inc., a manufacturer and marketer of sweet baked goods brands. The company stated that the Hostess acquisition was "highly complementary" and that "underlying trends in snacking and specifically sweet snacking still bode well for the category." In truth, it appears the company's Sweet Baked Snacks segment, which includes Hostess, significantly deteriorated in the face of declining trends in sweet snacking. The Stock Declines as the Truth Is Revealed On June 10, 2025, J.M. Smucker reported its Q4 2025 financial results and announced that it recognized a $867 million impairment charge related to the goodwill of its Sweet Baked Snacks segment and a $113 million impairment charge related to the Hostess brand trademark driven by the "continued underperformance of the Sweet Baked Snacks segment." On this news, the price of J.M. Smucker stock fell $17.44 per share, or more than 18%, from $111.85 per share on June 9, 2025, to $94.41 per share on June 10, 2025. What Can You Do? If you invested in J.M. Smucker you may have legal options and are encouraged to submit your information to the firm. All representation is on a contingency fee basis, there is no cost to you. Shareholders are not responsible for any court costs or expenses of litigation. The firm will seek court approval for any potential fees and expenses. Submit your information by visiting: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/the-jm-smucker-company-class-action-lawsuit Or contact: Ross Shikowitz, Esq. (212) 789-3619 ross@bfalaw.com Why Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP? BFA is a leading international law firm representing plaintiffs in securities class actions and shareholder litigation. It has been named a top plaintiff law firm by Chambers USA, The Legal 500, and ISS SCAS, and its attorneys have been named "Elite Trial Lawyers" by the National Law Journal, among the top "500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers" by Lawdragon, "Titans of the Plaintiffs' Bar" by Law360 and "SuperLawyers" by Thomson Reuters. Among its recent notable successes, BFA recovered over $900 million in value from Tesla, Inc.'s Board of Directors, as well as $420 million from Teva Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd. For more information about BFA and its attorneys, please visit https://www.bfalaw.com. https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/the-jm-smucker-company-class-action-lawsuit [GN] JLM DECORATING: Court Decertifies Rule 23 Class in Martinez ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Israel Martinez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. JLM Decorating, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02969-SN (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sarah Netburn entered an order decertifying the Rule 23 class. The Plaintiffs are ordered to distribute the proposed notice at ECF No. 221-1 to the 12 class members who received the first class action notice. Accordingly, the Rule 23 class is decertified because there no longer is adequacy of representation, and a class action is no longer a superior method. JLM is a full-service painting, wallcovering & decorative firm. A copy of the Court's order dated July 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5Mgnsg at no extra charge.[CC] KRISTI NOEM: C.M. Plaintiffs File Renewed Class Certification Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as C.M., et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Kristi Noem, Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security, in her official capacity, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-23182-RAR (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting renewed motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs contend that the proposed Class and Subclass satisfy the requirements of Rule 23. They request that the Court grant class certification to allow the provision of relief for the Class and Subclass. Given the emergency nature of this relief, the Plaintiffs request that, should the court require additional time to consider the class certification, it grant provisional class certification in connection with a preliminary injunction. Thie action is filed on behalf of a class of detained individuals held at the immigration detention facility known as “Alligator Alcatraz. Specifically, the Plaintiffs seek certification of the following class: "All persons who are currently, or in the future, held at the Alligator Alcatraz detention facility." The Plaintiffs also seek certification of the following subclass: "All persons who are currently, or in the future, held at the Alligator Alcatraz detention facility, and seek release on bond." A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=guGId1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul R. Chavez, Esq. Christina LaRocca, Esq. AMERICANS FOR IMMIGRANT JUSTICE 2200 NW 72nd Ave Miami, FL 33152 Telephone: (786) 218-3381 E-mail: pchavez@aijustice.org clarocca@aijustice.org - and - Amy Godshall, Esq. Daniel Tilley, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF FLORIDA 4343 West Flagler Street, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33134 Telephone: (786) 363-2714 E-mail: agodshall@aclufl.org dtilley@aclufl.org - and - Eunice H. Cho, Esq. Corene Kendrick, Esq. Kyle Virgien, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 915 15th St. N.W., 7th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 548-6616 E-mail: echo@aclu.org ckendrick@aclu.org kvirgien@aclu.org KRISTI NOEM: Class Cert Bid in C.M. Suit Tossed as Moot ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as C.M. et al v. Kristi Noem, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-23182 (S.D. Fla., Filed July 16, 2025), the Hon. Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz, II entered an order denying as moot the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. To the extent that the Renewed Motion relies on or references declarations or exhibits attached to the First Motion, the Court will consider these declarations or exhibits as part of the record, the Court says. The denial of the First Motion as moot does not require Plaintiffs to refile said documents, the Court adds. The nature of suit states Civil Rights. Kristi Noem is the 8th Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.[CC] LATINOS RESTAURANTE: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Castro Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- Enderson Castro, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Latinos Restaurante Corp, Wilson Aguilar, and Mariluz Rodriguez, individually, Defendants, Case No. 0:25-cv-61506-WPD (S.D. Fla., July 28, 2025) seeks to recover monetary damages for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant employed Plaintiff Castro as a non-exempt, full-time restaurant employee from approximately January 17, 2023, to May 30, 2025, Allegedly, the Plaintiff worked a minimum of 52.5 hours weekly, and he was paid for all his hours, but he was not paid for overtime hours. In addition, Plaintiff did not take bona fide lunchtime periods, says the suit. Latinos Restaurante is a Latin restaurant located at 1754 W Hillsboro Blvd, Deerfield Beach, FL. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com LIBERTY MUTUAL: Seeks Leave to Seal Class Cert Opposition Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIANE WATTS, ANTHONY WATTS, and ADAM PIZZITOLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL PERSONAL INSURANCE COMPANY and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:23-cv-12845-BEM (D. Mass.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for leave to seal their opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, along with exhibits and one or more declarations in support of the opposition. Furthermore, the Defendants note that on April 30, 2025, this Court granted Plaintiffs' Consented-To Motion for Leave to Seal their Motion for Class Certification and that Plaintiffs' filed their Memorandum in Support of their Motion for Class Certification, a declaration in support thereof, and accompanying exhibits under seal pursuant to this Court's April 30, 2025 Order. Liberty offers a wide range of insurance products and services. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Kml8Dd at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Bridgitte E. Mott, Esq. Jacob A. Tosti, Esq. James A. Morsch, Esq. Stephanie L. Denker, Esq. Ryan M. Jerome, Esq. SAUL EWING LLP 131 Dartmouth Street, Suite 501 Boston, MA 02116 E-mail: Bridgitte.Mott@saul.com Jim.Morsch@saul.com Stephanie.Denker@saul.com Ryan.Jerome@saul.com Jacob.Tosti@saul.com LIGHTFIRE PARTNERS: Bid to Decertify Class in Aley Case Granted --------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Anne M. Nardacci of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York granted Plaintiff Rhonda Aley's motion to decertify the Rule 23 class in her case captioned as RHONDA ALEY, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LIGHTFIRE PARTNERS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:22-cv-00330-AMN-TWD (N.D.N.Y.). On August 30, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In the following months, the parties participated in mediation and reached a settlement comprised of the following elements: 1) individual resolution of Plaintiff Aley's Telephone Consumer Protection Act claim, conditioned on; 2) decertification of the class claims; and 3) dismissal of Plaintiff's claims with prejudice. Subsequently, Plaintiff Aley filed an unopposed motion to decertify the Rule 23 class, so that the parties can finalize their settlement and, in the near future, stipulate to dismissal of her claims. Considering the progression of the litigation, the Court finds that decertification is appropriate. Judge Nardacci explains, "Here, the class was certified less than a year ago, and Plaintiff has not given notice to any class members. Because notice was never sent, the statute of limitations has been tolled throughout the pendency of this action for members of the class. Moreover, the Court has not yet opined on the merits of the class claims, and absent class members will not be bound by the settlement. Therefore, at this early stage, decertification of the class is appropriate because no absent class members will be harmed by decertification." The Court also finds the record reflects that a class action is no longer "superior" to other methods of adjudication, and thus, "the requirements of Rule 23 are not in fact met. The parties have agreed, on the record, that Defendant's demonstrated financial status presents an obstacle to the efficient and just resolution of this dispute on behalf of the class. Indeed, the prospect of a bankrupt judgment debtor down at the end of the road does not satisfy anyone involved in the use of class action procedures, the Court concludes. A copy of the Court's Order dated August 4, 2025, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rR4uQR from PacerMonitor.com. Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq. KATSKY KORINS LLP 605 Third Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10158 E-mail: abellin@katskykorins.com - and - Andrew Perrong, Esq. PERRONG LAW LLC 2657 Mt. Carmel Ave. Glenside, PA 19038 - and - Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Latrice Latin Alexander, Esq. THE LATIN LAW GROUP, LLC 4751 Best Road, Suite 490 ESQ. College Park, GA 30337 E-mail: LLAlexander@thejustattorney.com Attorneys for Defendant: John D. Fitzpatrick, Esq. CUNNINGHAM DALMAN, P.C. 321 Settlers Rd. PO Box 1767 Holland, MI 49422 E-mail: jfitzpatrick@cunninghamdalman.com - and - William G. Bauer, Esq. WOODS OVIATT GILMAN LLP 1900 Bausch & Lomb Place Rochester, NY 14604 E-mail: wbauer@woodsoviatt.com LIME ROCK: Court Strikes Class Allegations in Oil Royalty Dispute ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Daniel L. Hovland of the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota granted on July 23, 2025, defendants' motion to strike class allegations in the case captioned Gregg B. Colton, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Lime Rock Resources GP V, L.P., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-123 (D.N.D.). The Plaintiff, Gregg B. Colton, brought this action on July 19, 2022, against Lime Rock Resources GP V, L.P., Lime Rock Resources III-A GP, LLC, Lime Rock Resources III-A, L.P., Lime Rock Resources IV-A GP, LLC, Lime Rock Resources IV-A, L.P., Company, a North Dakota corporation; Lime Rock Resources Operating Company, Inc., and Lime Rock Resources V-A, L.P., (collectively "Lime Rock"), which operates numerous oil and gas wells in North Dakota. As the operator of those wells, Lime Rock produces and markets oil, gas, and related hydrocarbons, then remits sales proceeds to parties who own interest in a given well, including royalty owners entitled to a share of production under an oil and gas lease. Colton owns a royalty interest under an oil and gas lease concerning property located in Dunn County, North Dakota, where Lime Rock operates a well. Colton brings this case on behalf of himself and class members pursuant to N.D.C.C. Section 47- 16-39.1, which governs the obligation of an operator arising under an oil and gas lease to pay royalties to mineral owners and a mineral owner's assignees. On March 20, 2023, Colton filed his first amended complaint. On April 7, 2023, Lime Rock filed a motion to partially dismiss the Plaintiff's first amended complaint and a motion to strike class allegations. On April 16, 2024, the Court granted the motion to partially dismiss and granted the motion to strike Subclass I and Subclass II allegations. On January 31, 2025, Colton filed its second amended complaint, which contains amended Subclass I and Subclass II class allegations. On February 27, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to strike the class allegations in the second amended class action complaint. Lime Rock contends the Plaintiff's class allegations fail to meet the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The second amended complaint alleged two primary claims. First, that Lime Rock made untimely payments to Colton and the class members of Subclass I without paying 18% interest as required by N.D.C.C. Section 47-16-39.1. Second, that Lime Rock violated oil and gas leases by reducing royalties owed to Colton and the class members of Subclass II by offsetting the negative value of excess natural gas expenses against royalties attributable to the production of oil. Colton defined Subclass I as "All persons and entities owning mineral interests in North Dakota wells operated by Lime Rock who, at any time since July 19, 2016, have: (1) Received one or more royalty payments or other mineral interest payments from Lime Rock on a date which was more than one hundred fifty days after the oil or gas produced by Lime Rock from a North Dakota well subject to the mineral owner's interest was marketed; and (2) As to any such payment, Lime Rock did not pay the 18% per annum interest required under N.D.C.C. Section 47-16-39.1." Colton defined Subclass II as "All persons and entities to whom Lime Rock has paid, or was obligated to pay, royalties on oil or natural gas produced from wells located in the State of North Dakota since July 19, 2016, pursuant to an oil and gas lease where Lime Rock's post-production expenses for natural gas were deducted from a royalty owner's oil royalties." The Court notes that Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets forth prerequisites for class actions, specifically: (1) The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) There are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) The claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) The representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The Court concluded that the proposed class definition does not meet the Rule 23(a)(3) typicality requirement for Subclass I and that the individualized issues in this case predominate over the common claim for relief by the proposed class. For Subclass II, the Court found that the individualized issues in Subclass II predominate over the common claim for relief by the proposed class and that Subclass II lacks the cohesion necessary to warrant class certification. Therefore, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to strike class allegations. Regarding typicality under Rule 23(a)(3), the Court determined that examining each proposed class member's claim would require verification of the ownership interests and a review of their lease with Lime Rock to determine whether the member holds the interest required to fall within N.D.C.C. Section 47-16-39.1. The Court found that evidence would need to be presented regarding the date the oil and gas was marketed for every payment to determine when the payment falls within the parameters of N.D.C.C. Section 47-16-39.1. The Court concluded that individual inquires would be necessary for every payment to determine whether any circumstances apply as to the particular payment that would preclude a royalty owner from receiving statutory interest under N.D.C.C. Section 47-16-39.1. Additionally, the Court recognized that the damages must be calculated separately for every member because the interest due to each member will vary based on when they received each late payment, how much in royalties were due, and whether one of the safe harbor provisions applied. Concerning predominance under Rule 23(b)(3), the Court stated that individual examinations for every class member are a necessary prerequisite to determining whether a particular mineral owner is a class member and whether N.D.C.C. Section 47-16-39.1 applies and was violated. The Court found that the verification of leases and ownership interests, the determination of the existence of safe harbor provisions, and the determination of proper notice regarding title disputes would require every proposed class member to present evidence for every payment that allegedly falls within the class allegations. For Subclass II, the Court noted that Colton did not limit Subclass II's definition to leases with the same or similar royalty language. The Court explained that under North Dakota law, the language of a contract is to govern if the language is clear. The Court acknowledged that Colton recognized there could be countless variations of lease language, which highlights the lack of typicality in Subclass II. The Court determined that Colton cannot advance a collective breach of contract action on the basis of multiple different contracts and that even slight variations in contract language could result in differing findings for Subclass II members' breach of contract claims. The Court found that in the absence of common contractual language, Colton's claims are not typical of the class he seeks to represent." A copy of the Court's order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AlPKtU MANHATTAN ASSOCIATES: Cops' Fund Suit Merged with Another Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Manhattan Associates, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2025, that on April 15, 2025, an alleged company shareholder filed a putative class action lawsuit, "City of Orlando Police Officers' Pension Fund v. Manhattan Associates, Inc., et al.," No. 1:25-cv-02089-TRJ (N.D. Ga.), in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against the company and certain of its current and former officers. The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 based on purported materially false and misleading statements and omissions allegedly made by the company between July 24, 2024 and February 7, 2025. The complaint sought class certification, unspecified monetary damages, and costs and attorneys' fees. On May 2, 2025, the court consolidated this with another action. On July 22, 2025, the lead plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint, in which the securities law violations alleged are the same as those alleged in the original actions and the proposed class period. The company plans to file a motion to dismiss the consolidated action on or before the September 22, 2025, due date set by the court. The company is a technology company into prepackaged software and is based in Atlanta, Georgia. MANHATTAN ASSOCIATES: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Georgia ------------------------------------------------------------------- Manhattan Associates, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2025, that on February 25, 2025, an alleged company shareholder filed a putative class action lawsuit, "Prime v. Manhattan Associates, Inc., et al.," No. 1:25-cv-00992-TRJ, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against the company and certain of its current and former officers. The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, based on purported materially false and misleading statements and omissions allegedly made by the company between October 22, 2024 and January 28, 2025. It sought class certification, unspecified monetary damages, and costs and attorneys' fees. On May 2, 2025, the court consolidated this with another action. On July 22, 2025, the lead plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint, in which the securities law violations alleged are the same as those alleged in the original actions and the proposed class period. The company plans to file a motion to dismiss the consolidated action on or before the September 22, 2025, due date set by the court. The company is a technology company into prepackaged software and is based in Atlanta, Georgia. MERCEDES-BENZ US: Failed to Pay All Hours Worked, Ford Says ----------------------------------------------------------- RONNIE FORD, RONALD RUSSELL, and TIMOTHY SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MERCEDES-BENZ GROUP AG, MERCEDES-BENZ GROUP, MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, MERCEDES-BENZ U.S. INTERNATIONAL, INC., and MERCEDES-BENZ VANS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-04348-TRJ (N.D. Ga., Aug. 4, 2025) is an action brought on behalf of individuals who are current and former non-exempt employees by the Defendants, challenging the Defendants' unlawful failure to pay for "off-the-clock" work during meal breaks and prior to and after Plaintiffs' and Class Members' regularly scheduled shifts, without receiving compensation for such "off-the-clock" activities in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and South Carolina Payment of Wages Act. The Plaintiffs and other Class Members are not members of a union. The Plaintiffs bring Count I of this lawsuit pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), as a collective action on behalf of themselves and the following collective: "All current and former non-exempt hourly employees of Defendants who worked at production facility and/or, parts distribution center, and/or vehicle preparation center in the United States between August 4, 2022, and the present (the "FLSA Collective"). The Plaintiffs bring Count I of this lawsuit pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), as a collective action on behalf of themselves and the following collective: "All current and former non-exempt hourly employees of Defendants who received non-discretionary bonuses between Aug. 4, 2022, and the present in the United States (the "Regular Rate Collective"). Plaintiff Ford brings Count II of this lawsuit as a class action pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 23, on behalf of himself and the following class: "All current and former non-exempt hourly employees of Defendants who worked in South Carolina between August 4, 2022 and the present (the "South Carolina Class"). Plaintiff Ford brings Count II of this lawsuit as a class action pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 23, on behalf of himself and the following class: "All current and former non-exempt hourly employees of Defendants who received non-discretionary bonuses between Aug. 4, 2022, and the present in South Carolina (the "Regular Rate South Carolina Class"). The FLSA Collective and Regular Collective are referred to as the "Collectives" and the members of the Collectives are "Collective Members" The South Carolina Class and Regular Rate South Carolina Class are referred to as the "SCPWA Classes." Mercedes-Benz Group AG (MB AG), headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany, is responsible for the global business of Mercedes-Benz Cars and Mercedes-Benz Vans, employing over 175,000 individuals worldwide. See Business Units–Mercedes-Benz AG, https://group.mercedes-benz.com/company/business-units/mercedes-benz-cars (last visited Jul. 14, 2025).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Werner, Esq. RADFORD SCOTT LLP 125 Clairemont Ave., Suite 380 Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: (678) 271-0300 E-mail: dwerner@radfordscott.com - and - Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq. Olivia S. Lanctot, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-4635 E-mail: crodriguez@bergermontague.com olanctot@bergermontague.com - and - Mariyam Hussain, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 110 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2500 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (773) 666-4316 E-mail: mhussain@bergermontague.com MICHAEL'S MANAGEMENT: Class Cert Proceedings in Damare Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Damare v. Michael's Management-Affordable, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00554 (N.D. Ind., Filed July 8, 2024), the Hon. Judge Philip P. Simon entered an order granting the Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Stay Proceedings on Plaintiff's Second Motion for Class Certification. The Court stays consideration and any deadlines relating to Plaintiff's Second Motion for Class Certification until after the Court decides Defendants Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim5. The nature of suit states Diversity-Other Contract. Michaels is a renowned property management company.[CC] MICHAELS STORES: Seeks to Continue Class Cert Hearing to Oct. 1 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NEZ VIZCARRA, individually and on behalf of all others similar situated, v. MICHAELS STORES, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-00468-NW (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff and the Defendant ask the Court to enter an order: 1. Continuing the Aug. 20, 2025, class certification hearing to Oct. 1, 2025; and 2. Continuing the Sept. 23, 2025, case management conference to Nov. 4, 2025. Michaels is an American privately held arts and crafts retail chain. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=H5CNze at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonas B. Jacobson, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. Grace Bennett, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: jonas@dovel.com simon@dovel.com grace@dovel.com The Defendant is represented by: P. Craig Cardon, Esq. Benjamin O. Aigboboh, Esq. Chloe G. Chung, Esq. Tyler E. Baker, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4109 Telephone: (213) 620-1780 Facsimile: (213) 620-1398 E-mail: ccardon@sheppardmullin.com ccardon@sheppardmullin.com baigboboh@sheppardmullin.com ashauer@sheppardmullin.com MIKE'S WOOD: Nieves Sues Over Unpaid Overtime & Misclassification ----------------------------------------------------------------- ENRIQUE NIEVES, and JUAN ZAMBRANO, on behalf of themselves and all other laborers similarly situated, known and unknown, and LUIS A. DAVILA, FELIPE DUENAS, ISIDRO MARTINEZ, IVAN MARTINEZ, MIGUEL ANGEL MARTINEZ, JOSE DE JESUS MARTINEZ, WALFRED NIEVES, and JUAN M. CALVARIO, individually, Plaintiffs v. MIKE'S WOOD REFINISHING, INC., d/b/a MIKE'S DECORATING, PAINTING & DRYWALL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09262 (N.D. Ill., August 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages, misclassification of employees as independent contractors, and failure to pay prevailing wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the Employee Classification Act, and the Illinois Prevailing Wage Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as laborers at any time between 2023 and 2025. Mike's Wood Refinishing, Inc., doing business as Mike's Decorating, Painting & Drywall, Inc., is a construction company in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alvar Ayala, Esq. FARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT 77 West Washington, Suite 1100 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (224) 522-3178 Email: aayala@flapillinois.org - and - Christopher J. Williams, Esq. WORKERS' LAW OFFICE 1341 W. Fullerton Ave., Suite 147 Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (312) 945-8737 Email: cwilliams@workers-law-office.com MITRA-9 BRANDS: Kratom Products Pose Same Risk of Opioid Addiction ------------------------------------------------------------------ Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Mitra-9 Brands has failed to disclose that its kratom products pose the same risk of addiction as opioids. According to the 28-page lawsuit, Mitra-9 produces, markets and distributes shots, powders and seltzers whose key ingredient, kratom, is referred to by health professionals as a "quasi-opiate." Per the complaint, the effects, addictive properties and addiction and withdrawal symptoms of kratom are practically identical to those of actual opioids such as heroin, oxycodone, morphine, hydrocodone and fentanyl. The filing relays that the chemicals in kratom that give it its opioid-like qualities are called alkaloids, and the specific alkaloids in kratom interact with the human brain's mu-opioid receptor, which "produces the most addictive or habit-forming effects, such as euphoria and analgesia." Despite kratom's known, highly addictive properties, Mitra-9's kratom products, the complaint claims, are not marketed or packaged with any warning about potential addiction and are touted as "natural," a term the lawsuit insists consumers often take to mean "safe." The lack of warnings and Mitra-9's marketing of its products as natural, plant-based herbal supplements mislead consumers into believing that no harm will come of their consumption of the defendant's kratom shots, powders and seltzers, the suit alleges. According to the class action lawsuit, Mitra-9 kratom products have caused severe harm to a great number of unsuspecting consumers. Several of these consumers have reported their experiences with Mitra-9 and kratom online, including on the "Quitting Kratom" forum on Reddit, from which the complaint cites several posts relaying individuals' first-hand experiences with kratom, including symptoms of clinical depression, anxiety, complete dependence on multiple-times-a-day doses, scrounging for cash just to afford the next dose, debilitating withdrawal symptoms upon trying to quit or even just going a few hours without a hit, feeling helpless and trapped in addiction and more. The complaint emphasizes that most consumers who've publicized their struggles with kratom addiction were completely unaware that kratom was, or even could be, the source of their problems for extended periods of time, with many even having been told that the plant was safe, harmless and helpful. Per the lawsuit, Mitra-9's advertising perpetuates the fraudulent claims that kratom is safe and harmless, describing their products as "pick-me-ups," herbal supplements and even "non-alcoholic," appealing to those who might be seeking to avoid the addictive potential of alcohol. The company's packaging also includes natural imagery, such as leaves and fruit and frequently uses the phrase "good vibes," all of which works to imply to the consumer that the product is completely harmless, the filing says. The Mitra-9 class action lawsuit seeks to represent anyone in the U.S. who purchased Mitra-9 kratom products within the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] MONROE CAPITAL: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Lending Scheme -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed by Joseph Greenwald & Laake and Keilty Bonadio in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against Monroe Capital Corporation and its affiliates, alleging their central role in financing and directing a nationwide predatory real estate scheme that has harmed tens of thousands of homeowners. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of plaintiffs Justin Keller, Hailey Kardux, and Patricia Bandy, accuses Monroe Capital of enabling and profiting from a deceptive business model created by MV Realty through its "Homeowner Benefit Agreements" (HBAs). These contracts promised small cash payments in exchange for the exclusive right to list a homeowner's property — but locked homeowners into 40-year agreements secured by quasi-liens on their properties. According to the complaint, Monroe Capital provided MV Realty with a $40 million credit facility and oversight, enabling the expansion of this exploitative program into 33 states. The lawsuit alleges that Monroe's investment was not passive: it approved marketing strategies and directly influenced the program's strategy. "These agreements stripped homeowners of control over their property and access to equity," said Drew LaFramboise of Joseph Greenwald & Laake. "And Monroe Capital was the architect of this scheme's nationwide rollout." The complaint brings claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), the Sherman Antitrust Act, and state consumer protection laws. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of more than 38,000 homeowners whose properties were encumbered by HBAs or who paid penalties to terminate them. Named plaintiffs include Maryland residents Keller and Kardux, who were unable to sell their home due to the agreement's terms, and North Carolina resident Bandy, who was forced to pay a termination fee over $10,000 to exit the agreement and sell her home. "For homeowners, their home is their largest asset. And homeowners are just one disaster—like the loss of a job or the illness of a loved one—from needing access to their home's equity to stay afloat," said Thomas W. Keilty of Keilty Bonadio. The case is Keller, Kardux, and Bandy v. Monroe Capital Corporation et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-02474, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. Plaintiffs are represented by Drew LaFramboise and Lacey Logsdon McMullan of Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, and Thomas W. Keilty and Nicholas C. Bonadio of Keilty Bonadio. [GN] NACG TEXAS: Santos Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Mining Workers ---------------------------------------------------------------- JORGE SANTOS JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NACG TEXAS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-00935 (W.D. Tex., August 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Dragline Operator/Bulldozer Operator from on or about March 23, 2015, until on or about October 3, 2023. NACG Texas, Inc. is a provider of equipment maintenance services and heavy construction and mining services based in Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. WAGE AND HOUR FIRM 5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75254 Telephone: (214) 489-7653 Facsimile: (469) 319-0317 Email: marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com NAJI DOUMIT: Standing Order Entered in Realworldfare Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN REALWORLDFARE, v. NAJI DOUMIT, et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-01357-SSS-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sunshine S. Sykes entered a civil standing order as follows: Service of the Complaint The plaintiff must promptly serve the complaint in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and must comply with Local Rule 5-3 with respect to all proofs of service. Ex Parte Applications Counsel are reminded that ex parte applications are solely for extraordinary relief. Applications that do not explain why ex parte relief3 is justified and/or fail to satisfy the requirements established under Local Rule 7-19 will not be considered. Scheduling Conference and Rule 26(f) Meeting of Counsel The Court hears scheduling conferences on Fridays beginning at 1:00 p.m.5 Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(b) and 26(f), the Court will issue an Order Setting a Scheduling Conference. Compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) The parties should begin to propound discovery before the Scheduling Conference. The parties must comply fully with the letter and spirit of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) and produce discovery promptly. At the Scheduling Conference, the Court will impose firm deadlines governing the completion of discovery. Filing and Hearing Motions Motions must be filed in accordance with Local Rule 7. This Court hears civil motions on Fridays beginning at 2:00 pm. Motions for Class Certification If the action is a putative class action, the parties are to act diligently and begin pre-certification discovery immediately, so that the motion for class certification can be filed expeditiously. All merits discovery is stayed until further order of the Court. A copy of the Court's order dated July 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wn4jx8 at no extra charge.[CC] NATIONAL GRID: Constantine Seeks to Certify Monthly Pay Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAURA CONSTANTINE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NATIONAL GRID USA SERVICE COMPANY, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-10500-AK (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the Massachusetts Monthly Pay Class. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts two distinct classes, the Massachusetts Monthly Pay Class and the Massachusetts Overtime Class. This Motion for Class Certification pertains to the Massachusetts Monthly Pay Class only. The Plaintiff and the Massachusetts Monthly Pay Class members are current and former employees of the Defendant. The Defendant has admitted in its Answer that it pays employees such as the Plaintiff on a monthly basis. This Motion is proper at the present time in this matter as the parties have sufficient information to satisfy class certification requirements on the putative Monthly Class's Massachusetts Wage Act claims and therefore Plaintiff as class representative must act in the best interests of the putative class and move to certify in an expedient manner. The Plaintiff also moves to appoint the Plaintiff, Laura Constantine, and opt-in Plaintiff, Daniel Zimmerman, as Class Representatives and appoint DarrowEverett LLP as Class Counsel. National distributes electricity and gas energy. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sr96LW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stacy W. Thomsen, Esq. Andrew J. Adams, Esq. DARROWEVERETT LLP 50 Congress Street, Suite 1040 Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 443-4500 Facsimile: (401) 453-1201 E-mail: sthomsen@darroweverett.com aadams@darroweverett.com The Defendant is represented by: Christopher B. Kaczmarek, Esq. Alexa M. Esposito, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. One International Place, Suite 2700 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 378-6000 Facsimile: (617) 737-0052 E-mail: ckaczmarek@littler.com aesposito@littler.com NAVIENT CORP: Anthony Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------- CALEB ANTHONY is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Caleb Anthony, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Navient Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-09600-AH-AS, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Luis Obispo, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, is brought against the Defendants for fraud claims. On Nov. 13, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to strike class allegations and motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's first amended complaint. On Apr. 25, 2025, Judge Anne Hwang granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's first amended complaint and denied as moot the Defendants' motion to strike class allegations. On May 28, 2025, the Plaintiff filed second amended complaint. On June 11, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to strike class allegations and motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's second amended complaint. On July 11, 2025, Judge Hwang granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's second amended complaint and denied as moot the Defendants' motion to strike class allegations. The appellate case is entitled Anthony v. Navient Corporation, et al., Case No. 25-4772, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 30, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on August 4, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order is due on August 12, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on September 11, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on October 21, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on November 20, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant CALEB ANTHONY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Michael Ovca, Esq. Roger J. Perlstadt, Esq. EDELSON, PC 350 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1400 Chicago, IL 60654 - and - Ethan Preston, Esq. 4054 McKinney Avenue, Suite 310 Dallas, TX 75204 Defendants-Appellees NAVIENT CORPORATION, et al. are represented by: Nicholas J. Hoffman, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS, LLP 355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 4200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 NEW YORK, NY Gould Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as EBONY GOULD, CURTAYASIA TAYLOR, SHAVONA WARMINGTON, SHALONDA CURTIS-HACKETT, CHRISTOPHER HACKETT, MARIANNA AZAR, MATHEW ENG, JANE DOE 1, and ZULIMA LEMUS, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 1:24-cv-01263-RPK-JRC (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. Certifying a Rule 23 class consisting of: "All parents or legal guardians who have been, are, and/or will be at risk of being subject to New York City's Administration for Children's Services ("ACS") investigations in which ACS caseworkers have used, are using, or will use unlawful tactics to search homes without a court order or exigent circumstances; 2. Appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; 3. Appointing the Family Justice Law Center, Inc., NYU School of Law Family Defense Clinic / Washington Square Legal Services, Inc., Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel LLP, and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, as Class Counsel. New York comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7D1AIP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Shalleck-Klein, Esq. Eliza J. McDuffie, Esq. Sarah Ortlip-Sommers, Esq. FAMILY JUSTICE LAW CENTER, INC. 41 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (212) 223-6939 E-mail: dshalleckklein@fjlc.org emcduffie@fjlc.org sortlipsommers@fjlc.org - and - Audra J. Soloway, Esq. Erin J. Morgan, Esq. Daniel A. Negless, Esq. Y-Tze Patrick Lim, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019-6064 Telephone: (212) 373-3000 E-mail: asoloway@paulweiss.com ejmorgan@paulweiss.com dnegless@paulweiss.com plim@paulweiss.com - and - Katherine Rosenfeld, Esq. Max Selver, Esq. EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF ABADY WARD & MAAZEL LLP 600 Fifth Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 763-5000 E-mail: krosenfeld@ecbawm.com mselver@ecbawm.com - and - Christine Gottlieb, Esq. Anna Arons, Esq. NYU SCHOOL OF LAW FAMILY DEFENSE CLINIC / WASHINGTON SQUARE LEGAL SERVICES, INC. 245 Sullivan Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10012 Telephone: (212) 998-6693 E-mail: gottlieb@mercury.law.nyu.edu aronsa@stjohns.edu The Defendant is represented by: David Kaplan, Esq. Thomas Lindeman, Esq. Mark Toews, Esq. CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-0418 NEW YORK, NY: General Pretrial Management Entered in Forbes Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRAVIS FORBES, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-05472-JPC-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management. Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion conferences are not required, but may be requested where counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues. Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court proceeding (including a telephonic court conference), or to extend a deadline, must be made in writing and in compliance with section 2(a) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. Telephone requests for adjournments or extensions will not be entertained. In accordance with section 1(d) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices, letters and letter motions are limited to four pages, exclusive of attachments. Courtesy copies of letters and letter motions filed via ECF are required only if the filing contains voluminous attachments. Courtesy copies should be delivered promptly, should bear the ECF header generated at the time of electronic filing, and should include tabs for the attachments. If you are aware of any party or attorney who should receive notice in this action, other than those currently listed on the docket sheet, please notify Courtroom Deputy Tamika Kay at (212) 805-0228 immediately. The Plaintiff filed the complaint on July 1, 2025. The Plaintiff served defendants City of New York, the New York County District Attorney's Office, Charles Morro, Joseph Cohen, and Chuck Cao between July 10, 2025, and July 21, 2025, making those defendants' answers due between July 31, 2025, and August 6, 2025. New York comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Court's order dated July 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XOFHwV at no extra charge.[CC] NHC INC: Seeks to Certify Summary Judgment in Allied World Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALLIED WORLD NATIONAL ASSURANCE COMPANY and ALLIED WORLD ASSURANCE COMPANY (U.S.) INC., v. NHC, INC. aka MNS, LTD. dba ABC STORES, Case No. 1:22-cv-00469-MWJS-WRP (D. Haw.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting unopposed motion for certification of summary judgment order pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the federal rules of civil procedure. By its Summary Judgment Order, the Court found that the Plaintiffs did not owe MNS insurance coverage for MNS's settlement of a class action lawsuit and thereby resolved all insurance coverage claims in the lawsuit. The only remaining claim in the lawsuit is MNS's claim for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, which was bifurcated from the coverage issues pursuant to previous order of the Court. NHC is engaged in the purchase, sale, and brokerage of securities. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OQR1Ck at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Peter W. Olson, Esq. Kelly G. Laporte, Esq. Lisa K. Swartzfager, Esq. CADES SCHUTTE 1000 Bishop Street, Suite 1200 Honolulu, HI 96813-4212 Telephone: (808) 521-9200 Facsimile: (808) 521-9210 E-mail: polson@cades.com klaporte@cades.com lswartzfager@cades.com NOAH'S ARK: Faces Graiche Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------- TAQIYEDDINE GRAICHE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NOAH'S ARK BAGELS CORP., doing business as ARK BAGELS, and NOAH A. MOSLEH and MOHAMED ABDO MOSLEH, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-06389 (S.D.N.Y., August 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages and failure to provide accurate wage statements in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a general helper, cashier, and sandwich maker at Ark Bagels restaurant in New York, New York from April 2023 until September 5, 2024. Noah's Ark Bagels Corp., doing business as Ark Bagels, is a restaurant owner and operator located in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 60 East, 42nd Street, 40th Floor New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 Email: pcooper@jcpclaw.com NORTH OKLAHOMA: Filing of Breach Settlement Claim Form Set Oct. 11 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a class action settlement will offer reimbursements, credit monitoring and other cash payments to resolve litigation over a 2021 NorthCare data breach in which patients' personal information may have been exposed to an unauthorized third party. The NorthCare class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on June 13, 2025 and covers all living U.S. residents whose personal health information and personally identifiable information may have been exposed in the NorthCare data breach. The court-approved website for the NorthCare settlement can be found at NorthCareDataSettlement.com. NorthCare settlement class members who file a timely, valid claim form may elect to receive reimbursement of up to $2,000 for out-of-pocket losses; reimbursement for up to five hours spent remedying the effects of the data breach, at a rate of $20 per hour; and three years of one-bureau credit monitoring services, including credit reports and identity theft insurance. Per the class action settlement website, to submit a claim form for reimbursement of out-of-pocket losses, class members must provide: -- Their name and current address; -- Appropriate documentation supporting their claim; -- A brief note to accompany each piece of documentation that describes the nature of the loss, if the nature of the loss isn't obvious from the documentation alone; and -- Attestation as to whether they have already been reimbursed for the loss by another source. Alternatively, class members may elect to receive a single, flat cash payment of $125, which requires no proof to claim. This flat payment is mutually exclusive with the time-loss reimbursement, out-of-pocket reimbursement and credit monitoring services, and cannot be claimed in conjunction with any of the foregoing options, the settlement website states. To submit a claim form online, class members can visit this page on the settlement website and log in with the unique notice ID and confirmation code 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 online or postmarked by October 11, 2025. A hearing is set for December 15, 2025 to determine whether the settlement will receive final court approval. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The NorthCare class action lawsuit claimed that the personal health information and personally identifiable information of approximately 128,000 NorthCare patients may have been accessed in a 2021 data breach. The information potentially exposed in the incident, according to the lawsuit, included Social Security numbers, dates of birth, full names, addresses and medical diagnoses. [GN] NORTH WIND: Court Sets Aug 22 Deadline for Amended Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted Plaintiff Alex W. Smith leave to file first amended complaint in the case captioned as ALEX W. SMITH, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. NORTH WIND SERVICES, LLC, an Alaska limited liability company; LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL SECURITY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-03793 (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiff must file the FAC by August 22, 2025. Defendants have forty-five (45) days after Plaintiff files the FAC to file a responsive pleading. The Initial Case Management Conference shall be continued to October 1, 2025. A copy of the Court's Order dated August 7, 2025, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=am6pUw from PacerMonitor.com. NUVISION CREDIT: Judge Grants Initial Approval of Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ MALDEF reports that a federal judge has granted preliminary approval of a class-action settlement between NuVision Credit Union and recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and other immigrants who were denied loans and financial services based on their immigration status rather than their ability to repay. MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund) filed the lawsuit on behalf of Luis Saul Bautista Martinez, 29, of Los Angeles, a DACA recipient, and other immigrants who comprise the settlement class. "Demonization of immigrants in the rhetoric of irresponsible national leaders does not justify unlawful discrimination in any area of the economy," said Thomas A. Saenz, MALDEF president and general counsel. "The resolution of this case approved today should help to lead others engaged in discriminatory practices to cease that activity." As part of the agreement, preliminarily approved today, NuVision has agreed to create a settlement fund of $108,800 to compensate the class of immigrants affected by the challenged practice. NuVision has also ended the use of the challenged practice. The settlement is one of more than a dozen MALDEF has reached with financial institutions that deny services to DACA recipients and other immigrants because of their immigration status rather than their creditworthiness. The settlement provides for $3,200 payments for each of the 34 class members. All class members are residents of California. NuVision must also pay attorneys' fees and other costs. "The court's preliminary settlement approval represents a crucial step towards compensating class members and recognizing their harm," said MALDEF attorney Luis Lozada. "Importantly, financial institutions are starting to promptly change their policies and practices, as well as resolve any lingering problems with us." In April 2023, Bautista Martinez applied for an auto loan from NuVision, based in Huntington Beach, California. According to the lawsuit, NuVision denied Bautista Martinez a $35,000 auto loan after giving initial approval to his application because he is not a permanent resident of the United States. As a DACA recipient, Bautista Martinez is authorized to work in the U.S. and possesses a Social Security number. "This preliminary approval is a meaningful step toward justice, not just for me but for many others facing the same barriers," said Bautista Martinez. "It reinforces that what happened was wrong and that financial institutions must be held accountable when they discriminate. I spoke up because I knew it wasn't just about me, and I hope this shows others that no one should accept being denied what they've earned." The suit challenged NuVision's denial of a loan to Bautista Martinez as a violation of Section 1981 of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1866 and of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, which prohibit discrimination based on race, sex, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, immigration status, age, and other characteristics. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Western Division. NuVision is a federally insured, member-owned credit union serving 160,000 members in Alaska, Arizona, California, Washington, and Wyoming with $3.3 billion in assets. Since 2017, MALDEF has filed 22 lawsuits challenging the policies of financial institutions that discriminate against immigrants. [GN] OAKBERRY ACAI: Acai Products Contain Citric Acid, Pitre Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- YOLANDA JEAN PITRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OAKBERRY ACAI INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-07231 (C.D. Cal., August 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California's False Advertising Law, and California's Unfair Competition Law, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and quasi contract/unjust enrichment/restitution. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its acai products. According to the complaint, the Defendant represents its products as "All Natural" and "Free from Preservatives." However, these representations are false and misleading because the products contain citric acid, is an artificial preservative and flavoring. Had the Plaintiff and other consumers known that the products contain artificial preservatives, they would not have purchased the products or would have paid significantly less for them. Oakberry Acai Inc. is a producer of acai bowls and products with its principal place of business in Miami, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Hakakian, Esq. Benjamin Heikali, Esq. Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq. Joshua Nassir, Esq. TREEHOUSE LAW, LLP 3130 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 555 Santa Monica, CA 90403 Telephone: (310) 751-5948 Email: jhakakian@treehouselaw.com bheikali@treehouselaw.com rglezakos@treehouselaw.com jnassir@treehouselaw.com ONLY WHAT YOU NEED: Faces Class Suit Over Supplements' Lead Content ------------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that protein supplement company Only What You Need (OWYN) failed to disclose that its chocolate flavor Plant Protein Powder products contain lead. According to the 26-page lawsuit, health-related representations on the packaging of OWYN protein powder have misled consumers into believing the products are safe and healthy to consume. These statements, along with the company's failure to disclose the protein powder's lead content, have deprived consumers of the ability to make fully informed purchase decisions and put them at risk of ingesting harmful heavy metals, the case alleges. Per the suit, an accredited laboratory commissioned by the plaintiff found that OWYN chocolate Plant Protein Powder contains 0.5976 mcg of lead per serving, which is higher than California's maximum allowable dose level for reproductive toxicity. The lawsuit stresses that, per the World Health Organization, "[t]here is no level of exposure to lead that is known to be without harmful effects." Lead poisoning, per the complaint, primarily occurs when a person ingests contaminated food or water and can have adverse effects on various organ systems, including the cardiovascular system, immune system, kidneys and central nervous system. Despite the alleged lead content in its chocolate Plant Protein Powder, OWYN represents on the packaging that the supplement is "PRO ELITE," supports digestive and immune health, is "high quality protein" and contains "ONLY WHAT YOU NEED" and "NOTHING YOU DON'T." These statements, the complaint claims, are made completely voluntarily to draw in more business from the growing population of health-conscious consumers. However, the lawsuit alleges that the protein powder's health representations are misleading given the product's lead content. Per the suit, consumers would not have purchased or would have paid less for the product if they had been made aware that it contains lead. The Only What You Need class action lawsuit seeks to represent all California citizens who purchased Only What You Need chocolate flavor Plant Protein Powder within the past four years and who do not claim any personal injury from use of the product. [GN] OREGON COMMUNITY: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Arthur Due Dec. 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Arthur v. Oregon Community Credit Union, Case No. 6:24-cv-01700 (D. Or., Filed Oct. 7, 2024), the Hon. Judge Michael J. Mcshane entered an order granting joint motion for extension of Discovery & PTO Deadlines: -- Expert Disclosures are due by: Oct. 31, 2025 -- Motion for Class Certification Dec. 1, 2025 to be filed by: -- Deadline for disclosure of final Jan. 9, 2026 expert testimony pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2) due by: -- Discovery is to be completed by: Feb. 2, 2026 -- Dispositive Motions are due by: Feb. 17, 2026 The nature of suit states Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Oregon is a member-owned, not-for-profit financial cooperative located in Oregon and Washington. [CC] PENNSYLVANIA: Discriminates Against Disabled People, Shappee Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- MATHIAS EDWARD SHAPPEE, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY AND UNEMPLOYMENT BOARD OF REVIEW, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00242 (W.D. Pa., August 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. According to the complaint, the Defendants have systematically discriminated against individuals with reading disabilities associated with attention-deficit-hyperactivity disorder, a reading-related learning/comprehension disability ("ADHD") by failing to provide those individuals with meaningful access to unemployment compensation across the Commonwealth and the monetary resources the law intends to provide. The Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals seek compensatory damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief for these violations of the broad protections afforded by the ADA and Section 504. Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry is a state government office in Pennsylvania. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is an administrative body that handles appeals of unemployment compensation decisions in Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence H. Fisher, Esq. LAWFIRST One Oxford Centre 301 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (724) 986-9785 Email: lawfirst@lawrencefisher.com PEPSICO INC: Sued Over Discriminatory Beverages' Pricing Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------ ICLG reports that PepsiCo is facing a putative federal class action in the United States, in which the household-name beverage and snacks company is accused of unlawfully discriminating by charging different prices to different retailers in breach of the long-neglected 1936 Robinson-Patman Act (RPA). The action, brought by New York restaurateur Michael Giannasca, was filed in the Southern District of New York court on 5 August and alleges that PepsiCo gave substantial rebates, allowances and other preferential pricing terms to Walmart -- its largest retail customer -- that were not made available to smaller, independent purchasers of the same goods. The claimant is seeking class certification on behalf of what could turn out to be tens of thousands of similarly situated businesses nationwide. The complaint alleges violations of sections 2(a) and 2(d) of the RPA, which prohibits price discrimination that may substantially lessen competition or create a monopoly, with Mr Giannasca seeking compensatory damages, injunctive relief, interest and legal costs, with the precise quantum to be determined in due course. Walmart is named throughout the claim as the principal beneficiary of the alleged conduct but is not named as a defendant. A DORMANT ANTITRUST STATUTE The RPA was passed by Congress during the Great Depression in response to concerns that large chain stores were receiving discriminatory discounts from suppliers, thereby undercutting independent retailers and distorting local markets. At its core, the Act prohibits sellers from charging different prices to different buyers of goods of "like grade and quality" where the effect of such discrimination "may be substantially to lessen competition". While section 2(a) of the Act addresses direct price discrimination, sections 2(d) and 2(e) prohibit the provision of promotional allowances, services or facilities to one buyer without offering them on proportionally equal terms to others. Despite its clear statutory language, the Act has fallen into near-total disuse over the past four decades. From the 1980s onwards, federal antitrust enforcement agencies and courts increasingly embraced a consumer welfare standard, focusing on overall price effects rather than the protection of individual competitors. Successive administrations from Presidents Reagan to Obama regarded the Act as antithetical to that approach, and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice brought no new RPA cases between 2000 and 2023. Critics of the Act have long argued that it protects inefficient competitors at the expense of consumers, artificially restricts bulk discounting and conflicts with modern supply-chain practices. It has also been criticised for being difficult to administer and for requiring proof of competitive harm in markets where the structure is often opaque. Nevertheless, recent years have seen renewed interest in the Act, particularly during former FTC Chair Lina Khan's tenure. In January 2024, the Commission brought an administrative enforcement action against PepsiCo alleging discriminatory pricing practices in favour of Walmart and to the detriment of smaller convenience stores. However, those proceedings were discontinued in May 2025, with Republican Commissioner Andrew Ferguson, who voted to withdraw the complaint, describing it as a "nakedly political effort to commit this administration to pursuing little more than a hunch that Pepsi had violated the law". FROM REGULATORY RETREAT TO PRIVATE ENFORCEMENT Mr Giannasca's claim picks up where the FTC left off, restating many of the same allegations and relying, in part, on factual claims made in the discontinued regulatory action. According to the complaint, PepsiCo "secretly and systematically" provided financial advantages to Walmart --including promotional allowances and discounts on Pepsi-branded beverages -- not made available on equal terms to other purchasers. The claimant asserts that these actions "distorted competition" and left smaller businesses unable to purchase at viable wholesale rates. Crucially, the claim is not restricted to money matters. It also alleges violations of section 2(d), which prohibits the unequal provision of promotional allowances such as advertising support, retail displays and joint marketing campaigns. CONSEQUENCES If successful, the case could have far-reaching consequences for vertical pricing and promotional arrangements across the consumer goods sector. Although the Supreme Court has never overturned the RPA, lower courts have required claimants to meet a high threshold of proof, including establishing the competitive nexus between favoured and disfavoured purchasers, and demonstrating the functional equivalence of the products sold. Certification, if granted, could open the door to claims from restaurants, convenience stores, independent grocers and other non-chain purchasers of PepsiCo products. THE PARTIES Mr Giannasca is represented by Joseph Marchese, Julian Diamond and Spencer Migotsky of Bursor & Fisher, and by Thomas Burt and Carl Malmstrom of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz. PepsiCo has yet to file a response. [GN] PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY: Witas Sues Over Unsecured Personal Info --------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD WITAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-04483 (E.D. Pa., August 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, and breach of confidence. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach between June 9, 2025, and June 10, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company is a provider of insurance policies and services based in Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. Alyssa Brown, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 Email: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com abrown@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. Samantha E. Holbrook, Esq. SHUB JOHNS & HOLBROOK, LLP Four Tower Bridge 200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 477-8380 Facsimile: (856) 210-9088 Email: bjohns@shublawyers.com sholbrook@shublawyers.com PIONEER PROPERTIES: Pardo Sues Over Disabled's Access to Property ----------------------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PIONEER PROPERTIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-23505 (S.D. Fla., August 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its facilities to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other persons with disabilities. The Defendant has continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of its properties and business. The Plaintiff and similarly situated disabled individuals encountered architectural barriers in common areas such parking, entrance access and path of travel, and public restrooms. The Plaintiff and Class members seek injunctive relief to remove the existing architectural barriers to the physically disabled when such removal is readily achievable for the place of public accommodation. Pioneer Properties, Inc. is a commercial property owner and operator doing business in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com QH HOLDINGS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Fernandez Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- JUDITH ADELA FERNANDEZ MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QH HOLDINGS (OREGON), INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06401 (S.D.N.Y., August 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://quantumhealth.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. QH Holdings (Oregon), Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal REFLECTANCE ENERGY: May Seeks Equipment Operators' Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------------ WILLIAM MAY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REFLECTANCE ENERGY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00484 (S.D. W. Va., August 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an equipment operator from approximately June 2022 until March 2025. Reflectance Energy, LLC is a coal mining services provider based in West Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Majestro, Esq. Graham b. Platz, Esq. POWELL & MAJESTRO, PLLC 405 Capitol Street, Suite 807 Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 346-2889 Facsimile: (304) 346-2895 Email: amajestro@powellmajestro.com gplatz@powellmajestro.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com ROCKY BRANDS: Dalton Sues Over Online Store's Access Barriers ------------------------------------------------------------- JULIE DALTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROCKY BRANDS, INC. d/b/a DURANGO, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-03125 (D. Minn., August 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.durangoboots.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Rocky Brands, Inc., doing business as Durango, is a company that sells online goods and services in Minnesota. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com SIMPLISAFE INC: Appeals Arbitration Order in Schlueter Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- SIMPLISAFE, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order granting in part and denying in part its motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Travis Schlueter-Beckner, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SimpliSafe, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01764-CRB, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendant for violations of California's False Advertising Law, California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and California's Unfair Competition Law. On Apr. 17, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration, which Judge Charles R. Breyer granted in part and denied in part on July 30, 2025. The Court granted SimpliSafe's motion with respect to Plaintiff Schlueter-Beckner's Automatic Renewal Law (ARL) claim and denied the motion with respect to the Plaintiffs' other claims. The appellate case is captioned Schlueter-Beckner, et al. v. SimpliSafe, Inc., Case No. 25-4933, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on August 5, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on August 11, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on September 16, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on October 16, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees TRAVIS SCHLUETER-BECKNER, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Elliot Siegel, Esq. KING & SIEGEL LLP 724 S. Spring Street, Suite 201 Los Angeles, CA 90014 Defendant-Appellant SIMPLISAFE, INC. is represented by: John A. Vogt, Esq. JONES DAY 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612 SKINNY MIXES: Faces Reese Suit Over Syrups' Harmful Effects ----------------------------------------------------------- NANCY REESE and RAMONA COLAMARCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SKINNY MIXES, LLC and PALLADIUM EQUITY PARTNERS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-06432 (S.D.N.Y., August 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of Sections 349 and 350 of the New York General Business Law. The case arises from the Defendants' false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of Jordan's Skinny Mixes Flavored Syrups. According to the complaint, the Defendants market the products as a safe and healthy sugar-free syrup alternative. However, sucralose, the sugar alternative in the products, has been shown to be genotoxic, cause and worsen diabetes and obesity, and increase the risk for cardiovascular diseases and cancer, among other harms. Had the Plaintiffs and other consumers known the harmful effects of the products, they would not have purchased the products or would have paid significantly less for them. Skinny Mixes, LLC is a manufacturer of flavored syrups, with its principal place of business in Clearwater, Florida. Palladium Equity Partners, LLC is an investment firm with its principal place of business in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Max S. Roberts, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, PA 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: mroberts@bursor.com - and - L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, PA 1990 North California Boulevard, 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: ltfisher@bursor.com SLICE OF ITALY: Server Class in Ray Suit Gets Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dylan Ray, individually and behalf of all others similarly situated, v. A Slice of Italy Pizzeria-Rock Hill Inc., d/b/a Fratelli Ristorante & Pizzeria, and Joseph Cutrone, Case No. 0:24-cv-03683-CMC (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Cameron McGowan Currie entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification: "All current and former servers who worked at Fratelli Ristorante & Pizzeria at any time between July 29, 2022, through the present and who were required to share tips received from to-go orders with kitchen staff." The Court further entered an order: 1. Within 14 days of this order, Defendants shall produce to Plaintiff’s counsel, in an Excel spreadsheet or comparable electronic format, a list containing the names, last known mailing addresses, email addresses, and phone numbers of all potential collective action members employed by Fratelli during the relevant time period. 2. The opt-in period will run for 60 days from the date Defendants produce the contact information described above. 3. Notice may be sent to putative collective members via U.S. Mail, email, and text message. The Plaintiff, a former server at Fratelli Ristorante & Pizzeria, brings this lawsuit against the restaurant and its owner, Joseph Cutrone, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act. Fratelli is an authentic Italian restaurant. A copy of the Court's order dated July 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eCYkSh at no extra charge.[CC] SUBARU OF AMERICA: Settles Systems' Defect Suit With Warranties --------------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that automotive manufacturer Subaru agreed to a class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims that certain vehicles with EyeSight driver assistance systems have defects in the pre-collision braking, rear automatic braking and lane-keeping assist features. The Subaru settlement benefits current and former owners and lessees of certain 2013 to 2024 Subaru vehicles equipped with EyeSight driver assistance systems. A full list of covered vehicles can be found on the settlement website. Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claim that Subaru EyeSight systems are defective and fail to perform as advertised. Further, they argue that Subaru has knowledge of these dangerous defects but has failed to rectify the situation. Subaru has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to resolve the class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Subaru EyeSight settlement, class members can receive a warranty extension and reimbursement for out-of-pocket repairs. The settlement extends the New Vehicle Limited Warranties for Subaru EyeSight vehicles to cover 75% of the cost of repairs for pre-collision braking, rear automatic braking, and lane-keeping assist failures. This extension lasts for four years or 48,000 miles, whichever comes first. If a vehicle's original warranty expired before July 29, 2025, the extension will last four months from this date. Class members who paid for repairs covered by the warranty extension can receive 75% reimbursement for one repair covered by the settlement. To receive reimbursement, class members must provide proof of payment and other documentation. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Aug. 28, 2025. The final approval hearing for the Subaru settlement is scheduled for Nov. 3, 2025. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Sept. 27, 2025. Who's Eligible Current and former owners and lessees of certain 2013-2024 Subaru Legacy, Outback, Impreza, Crosstrek, Forester, Ascent, WRX and BRZ vehicles. Potential Award Warranty extension and reimbursement of certain repair costs. Proof of Purchase Repair invoices, if applicable. 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 09/27/2025 Case Name Sampson, et al. v. Subaru of America Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-10284-ESK-SAK, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey Final Hearing 11/03/2025 Settlement Website EyeSightSettlement.com Claims Administrator Subaru EyeSight Settlement c/o JND Legal Administration P.O. Box 91063 Seattle, WA 98111 info@EyeSightSettlement.com (866) 287-0742 Class Counsel Russell D. Paul BERGER MONTAGUE P.C. Cody Padgett CAPSTONE LAW APC Defense Counsel Homer B. Ramsey SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP [GN] SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Orellana Wins Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOAQUIN ORELLANA CASTANEDA and GERMAN HERNANDEZ ARGUETA, v. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, STEVEN BELLONE County Executive, County of Suffolk, in his Official Capacity, SUFFOLK COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, VINCENT F. DEMARCO Sheriff, Suffolk County Sheriff's Office, in his Official Capacity, OTHER INDIVIDUALS IN CHARGE TO BE IDENTIFIED and ERROL TOULON, JR. Sheriff, Suffolk County Sheriff's Office, in his Official Capacity, Case No. 2:17-cv-04267-WFK-ARL (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge William Kuntz, II entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Additionally, the Court directs the Parties to re-file their cross-motions for summary judgment in accordance with the following schedule: -- Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment The Plaintiff shall file their motion for summary judgment on Thursday, Aug. 1, 2024. The Defendant shall file their response to the Plaintiffs' motion by Monday, Sept. 16, 2025. The Plaintiff shall file a reply in support of their motion by Wednesday, Oct. 16, 2024. Suffolk is the easternmost county in the U.S. state of New York, constituting the eastern two-thirds of Long Island. A copy of the Court's order dated July 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dn1wHO at no extra charge.[CC] TEA DATING: Faces Doe Suit Over Alleged Private Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TEA DATING ADVICE, INC., X CORP., and 4CHAN COMMUNITY SUPPORT LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-06325 (N.D. Cal., July 28, 2025) arises from a data breach involving a safety app designed to protect women exposed their most sensitive personal information. On July 25, 202, Defendant Tea Dating Advice's entire database of user verification data--72,000 images including government-issued IDs--sat completely exposed on the internet, accessible to anyone with a web browser. The breach was discovered not by Tea's security team, not by ethical hackers, but by anonymous users on 4chan--the notorious imageboard known for harassment campaigns against women. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings this action individually and on behalf of all Tea users whose personal information was exposed in the breach, seeking damages, restitution, and injunctive relief to prevent such a betrayal from ever happening again. Accordingly, Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendants' unlawful conduct and asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, invasion of privacy by intrusion, breach of implied contract, breach of third party and for violations of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumer Records Act, and the California Consumer Privacy Act. Headquartered in San Francisco, CA, Tea Dating Advice, Inc. operates a mobile application and online platform marketed as a "dating advice" and safety tool exclusively for women. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. Theodore W. Maya, Esq. Deborah De Villa, Esq. Alyssa D. Brown, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com ddevilla@ahdootwolfson.com abrown@ahdootwolfson.com TESLA INC: Faces Morand Suit Over 6.05% Drop of Stock Price ----------------------------------------------------------- DENISE MORAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TESLA, INC., ELON MUSK, ZACHARY J. KIRKHORN, and VAIBHAV TANEJA, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01213 (W.D. Tex., August 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Tesla's business, operations, and prospects in order to trade Tesla securities at artificially inflated prices between April 19, 2023, and June 22, 2025. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Tesla overstated the effectiveness of its autonomous driving technology; (ii) there was thus a significant risk that the company's autonomous driving vehicles, including the Robotaxi, would operate dangerously and/or in violation of traffic laws; (iii) the foregoing increased the likelihood that Tesla would become subject to heightened regulatory scrutiny; (iv) accordingly, Tesla's business and/or financial prospects were overstated; and (v) as a result, the company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the truth emerged, Tesla's stock price fell $21.13 per share over two trading sessions, or 6.05 percent, to close at $327.55 per share on June 25, 2025. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the company's securities, the Plaintiff and Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Tesla, Inc. is a manufacturer of electric vehicles, headquartered in Austin, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Willie C. Briscoe, Esq. THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC 5473 Blair Rd., Suite 200 Dallas, TX 75231 Telephone: (972) 521-6868 Facsimile: (281) 254-7789 Email: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com TESLA INC: Faces Securities Class Action Suit in W.D. Texas ----------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Tesla, Inc. ("Tesla" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:TSLA) and certain officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, and docketed under 25-cv-01213, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Tesla securities between April 19, 2023 and June 22, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are an investor who purchased or otherwise acquired Tesla securities during the Class Period, you have until October 4, 2025 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Tesla designs, develops, manufactures, leases, and sells electric vehicles and autonomous driving vehicles, as well as energy generation and storage systems, in the United States ("U.S."), China, and internationally. The Company offers certain advanced driver assist systems in its vehicles under its Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (Supervised) options which purportedly "intelligently and accurately complete[] driving maneuvers for you [i.e., the driver], including route navigation, steering, lane changes, parking and more under your active supervision." In April 2022, at an event celebrating the opening of the Company's Gigafactory Texas global headquarters and manufacturing facility, Tesla's Chief Executive Officer Defendant Elon Musk announced that the Company would be building a vehicle dedicated for use as a robotaxi (the "Robotaxi"). Tesla has touted its Robotaxi business as a "ride-hailing network that will eventually operate fully autonomous vehicles" and has stated that "[w]e expect this business will open access to a new customer base even as modes of transportation evolve. We believe our capabilities and advancements in [artificial intelligence], including the deployment of Cortex, our training cluster at Gigafactory Texas, differentiates us from our competitors." The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Tesla overstated the effectiveness of its autonomous driving technology; (ii) there was thus a significant risk that the Company's autonomous driving vehicles, including the Robotaxi, would operate dangerously and/or in violation of traffic laws; (iii) the foregoing increased the likelihood that Tesla would become subject to heightened regulatory scrutiny; (iv) accordingly, Tesla's business and/or financial prospects were overstated; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On June 22, 2025, Tesla debuted its Robotaxi service with a highly publicized launch event in Austin, Texas. At the event, approximately 10 autonomous driving Robotaxis with a "safety monitor" in the front passenger seat began picking up invite-only passengers in a geofenced 10-mile by five-mile square of Austin. The next day, Bloomberg published an article entitled "Tesla Robotaxi Videos Show Speeding, Driving Into Wrong Lane," which reported that "Tesla Inc.'s self-driving taxis appeared to violate traffic laws during the company's first day offering paid rides, with one customer capturing footage of a left turn gone wrong and others traveling in cars that exceeded posted speed limits." That same day, in an article entitled "Tesla Robotaxi Incidents Draw Scrutiny From US Safety Agency," Bloomberg reported that the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") had contacted Tesla regarding the foregoing incidents, noting that the NHTSA "is aware of the incidents that were captured in videos posted on social media and is gathering additional information from the company." Further, the Bloomberg article quoted a statement released by the agency that "[f]ollowing an assessment of those reports and other relevant information, NHTSA will take any necessary actions to protect road safety." Then on June 24, 2025, in an article entitled "NHTSA Now Targets Tesla Robotaxi After Autonomous EVs Break Traffic Laws," International Business Times stated, in relevant part, that "the emergence of videos showing concerning behaviour by Tesla's robotaxis may dampen public enthusiasm. The controversy has also triggered fresh criticism and could impact the scheduled rollout later this month." Following these reports, Tesla's stock price fell $21.13 per share over two trading sessions, or 6.05%, to close at $327.55 per share on June 25, 2025. After the end of the Class Period, on August 1, 2025, it was reported that a jury in a trial in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida determined that Tesla should be held partly liable for a fatal 2019 Autopilot crash, and must compensate the family of the deceased and an injured survivor a portion of $329 million in damages. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. [GN] THR PROPERTY: Glasbrenner Seeks to Appoint Interim Class Counsel ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Megan Glasbrenner and Douglas Neal, on behalf themselves and all others similarly situated, v. THR Property Management L.P. d/b/a Invitation Homes and Invitation Homes, Inc., Case No. 8:25-cv-00543-CEH-NHA (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for appointment of interim class counsel for each of the following classes: -- Security Deposit Class: "During the applicable class period all persons in the State of Florida who (a) was a tenant at a property managed or owned by Defendants and (b) did not receive a certified mail notice of intention to impose a claim upon their deposit from Defendants within 30 days of moving out, and (c) had any portion of their deposit retained by Defendants." -- Full Deposit Return Class: 'All persons in Florida who received a notice from the Defendants that they would receive their deposit back in full, but the Defendants failed to pay back the deposit in full within 15 days." -- Objection Class: "All persons in Florida who (a) objected to a Notice Letter from Defendants within 15 days of receiving it, and (b) had the Defendants moved their security deposit funds out of the non-interest bearing account and into one of the Defendants operating accounts." -- HOA Admin Fee Class: "All persons in Florida who paid an HOA Fee for a HOA violation that resulted from (a) an unfulfilled maintenance request by the Defendants or (b) was charged to the wrong tenant." -- Florida Fee Class All persons in Florida who paid a Smart Home Fee and/or Air Filter Fee and/or Internet Package Fee to Defendants. -- California Fee Class "All persons in California who paid a Smart Home Fee and/or Air Filter Fee and/or Internet Package Fee to Defendants. -- Georgia Fee Class "All persons in Georgia who paid a Smart Home Fee and/or Air Filter Fee and/or Internet Package Fee to Defendants. -- North Carolina Fee Class "All persons in North Carolina who paid a Smart Home Fee and/or Air Filter Fee and/or Internet Package Fee to Defendants. -- Illinois Fee Class "All persons in Illinois who paid a Smart Home Fee and/or Air Filter Fee and/or Internet Package Fee to Defendants." -- Texas Fee Class "All persons in Texas who paid a Smart Home Fee and/or Air Filter Fee and/or Internet Package Fee to Defendants. -- Colorado Fee Class "All persons in Colorado who paid a Smart Home Fee and/or Air Filter Fee and/or Internet Package Fee to Defendants. -- Nevada Fee Class "All persons in Nevada who paid a Smart Home Fee and/or Air Filter Fee and/or Internet Package Fee to Defendants. -- Minnesota Fee Class "All persons in Minnesota who paid a Smart Home Fee and/or Air Filter Fee and/or Internet Package Fee to Defendants. -- Tennessee Fee Class "All persons in Tennessee who paid a Smart Home Fee and/or Air Filter Fee and/or Internet Package Fee to Defendants. -- Arizona Fee Class "All persons in Arizona who paid a Smart Home Fee and/or Air Filter Fee and/or Internet Package Fee to Defendants;" and -- Washington Fee Class "All persons in Washington who paid a Smart Home Fee and/or Air Filter Fee and/or Internet Package Fee to Defendants Collectively the (Classes). On Feb. 15, 2025, the Plaintiff originally filed a class action complaint in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida alleging that the Defendant systematically: (a) fails to provide Florida tenants the statutorily required certified mail notice and its required disclosures, and (b) prematurely deducts, commingles, and takes possession of tenants' security deposits, in violation of the Florida Residential Landlord Tenant Act ("FRLTA") and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ("FCCPA"). THR operates as a home leasing company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LHMIMR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew T. Peterson, Esq. CONSUMER LAW ADVOCATE, PLLC. 1000 Brickell Ave, Suite 715 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (815)-999-9130 E-mail: mtp@lawsforconsumers.com TOURO COLLEGE: Yodice Suit Seeks Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK YODICE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TOURO COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, Case No. 1:21-cv-02026-DLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting certification of the following plaintiff class: "All people who paid tuition as or on behalf of people who paid tuition as or on behalf of a student enrolled at Touro College of Dental Medicine ("TCDM") during the SPRING 2020 Semester." The suit also seeks the appointment of Plaintiff Mark Yodice as representative of the Class and seeks the appointment of Poulin | Willey | Anastopoulo, LLC ("PWA"); the Toptani Law Offices, and Morea, Schwartz, Bradham, Freidman & Brown, LLP. as Class Counsel as class counsel. The proposed Class meets the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4), because Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. The proposed Class meets the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), because the questions of law and fact that are common to the Class predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class members, and because a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating this matter. Touro was established in 1970 to focus on higher education for the Jewish community. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FrcjBz at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul Doolittle, Esq. Eric Poulin, Esq. Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq. ANASTAPOULO LAW FIRM, LLC 32 Ann St, Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 - and – John Macleod Bradham, Esq. Peter B. Katzman, Esq. MOREA SCHWARTZ BRADHAM FRIEDMAN & BROWN LLP 444 Madison Avenue Fourth Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 599-0320 Facsimile: (646) 964-5008 E-mail: pkatzman@msbllp.com - and - Edward G. Toptani, Esq. TOPTANI LAW PLLC 127 East 59th Street, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212)-699-8930 Facsimile: (212)-699-8939 E-mail: edward@toptanilaw.com TRINITY HEALTH: Owens Seek Wages for All Hours Worked Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- RACHAEL OWENS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. TRINITY HEALTH SPA, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-02014 (N.D.N.Y., Aug. 1. 2025) is an action arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, while the Defendant ostensibly paid Plaintiff and all others similarly situated on a salary basis, Defendant has a uniform, company-wide policy and practice of docking the pay of its "salaried" employees if hours worked did not meet Defendant's required hourly quota. If Plaintiff worked less than 45 hours per week, the Defendant would simply divide the hours Plaintiff worked by the hours Plaintiff was expected to work and then multiply the resulting percentage by the pay Plaintiff would have received had she met her quota, the suit says. The Plaintiff contends the she and those similarly situated routinely worked more than 40 hours in a workweek and were not paid for hours work exceeding 40 per workweek. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a manager. Trinity owns and operates approximately eight Massage Envy franchises within the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex. The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq. WELMAKER LAW, PLLC 505 E. Magrill St. Longview, TX 75601 Telephone: (512) 799-2048 E-mail: doug@welmakerlaw.com - and - Barry S. Hersh, Esq. HERSH LAW FIRM, PC 3626 N. Hall St., Suite 800 Dallas, TX 75219-5133 Telephone: (214) 303-1022 Facsimile: (214) 550-8170 E-mail: barry@hersh-law.com TRUIST BANK: Hearing for Settlement Final Approval Set October 16 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a $4.1 million settlement will resolve a class action lawsuit against Truist Bank over allegedly illegal prerecorded phone calls. The Truist Bank class action settlement received preliminary court approval on April 30, 2025 and covers subscribers or regular users of the 5,998 cell phone numbers that received a prerecorded call from Truist about an unrelated bank account between February 10, 2019 and August 31, 2022. The court-approved Truist Bank settlement website can be found at TBTCPASettlement.com. Truist Bank settlement class members will be able to receive as compensation a pro-rata, or equal-share, portion of the $4.1 million settlement fund after the payment of legal fees, administration costs and a lead plaintiff award. Payments are estimated to be approximately $440 per class member, according to the settlement website. Class members do not need to file a claim to receive a settlement payment. If you received a settlement notice in the mail, a check will automatically be mailed to you. A hearing is set for October 16, 2025 to determine whether the settlement will receive final approval from the court. Payments will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Truist Bank class action lawsuit claimed that the company issued prerecorded phone calls about unrelated bank accounts to thousands of cell numbers without recipients' consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. [GN] UNION PACIFIC: Class Certification Discovery in Black Due Sept. 3 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FAYE BLACK and JEANNINE TOLSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Case No. 6:23-cv-01218-EFM-ADM (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Angel D. Mitchell entered a fourth amended class certification stage scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline/Setting Class certification discovery Sept. 3, 2025 Completed: Motions for class certification, Motions – Sept. 30, 2025 for summary judgment on issues Responses – Nov. 11, 2025 related to class certification, (or 45 days after motion is and to exclude class filed, whichever is certification experts: earlier) Reply – Nov. 25, 2025 (or 21 days after response is filed, whichever is earlier) Union is a Class I freight-hauling railroad. A copy of the Court's order dated July 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3XrMY5 at no extra charge.[CC] UNION PACIFIC: Continues to Defend Illinois BIPA Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Union Pacific Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Illinois BIPA class suit. In December 2019, it received a putative class action complaint under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, alleging violation due to the use of a finger scan system developed and managed by third parties. While the Company believes that it has strong defenses to the claims made in the complaint and will vigorously defend itself, there is no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome. The outcome of this litigation is inherently uncertain, and it cannot reasonably estimate any loss or range of loss that may arise from this matter. Union Pacific is a freight-hauling railroad that operates 8,300 locomotives over 32,200 miles routes in 23 U.S. states west of Chicago and New Orleans. UNITED STATES: Danziger Balks at Services Contractors' Termination ------------------------------------------------------------------ ANDREA DANZIGER, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01241-DAT (Fed. Cl., July 28, 2025) alleges that the mass termination of PSC contractors was unlawful, an abuse of discretion, and conducted in bad faith. The Plaintiff was a personal services contractor (PSC) for the United States Agency for International Development, which was created in 1961 and responsible for administering civilian foreign aid and development assistance. However, In early 2025, the Government attacked USAID and PSC contractors like Plaintiff. Through a farrago of pretextual terminations, top Government officials moved to dismantle the agency and terminate USAID PSC contractors. Moreover, the Government's actions breached hundreds of contracts, entitling improperly terminated PSC contractors to damages above and beyond the compensation typically due under a legitimate termination for convenience. Collectively, these damages include at least: (1) lost compensation, and (2) termination costs. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, along with other Plaintiffs, submitted certified claims to the cognizant USAID contracting officers seeking damages for the Government’s breaches of the Tucker Act and the Contracts Disputes Act. The United States of America provides civilian foreign aid and development assistance through the USAID. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen J. McBrady, Esq. CROWELL & MORING LLP 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 624-2500 E-mail” SMcBrady@Crowell.com UNITED STATES: Henkel Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIELLE HENKEL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Case No. 1:24-cv-01676-SLS (D.D.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting an extension of the Local Rule 23.1(b) deadline for filing a motion for class certification and for leave to file a class certification motion after an appropriate period of discovery to be established at the Initial Scheduling Conference. The Defendant is a cabinet-level department of the United States government, originating in 1980. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eB1iR5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Francis, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. Jordan M. Sartell, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 Facsimile: (215) 940-8000 E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com jsartell@consumerlawfirm.com - and - Courtney L. Weiner, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF COURTNEY WEINER PLLC 1629 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 827-9980 E-mail: cw@courtneyweinerlaw.com UNITED STATES: Initial Disclosures in Wise Suit Due Sept. 2 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAM WISE, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00800-JNW (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Jamal N. Whitehead entered an order regarding initial disclosures, joint status report, and early settlement: Event Date Deadline for Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) Conference: Aug. 19, 2025 Initial Disclosures under Sept. 2, 2025 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1): Combined Joint Status Report and Discovery Sept. 9, 2025 Plan as Required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and Local Civil Rule 26(f): United States Department of Justice oversees the domestic enforcement of federal laws and the administration of justice. A copy of the Court's order dated July 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YX3GFE at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED SURGICAL: Class Settlement in Perkins Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA PERKINS, et al., v. UNITED SURGICAL PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00973-X (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Brantley Starr entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement. 1. In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, and pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court conditionally certifies the following class ("Settlement Class"): "All persons, including any Beneficiary of a deceased Person who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period April 30, 2015 through Dec. 31, 2018, and any Alternate Payee of a Person subject to a QDRO who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period." Excluded from the Settlement Class are Defendants and their immediate family members who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Plan at any time during the Class Period. 2. The Court appoints the Plaintiffs Heather C. Holst, Terry J. Williams, Tanya C. Standifer, and Karley Mayhill as Class Representatives for the Settlement Class, and Capozzi Adler, P.C. as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. 3. A final approval hearing is scheduled for Oct. 30, 2025, at 1:00 PM. The action involves claims for alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA'), with respect to the United Surgical Partners International, Inc. 401(k) Plan. The terms of the Settlement are set out in the Settlement Agreement, fully executed as of January 3, 2025, by counsel on behalf of the Plaintiffs, all Class Members, and Defendants, respectively. United is an American ambulatory care company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZJrBt0 at no extra charge.[CC] UTAH: Medina Appeals Second Amended Suit Dismissal to 10th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ DAWN HEPIKIYA MEDINA, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting motion to dismiss party in the lawsuit entitled Dawn Hepikiya Medina, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The Hon. Ann Marie McIff Allen, et al., in their official capacities, Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00102-DN, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. The Plaintiffs brought this suit against the Defendants alleging that their constitutional rights were violated after they were arrested and held in custody on the sole condition of posting a monetary bail amount. On May 17, 2024, Defendant Anne Marie McIff Allen filed a motion to dismiss party. On Jan. 24, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' second amended complaint. On July 11, 2025, Judge David Nuffer entered an Order granting Defendant Anne Marie McIff Allen's motion to dismiss party and the Defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. The appellate case is entitled Medina, et al. v. Allen, et al., Case No. 25-4099, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on August 5, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants DAWN HEPIKIYA MEDINA, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Anna P. Christiansen, Esq. John M. Mejia, Esq. Karra J. Porter, Esq. CHRISTENSEN & JENSEN 257 East 200 South, Suite 1100 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 323-5000 Defendants-Appellees THE HON. ANN MARIE MCIFF ALLEN, et al., in their official capacities, are represented by: Keith Barlow, Esq. Lance Sorenson, Esq. David N. Wolf, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF UTAH 160 East 300 South, 6th Floor Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Telephone: (801) 366-0100 VALVE CORP: Refuses to Arbitrate Antitrust Claims, Smith Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- JEFFREY SMITH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VALVE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01478 (W.D. Wash., August 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of contract and breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing. The case arises from the Defendant's refusal to arbitrate the antitrust claims of the Plaintiff and the Class, including by refusing to pay American Arbitration Association-required arbitration fees for the arbitration claims brought by the Plaintiff and similarly situated Valve subscribers. According to the complaint, Valve's refusal to arbitrate, including through its willful non-payment of arbitration fees, was not only an anticipatory breach of the April 25, 2023, Arbitration Agreement between the parties, but part of Valve's deliberate strategy to prevent the Plaintiff and the Class members from proceeding to the merits of their claims in arbitration. As a result of Valve's anticipatory breach and refusal to arbitrate, the Plaintiff and the Class seek all available remedies under law and equity, including damages, specific performance, declaratory relief, attorneys' fees, and costs, says the suit. Valve Corporation is an operator of the Steam store and platform, headquartered in Bellevue, Washington. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael C. Subit, Esq. FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS LLP Hoge Building 1 Manhattan West 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1200 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 682-6711 Facsimile: (206) 682-0401 Email: msubit@frankfreed.com - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. Danielle L. Perry, Esq. Theodore B. Bell, Esq. Jacob D. Eisenberg, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 Email: gmason@masonllp.com dperry@masonllp.com tbell@masonllp.com jeisenberg@masonllp.com VELOCITY RISK: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Colton Says ------------------------------------------------------------ JASON COLTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VELOCITY RISK UNDERWRITERS, LLC and WATERSTREET COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00889 (M.D. Tenn., August 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within their network systems following a data breach discovered on or about March 17, 2025. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Velocity Risk Underwriters, LLC is an insurance company, with its principal place of business in Nashville, Tennessee. WaterStreet Company is a property and casualty insurance software provider with its principal place of business in Kalispell, Montana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com VOLTAGE PICTURES: Class Cert. Bid in Copyright Suit Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------- JDSupra reports that in Voltage Pictures v Robert Salna, 2025 FCA 131, the Federal Court of Appeal addressed the preferable procedure criterion in the context of a defendants' class proceeding. The plaintiffs sought to certify an action against a class of defendants and, despite objection, impose the burden on Mr. Salna to represent the interests of the defendant group (the representative defendant). These "reverse class actions" are uncommon and, despite that unique context, the decision carries implications for class actions generally. The plaintiffs were motion picture production companies forming part of the Voltage Pictures film studio. They sought to certify a reverse class proceeding alleging copyright infringement through online downloads involving BitTorrent. The approximately 874 members of the proposed defendant class were individuals whose internet accounts had been detected by the plaintiffs' forensic software as offering to upload the plaintiffs' films during a prior six-month period. Mr. Salna, in particular, owned three rental units in a property where he also provided internet access to his tenants. The plaintiffs asserted that the films at issue had been downloaded and offered for uploading via BitTorrent through Mr. Salna's IP address during the class period. The Federal Court of Appeal held that a reverse class action was not the preferable procedure because the resolution of the proposed common issues would not advance the litigation. Here, "the mere fact that a class member was an internet subscriber whose account was used to download the films via BitTorrent was not enough to establish infringement." Rather, the plaintiffs would be required to prove the content of each class member's specific involvement with any BitTorrent file sharing activities before copyright infringement or liability could be established. This inquiry would inevitably require individual fact-finding, and those individual issues would "swamp whatever common issues there might be." Despite acknowledging that common questions need not predominate over the individual issues, the Federal Court of Appeal found that the common issues had minimal importance in relation to the claim as a whole "and thus do virtually nothing to advance the claim." Accordingly, the Court concluded that a class action would not be the preferable procedure. The Federal Court of Appeal's decision to deny certification on account of the many individual issues emphasizes the importance of judicial economy and access to justice—two goals which underlie the preferable procedure criterion of the certification test. Have time to read more? To balance the equities in the context of reverse class proceedings, the Federal Court of Appeal has clarified the scope and application of the certification requirement regarding evidence of funding arrangements. In particular, the certification criteria in the Federal Court Rules are subject to three "necessary" modifications for reverse class proceedings: (i) references to "plaintiff or applicant" must be replaced with "defendant or respondent;" (ii) the representative defendant bears the burden of filing evidence for funding arrangements; and (iii) inadequate funding arrangements for class counsel should not be an absolute bar to certification (given that, otherwise, the proposed defendant class may be easily able to defeat certification by intentionally failing to find adequate funding arrangements). The Court held that it is improper to refuse certification on the basis of an inadequate or deficient litigation plan where that litigation plan can be amended to address those inadequacies or deficiencies. [GN] WELLS FARGO: Production of SEC Docs Extended to August 14 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Re Wells Fargo Cash Sweep Litigation, Case No. 3:24-cv-04616 (N.D. Cal., Filed July 30, 2024), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order granting WFA's request that the deadline to complete production of the SEC documents be extended to Aug. 14, 2025. In the circumstances, the Plaintiffs have requested that the court also extend the deadlines for class certification expert reports, motion briefing, and Daubert briefing as well as the class certification hearing, that request is denied. First, the court finds that extending the production deadline here does not necessitate these additional extensions. Second, a request to alter briefing and hearing dates before a presiding judge is properly addressed to the presiding judge. The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract. Wells is an American multinational financial services company.[CC] WEST PHARMACEUTICAL: Continues to Defend New England Teamster Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ West Pharmaceutical Services Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the New England Teamster Pension Fund class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On May 5, 2025, New England Teamsters Pension Fund filed a class action against the Company and certain of its current and former officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, purportedly on behalf of a class of the Company’s investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between February 16, 2023 and February 12, 2025. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder in connection with various public statements made by the Company regarding its business, operations and prospects. The action seeks unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. Once the court appoints a lead plaintiff in the action, the defendants intend to vigorously defend against such allegations. West Pharmaceutical Services Inc. is a medical supplies company based in Exton, Pennsylvania, that operates as a key supplier to firms in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and generic drug industries. The Company specializes in the development, manufacture, and distribution of elastomer-based supplies for the containment and administration of injectable drugs. [BN] WILSON ELECTRIC: Andrews Wins Class Certification Bid ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Daniel D. Andrews, et al., v. Wilson Electric Services Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00995-DJH (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Diane J. Humetewa entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed Motion for Class Certification. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b), the Court certifies the class as: "All participants and beneficiaries of the Wilson Electric Services Corporation Employee Stock Ownership Plan from May 1, 2018, to May 1, 2024, when this action was filed." The Court further entered an order: -- designating Plaintiffs, Daniel Andrews and Matthew Baker, as class representatives. -- appointing the law firm of Engstrom Lee LLC as class counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g).] In sum, Plaintiffs have demonstrated that their proposed class satisfies the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b). So, the Court will certify the proposed class. The Plaintiffs bring this action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), against the Defendants. Wilson provides electrical contracting services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PnyGWk at no extra charge.[CC] WOLFF RENOVATIONS: Corredor Sues Over Labor Law Violations ---------------------------------------------------------- Cristhian R. Corredor, individually, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Wolff Renovations LLC, and Jose Salas Wolff, individually, Defendants, Case No. 6:25-cv-01413 (M.D. Fla., July 28, 2025) seeks to recover from Defendants half-time overtime compensation, retaliatory damages, liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant employed Plaintiff Corredor as a non-exempt, full-time employee from approximately February 18, 2025, to March 21, 2025, or four weeks. Allegedly, the Plaintiff always worked more than 40 hours weekly, but he was not compensated for overtime hours as required by law. In addition, the Plaintiff was paid with checks, but he was not provided with pay stubs showing basic information, such as the number of days and hours worked, wage rate paid, etc. Headquartered in Orlando, FL, Wolff Renovations is a general contractor specializing in construction and renovations. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com WOW VEGAS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Illegal Online Casino ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that WOW Vegas operates an unlicensed and illegal online casino in Illinois where players risk real money on games of chance in hopes of winning prizes. According to the 30-page lawsuit, WOW Vegas attempts to skirt Illinois state laws prohibiting online gambling by falsely advertising itself as a "free-play" "social casino" providing entertainment-only games. In reality, the case claims, the platform's casino-style games are "unmistakably games of chance" on which players can wager virtual currency purchased with real money. "By offering these games of chance, Defendant is operating unregulated online casinos in violation of Illinois law, which explicitly prohibits gambling on games of chance conducted over the internet," the complaint reads. WOW Vegas, per the complaint, has two virtual currencies, WOW Coins and Sweeps Coins, with which users can bet on games. While WOW Coins cannot be exchanged for items of real-world monetary value, Sweeps Coins can be redeemed for cash prizes and gift cards, the case says. Each Sweeps Coin, per the suit, is worth $1 USD and is therefore a stand-in for real money. The lawsuit claims that WOW Vegas users can come by Sweeps Coins in a variety of ways, but that they are most commonly acquired as free add-ons to a purchase of WOW Coins. The complaint alleges that the Sweeps Coins are bundled with WOW Coins in order to mislead consumers and "obscure the real-money nature of the exchange." According to the complaint, WOW Vegas requires players to wager Sweeps Coins in one of its chance-based gambling games before being allowed to redeem or withdraw them for cash or gift card prizes. This "coercive mechanism," as the filing calls it, "forces continued gambling activity . . .while obscuring the difficulty of actually obtaining monetary rewards." "In effect, players are wagering a valuable currency (Sweeps Coins) on games of chance in order to obtain prizes of greater value—a textbook definition of gambling," the complaint summarizes. The WOW Vegas class action lawsuit seeks to represent Illinois residents who have lost money wagering on WOW Vegas' online casino games within the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] YATTA OUTSOURCED: Webb Sues Over Illegal Tribal Lending Scheme -------------------------------------------------------------- KIMBERLY WEBB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YATTA OUTSOURCED PROCESSING SOLUTIONS, INC., AARON WALLIS BISHOP, DENNIS RAMIREZ, SANDRA KNIGHT, SUSIE CORTEZ, HE-LO RAMIREZ, LIANNE BERTOLUCCI, JENNY ADKINS, JESSIE KAI, and JOHN DOES Nos. 1-15, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00707 (M.D.N.C., August 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendants' engagement in a tribal lending scheme wherein non-tribal payday lenders and their business partners use Indian tribes as a vehicle to originate illegal loans on the theory that the loans are subject exclusively to tribal law, and the lender entitled to sovereign immunity. The Defendants knowingly maintained an interest in, participated in the operation of, reinvested in, and conspired with other members of the Boost Credit Line lending enterprise to profit from usurious loans. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks to recover all amounts paid on her and other Class members' loans, as well as their costs and attorneys' fees. Yatta Outsourced Processing Solutions, Inc. is an outsourced processing solutions provider with its principal place of business in Utah. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rashad Blossom, Esq. BLOSSOM LAW PLLC 126 N. McDowell St., 2nd Floor Charlotte, NC 28204 Email: rblossom@blossomlaw.com mrm@wallacemiller.com mjg@wallacemiller.com - and - Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq. Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq. Matthew G. Rosendahl, Esq. KELLY GUZZO PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7572 Facsimile: (703) 591-0167 Email: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com matt@kellyguzzo.com ZENNI HOLDINGS: Cox Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & ERISA Benefits ------------------------------------------------------------------ REAGAN COX and MARIAH SPERRY on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. ZENNI HOLDINGS, LLC Z CAPITAL GROUP, LLC; Z CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC; Z CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC; Z CAPITAL PARTNERS GP II, L.P. Z CAPITAL PARTNERS II-A, L.P.; Z CAPITAL PARTNERS II-B, L.P.; Z CAPITAL N-2L, L.L.C.; Z CAPITAL N-2L-D, L.L.C.; Z CAPITAL PARTNERS FUND HOLDINGS I, L.L.C.; Z CAPITAL PARTNERS II, L.P. and ZCG CONSULTING, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00973-UNA (D. Del., Aug. 4, 2025) is a class action for the recovery by the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees of the Defendants, as a single employer, of damages in the amount of 60 days' pay and ERISA benefits by reason of the Defendants' violation of the Plaintiffs' rights under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988. The Defendants allegedly violated the WARN Act by failing to give the Plaintiffs and the Other Similarly Situated Employees of the Defendants at least 60 days' advance written notice of termination, as required by the WARN Act. As a consequence, the Plaintiffs and the Other Similarly Situated Employees of the Defendants are entitled under the WARN Act to recover from the Defendants their wages and ERISA benefits for 60 days, none of which has been paid, says the suit. Plaintiff Cox was an employee who was employed by Defendants as a single employer and worked at or reported to the Springfield Facility beginning from September 1997, until her termination without cause on or about April 11, 2025. Plaintiff Mariah Sperry was an employee who was employed by Defendants as a single employer and worked at or reported to the Provo Facility beginning from October 1997, until her termination without cause on or about April 11, 2025. The Defendants operated and controlled Maple Mountain. Maple Mountain had facilities located at 530 S 2000 W, Springville, Utah and 180 N University Ave, Provo, Utah.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James E. Huggett, Esq. MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 800 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 888-1112 Facsimile: (302) 888-1119 - and - Stuart J. Miller, Esq. LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP 100 Church Street, 8th FL New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 581-5005 Facsimile: (212) 581-2122 - and - Mary E. Olsen, Esq. M. Vance McCrary, Esq. THE GARDNER FIRM, P.C. 182 St. Francis Street, Suite 103 Mobile, Alabama 36602 Telephone: (251) 433-8100 Facsimile: (251) 433-8181 ********* 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 ***