250815.mbx

250815.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, August 15, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 163 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Mismanages Employee Savings Plans, Batt Suit Alleges A W CHANG: Williams Sues Over Online Store's Access Barriers ALLIANZ LIFE: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Goldman Says ALLY FINANCIAL: Appeals Class Certification Order in Sheridan Suit ALPHA BAKING: Scheun Privacy Class Suit Removed to N.D. Ill. ALTIMMUNE INC: Faces Collier Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop AMAZON.COM INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Griffith, et al. Suit AMBER RESTAURANT: Dominguez Seeks Front Pay Under FLSA, NYLL ARRCO WELL: Diaz Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA ATP USA: Chavez-Deremer Sues Over Retaliation Under FLSA BARCLAYS PLC: Bid to Dismiss Merritt Securities Suit OK'd in Part BECKER PROFESSIONAL: Discloses Info to Third Parties, Garcia Says BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT: Hettinger's Summary Judgment Bid OK'd in Part BROWN UNIVERSITY: Faces Price Fixing Class Action Lawsuit CAR WASH: Gonzalez Sues Over Property's Architectural Barriers CARE AND DEVELOPMENT: Faces McGary Suit Over FLSA Violations CENTRAL BUCKS: $516,000 in Counsel Fees Awarded in Marinello Suit CENTURY ALUMINUM: $944K Alumina Suit Settlement Gets Final Approval CHICK-N-SMASH CORP: Gomez Sues Over Breaches of Labor Laws CINMAR LLC: Sud Sues Over Fake Discount Ads on Emails CONTINUING HEALTHCARE: Alley Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA COSM HOLLYWOOD: Robinson Files Labor Class Suit in Cal. Super. DAIKIN COMFORT: AC Units Have Defective Capacitors, Cissell Claims DEUTSCHE BANK: Court Reverses Dismissal of Shaffer's Counterclaim DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA: Class Certification, Settlement Ruling Vacated DINESOL PLASTICS: Underpays Process Technicians, Hunt Claims ENDUE INC: Court Consolidates Six Related Suits Over Data Breach ENERGY BUILDING: Romero Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ETHEREUMMAX: Investors Secure Partial Win in Class-Action Lawsuit EVERBRIDGE INC: 9th Cir. Flips Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit FINASTRA TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Atiles Says FRAGRANCENET.COM INC: Purscelley Balks at Telemarketing Calls FRUITVALE OPERATING: Faces Wilson Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif. FTAI AVIATION: Court Names Lead Roles in Shannahan Securities Suit GEN DIGITAL: Fails to Control Plan's RKA Costs, Northcutt Alleges GOOGLE LLC: Pixel 6a Phone Has Defective Battery, Kuending Alleges GREYSTAR MGMT: Bid to Stay Discovery in Miles Suit Granted in Part HARTFORD INSURANCE: Abdullah Sues Over Invasion of Privacy HOMESTEAD SUPERMARKET: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Pardo Says HORIZON FINANCIAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Hromek Says HUNTINGTON HOSPITALITY: Fails to Secure Clients' Info, Ramos Claims IEM INTERNATIONAL: Must Arbitrate Class Action Wage Claims INKITT INC: Discloses Private Information, Hastings Suit Claims JOHNSON MARK: Ray Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Tex. KANDO LOGISTICS: Hernandez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages KARINA BAKERY: Meza-Vazquez Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Premiums KOUZINA HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Hernandez Says KRISTIN SHEELER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Goncalves & Ketcham Say LARGO PIPING: Genevish Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA LATOYA HUGHES: Court Vacates Judgment in Daniels, et al. Case LECTRIC EBIKES: Loses Bid to Dismiss Certain Claims in Cabot Case LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA: Sipaque Balks at Bereavement Leave Process LOWE'S COMPANIES: Court Remands Masry Suit to Alameda Super. Court LUCY BURNS: Mitchell Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages M.A.C. COSMETICS: Judge Approves $12M Settlement Framework MAREX GROUP: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims MDL 2704: Court Approves $50K Service Awards to Retirement Funds MDL 2873: AFFF/TOG Products "Defective," Cox Suit Alleges MDL 2873: AFFF/TOG Products Can Cause Cancer, Lechner Suit Alleges MDL 2873: AFFF/TOG Products Harmful to Human Health, Gamble Claims MDL 2873: Briggs Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products MDL 2873: Bryson Sues Over Exposure to PFAS From AFFF Products MDL 2873: Collins Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products MDL 2873: Courtney Sues Over Exposure to PFAS From AFFF Products MDL 2873: Exposed Firefighters to Toxic Products, Hallama Says MDL 2873: Faces King Suit Over AFFF/TOG Products' Harmful Effects MDL 2873: Faces Wilson Suit Over Firefighters' Exposure to PFAS MDL 2873: Ferguson Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF/TOG Products MDL 2873: Hancock Sues Over Toxic Effects of AFFF/TOG Products MDL 2873: LaFranca Sues Over AFFF Products' Toxic Elements MDL 2873: Moody-Paige Suit Claims PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products MDL 2873: Saxonhouse Suit Claims Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products MERCEDES BENZ: Court Narrows Claims in Monilaw Suit MERWICK CARE: Fails to Remit Insurance Premiums, Latka Alleges MICHAELS STORES: Echeverria-Corzan Files Fraud Suit in N.D. Calif. MISSISSIPPI MEDICAL: Summary Judgment Ruling in Woods Case Affirmed MULTI-CRAFT CONTRACTORS: Jackson Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA NZXT INC: Conspires With Fragile to Defraud Consumers, Suit Says OPTUMRX INC: 8th Cir. Affirms Waiver, Reverses Arbitration Denial PEPSICO INC: Faces Suit Over Soft Drinks' Unfair Price Advantage PERALTA-BUENO CORP: Ramirez Sues Over Wage and Hour Violations PHEONIX HOLDING: Disabled Can't Access Properties, Pardo Suit Says PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Wins Summary Judgment v. Thurston RANCOURT & COMPANY: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Pittman Says RDO EQUIPMENT: Class Settlement in Munoz Suit Gets Initial Nod RITECHECK CASHING: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Mercado Says ROSATI'S FRANCHISING: Williams Sues Over Blind Inaccessible Website SANFORD HEALTH: Discloses Personal Info to Meta, Hanson Says SANTANDER CONSUMER: Wins Bid to Stay Brown Case Pending Arbitration SEGWAY INC: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Ninebot KickScooters SMARTBANK: Faces Copper Class Action Lawsuit Over PPP Loans SPRINGER NATURE: Settles Data Sharing Class Action for $850,000 SWEEPSTEAKES LIMITED: Faces Dixon Suit Over Illegal Online Casino TAKE THE KEY: Faces Leiva Class Action Suit Over Debt Collection TAPESTRY INC: Hernandez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. TEA DATING: Faces Doe Class Suit Over Private Data Breach TEA DATING: Fails to Secure Sensitive Information, Class Suit Says TROON GOLF: Misappropriated Servers' Cash Tips, Ferriello Alleges TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Holmes Files Suit in S.D. New York TYSON FOODS: Beef Antitrust Class Certification Pending in Court UMZU LLC: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts, Wiedinmyer Says UNITED RENTALS: Van Horst Sued over Unlawful Fixing of Rental Prices UNITED STATES: ACLS Appeals Suit Dismissal Order to 2nd Circuit UNITED STATES: Court Awards $910K in Attorney Fees in DHS v. UACs UNITED STATES: Deprives Fundamental Rights, Tapp Suit Alleges UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: Carfora Suit Transferred to S.D. New York UPSTART NETWORK: Bronstin Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania US MARSHALS: Court Tosses Fogg's Motion for Reconsideration UTICA AMBULANCE: Lofton Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages VECTOR SECURITY: Doe Sues Over Unauthorized Personal Info Access WALMART INC: Parties Seek Reschedule of Status Conference WAYNE, MI: Bid to Correct Ex Parte Communications in Bowles Tossed WEXFORD HEALTH: Appeals Class Certification Order in Spurlock Suit WILLOWBROOK FORD: Spinder Sues Over Misclassification, Retaliation WITH YOU: Dalton Seeks Blind Users' Equal Website Access YUSEN LOGISTICS: Bermudez Class Suit Remanded to State Court YUSEN LOGISTICS: Monge Wage and Hour Suit Remanded to State Court ZENNIHOME HOLDINGS: Gatewood Alleges WARN Act Violations ZULLAS LC: Dorsey Suit Consolidated with Kolding Action Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemours Faces 815 Pending PI Lawsuits at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Reports $379MM Reserves at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enviri Corp. Defends 17,000 Pending PI Actions ASBESTOS UPDATE: Merck & Co. Has 575 Pending Cases as of June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Inc. Faces Numerous Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Has 848 Outstanding Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Defends 373 PI Lawsuits as of June 30 ********* 3M COMPANY: Mismanages Employee Savings Plans, Batt Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER BATT, MADHU CHANDNANI, KAREN DAVISON, and WILLARD JENKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, on behalf of the 3M VOLUNTARY INVESTMENT PLAN AND EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN, and on behalf of the 3M SAVINGS PLAN, Plaintiffs v. 3M COMPANY; BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF 3M, and its members; 3M BENEFITS FUND INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, and its members; and 3M INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 0:25-cv-03149-ECT-DTS (D. Minn., August 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of duty of prudence and failure to monitor pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. According to the complaint, the Defendants, as fiduciaries of the 3M Voluntary Investment Plan and Employee Stock Ownership Plan and the 3M Savings Plan, breached their duties by: (1) retaining underperforming investment options, seven "vintages" of the 3M LifePath Target-Date Fund Series (the "3M TDF Series"), for the Plans between 2019 and 2024, despite more suitable target date funds ("TDFs") having been readily available; and (2) failing to monitor the fiduciaries responsible for administration and management of the Plans' actions in retaining the imprudent 3M TDF Series investments for the Plans. The Defendants' breaches and imprudent investment decisions have resulted in the loss of over one hundred million dollars of assets for the Plans and their participants, suit says. 3M Company is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment based in St. Paul, Minnesota. 3M Investment Management Corporation is an investment advisor based in Saint Paul, Minnesota. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David W. Asp, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 596-4091 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 Email: dwasp@locklaw.com - and - Melinda A. Nicholson, Esq. Nicolas Kravitz, Esq. John A. Carriel, Esq. KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC 1100 Poydras Street, Suite 960 New Orleans, LA 70163 Telephone: (504) 648-1842 Facsimile: (504) 455-1498 Email: melinda.nicholson@ksfcounsel.com nicolas.kravitz@ksfcounsel.com john.carriel@ksfcounsel.com A W CHANG: Williams Sues Over Online Store's Access Barriers ------------------------------------------------------------ DARNELL WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. A W CHANG CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09301 (N.D. Ill., August 6, 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, https://conxstruct.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: ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of navigation links, empty links that contain no text, 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. A W Chang Corporation is a company that sells online goods and services, with its principal place of business in California. [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 Facsimile: (630) 478-0856 Email: achan@ealg.law ALLIANZ LIFE: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Goldman Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Janet Goldman, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America, Case No. 0:25-cv-03135-KMM-JFD (D. Minn., Aug. 5, 2025) arises from a reported Data Breach which exposed highly sensitive personally identifiable information details such as names, birth dates, mailing addresses, and, most concerning of all, Social Security numbers. According to the complaint, while the Defendant held the Personal Information of approximately 1.4 million Americans, they failed to use basic data security measures necessary to protect it. Starting July 16, 2025, hackers successfully exploited a vulnerability in a CRM system1 that Defendant used to store data of customers, financial professionals, and employees. This breach exposed over one million individuals' Personal Information, including financial and medical data (the Data Breach), the suit says. On July 30, 2025, the Plaintiff received notice from her financial planner concerning the Data Breach as she has an annuity through Allianz life. The Plaintiff is among the roughly 1.4 million individuals in the United States who had their PII, and protected health information stolen from a database operated by the Defendant. Allianz operates as an insurance company. The Company provides life, health, and disability insurance services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC 1650 West 82nd Avenue, Suite 880 Bloomington, MN 55431 Telephone: (612) 778-9595 E-mail: rpeterson@4-justice.com - and - Lori G. Feldman, Esq. GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC 102 Half Moon Bay Drive Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520 Telephone: (917) 983-9321 E-mail: lfeldman@4-justice.com - and - Simon B. Paris, Esq. Patrick Howard, Esq. SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY, P.C. 1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor One Liberty Place Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-8282 Facsimile: (215) 754-4443 E-mail: sparis@smbb.com phoward@smbb.com ALLY FINANCIAL: Appeals Class Certification Order in Sheridan Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ ALLY FINANCIAL INCORPORATED is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiff's motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Michael Sheridan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ally Financial Incorporated, Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-00616, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendant for violation of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act. On Apr. 17, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Frank W. Volk granted on July 22, 2025. The Court concludes that Ally's liability is a common question that would be inefficient to continuously litigate and risk nonconformity in decisions. Pursuing this matter as a class action is superior to any other method available. The appellate case is entitled Ally Financial Incorporated v. Michael Sheridan, Case No. 25-181, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on August 6, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Respondent MICHAEL C. SHERIDAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Denali S. Hedrick, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP 94 Long Street Westover, WV 26501 Telephone: (304) 940-9809 - and - James L. Kauffman, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW Washington, DC 20007 - and - Patricia Mulvoy Kipnis, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 923 Haddonfield Road Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Telephone: (304) 345-6555 - and - Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP 209 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 345-6555 Defendant-Petitioner ALLY FINANCIAL INCORPORATED is represented by: Megan Burns, Esq. John Curtis Lynch, Esq. Jason E. Manning, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE LLP 222 Central Park Avenue Virginia Beach, VA 23462 Telephone: (757) 687-7778 (757) 687-7765 (757) 687-7764 ALPHA BAKING: Scheun Privacy Class Suit Removed to N.D. Ill. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled JOSHUA SCHEUN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALPHA BAKING CO., INC., Defendant, Case No. 2025CH06524, was removed from Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July 31, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-09064 to the proceeding. The case arises from Defendant's failure to prevent a data security incident that allegedly allowed an unauthorized third party to access the personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and other individuals. Moreover, the Plaintiff asserts five causes of action against Defendant (a) negligence; (b) breach of implied contract; (c) unjust enrichment; (d) invasion of privacy; and (e) violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. Headquartered in Illinois, Alpha Baking Co., Inc. bakes and distributes bread, buns, rolls, muffins. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Christopher S. Dodrill, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 5200 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 665-3601 E-mail: Christopher.Dodrill@gtlaw.com - and - Jena Valdetero, Esq. Aaron S. Klein, Esq. Greenberg Traurig, LLP 360 N. Green Street, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60607 Telephone: (312) 456-8400 E-mail: Jena.Valdetero@gtlaw.com Aaron.Klein@gtlaw.com ALTIMMUNE INC: Faces Collier Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------------- DAVE COLLIER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALTIMMUNE, INC., VIPIN K. GARG, and MATTHEW SCOTT HARRIS, Case No. 8:25-cv-02581-TDC (D. Md., Aug. 5, 2025) is a federal securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Altimmune securities between August 10, 2023 and June 25, 2025, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws. The alleged misrepresentations in this case focus on Altimmune's failure to achieve statistical significance in its analysis of the fibrosis reduction primary endpoint in its IMPACT Phase 2b MASH trial. In pertinent part, the Defendants provided the public with overwhelmingly positive statements leading up to the announcement of topline results that failed to account for the fibrosis reduction observed in the placebo group, the suit says. The Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, misrepresenting and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of the results observed in Altimmune's IMPACT Phase 2b MASH trial. Altimmune's executives repeatedly touted their positive expectations and even went as far as to title the press release announcing IMPACT Phase 2b MASH trial topline results "Announces Positive Topline Results from the IMPACT Phase 2b MASH trial of Pemvidutide in the Treatment of MASH," completely disregarding that one of two primary endpoints was not found to be statistically significant. Allegedly, the Defendants spent minimal time discussing the aforementioned failure during the Special Call hosted by Altimmune pertaining to the topline results, rather stating that the Company hoped for better results in the Phase 3 trial. 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. Investors and analysts reacted immediately to Altimmune's revelation. 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. Investors who purchased Altimmune stock prior to this disclosure did so based on materially misleading information and suffered damages as a result. The Plaintiff purchased Altimmune common stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation of the Defendants' fraud. Altimmune is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company focused on developing treatments for obesity, metabolic and liver diseases. The Company's lead product candidate, pemvidutide (formerly known as ALT-801), is a novel, investigational, peptide-based GLP-1/glucagon dual receptor agonist. Pemvidutide is currently in clinical development for obesity and metabolic associated steatohepatitis (MASH).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan Cafritz, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1101 Vermont Avenue, NW Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 524-4290 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: jcafritz@zlk.com - and – Adam M. Apton, Esq. 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: aapton@zlk.com AMAZON.COM INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Griffith, et al. Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the appeal styled DENA GRIFFITH, Consol Plaintiff, Plaintiff - Appellant, and JOY PECZNICK, GIL KAUFMAN, Plaintiffs, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant - Appellee, No. 24-5176 (9th Cir.), Judges Michael Daly Hawkins, Susan P. Graber and Mark J. Bennett of the United States Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal with prejudice by the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington of Dena Griffith's complaint alleging claims against Amazon.com, Inc. for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act in this putative class action. Reviewing the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal order de novo, the Ninth Circuit finds: 1. The district court correctly determined that Griffith failed to state a claim for breach of contract. 2. The district court also correctly determined that Griffith failed to state a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. 3. The district court correctly determined that the complaint fails to state a claim for violation of the CPA. Griffith alleges Amazon breached its Prime membership agreement by discontinuing free delivery on grocery orders from Whole Foods Market. Under the Prime Membership Terms and Conditions. According to the Circuit Judges, "Amazon is expressly authorized 'in its sole discretion' to 'add or remove' membership benefits from time to time. Because the contract in question expressly allows the challenged conduct, there was no breach. Any advertisements regarding individual membership benefits cannot override the express terms of the contract. And contrary to Griffith’s contention, interpreting the contract as allowing Amazon to discontinue one membership benefit does not render the agreement illusory." A copy of the Court's Memorandum dated August 8, 2025, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=t0HwFh AMBER RESTAURANT: Dominguez Seeks Front Pay Under FLSA, NYLL ------------------------------------------------------------ DAVID DOMINGUEZ and JAVIER PATRICIO MOLINA, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. AMBER RESTAURANT LLC, HENRYK SKRODZKI, LUKASZ SKRODZKI, and ANDRZEJ DYNISCKIEWICZ, Case No. 1:25-cv-04331 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 4, 2025) seeks damages in an amount to be determined at trial, including compensatory damages for monetary damages and emotional distress, liquidated damages, punitive damages, front pay, attorneys' fees, costs, post-judgment interest, and such other legal and equitable relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff resides in New York. He worked for Defendants as a busser/runner at Amber from January 2025 until June 2025. Amber is a New York limited liability company that owns and operates a restaurant called Amber Steakhouse in Brooklyn.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. Josef Nussbaum, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 32 Broadway, Suite 601 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 688-5640 Facsimile: (212) 981-9587 ARRCO WELL: Diaz Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------- Juan Jose Diaz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Arrco Well Service, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00062 (W.D. Tex., Aug. 5, 2025) is a civil action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Portal-to-Portal Act seeking damages for the Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff time and one-half the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 during each seven-day workweek. The Plaintiff files this lawsuit individually and as an FLSA collective action on behalf of all similarly situated current and former employees of Defendant who, like Plaintiff, were not paid time and one-half their respective regular rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 in each seven day workweek in the time period of three years preceding the date this lawsuit was filed and forward. The Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members seek all damages available under the FLSA, including back wages, liquidated damages, legal fees, costs, and post-judgment interest. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Rig Operator in connection with Defendant's well operations. His primary job duties involved operating the rig, maintaining work equipment, preserving wells, preparing cans of water, and fueling equipment. He began working for Defendant on January 2025. The Defendant operates well drilling services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. WAGE AND HOUR FIRM 5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75254 Telephone: (214) 489-7653 Facsimile: (469) 319-0317 E-mail: rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com ATP USA: Chavez-Deremer Sues Over Retaliation Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------- LORI CHAVEZ-DEREMER, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. ATP USA, INC. d/b/a ATP Flight School; ATP Flight Academy, LLC;) ATP Flight Academy of Arizona, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00881 (M.D. Fla., Aug. 4, 2025) is an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) to restrain the Defendants from retaliating against workers in violation of Section 15(a)(3) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. section 215(a)(3). The Secretary is authorized under FLSA section 17, 29 U.S.C. section 217, to seek injunctive relief to restrain violations of the FLSA. Because the Defendants retaliated against workers, the Secretary seeks an order enjoining Defendants and those acting on their behalf from violating sections 15(a)(3) of the FLSA through any further adverse action against current or former workers as a result of their protected activity under the Act. The Defendants have allegedly violated Section 15(a)(3) of the Act by retaliating against certain of its flight instructors because they engaged in the protected activity of joining a class action lawsuit in order to receive their unpaid overtime compensation. The Defendants retaliated against those flight instructor employees by firing them for their involvement in the Prior Action, says the suit. As a result of the Defendants' alleged actions, any reasonable employee would be dissuaded from engaging in activities protected under the FLSA, such as complaining about unpaid overtime compensation or opting into a class action lawsuit against the Defendants. The Defendant is in the business of professional pilot training.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan L. Snare, Esq. Tremelle I. Howard, Esq. Daniel P. Miller, Esq. John O. Gainey, Esq. OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 61 Forsyth Street, S.W., Room 7T10 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (678) 237-0623 Facsimile: (404) 302-5438 E-mail: gainey.john.o@dol.gov atl.fedcourt@dol.gov BARCLAYS PLC: Bid to Dismiss Merritt Securities Suit OK'd in Part ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Stephen Merritt, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Barclays PLC, James E. Staley, and Nigel Higgins, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-09217-MEMF-KS (C.D. Cal.), Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denies Defendant James Staley's motion to dismiss and grants in part Defendants Barclays PLC and Nigel Higgins' motion to dismiss with leave to amend. This securities class action was brought on behalf of all persons or entities who (1) purchased or acquired Barclays American Depository Receipts (ADR) traded on the New York Stock Exchange from July 22, 2019, through October 12, 2023, inclusive (the 'Class Period') and/or (2) purchased or acquired Barclays ordinary shares traded on the London Stock Exchange during the Class Period. The named Plaintiffs are Teamsters Local 237 Additional Security Benefit Fund and Teamsters Local 237 Supplemental Fund for Housing Authority Employees (the 'Teamsters'), the Firemen's Retirement System of St. Louis (the 'Firemen'), and members of the putative class. The Teamsters was appointed Lead Plaintiff on January 2, 2024. Defendant Barclays Bank is a multinational bank and publicly held company headquartered in London. Defendant Nigel Higgins has served as the Group Chairman of the Board of Barclays Bank since May 2019. Defendant James E. Staley served as CEO of Barclays Bank and as a director on its Board from December 1, 2015, to October 31, 2021. In July 2019, Jeffrey Epstein was arrested on federal charges for sex trafficking of minors. On July 22, 2019, the New York Times published an article surrounding Epstein's arrest which described a longstanding relationship between Epstein and Staley that began when Staley was running JP Morgan's private bank and Epstein was a client. On August 15, 2019, the UK's Financial Conduct Authority (the 'FCA') contacted Higgins to request a written response detailing how the Board had satisfied itself that there was no impropriety in the relationship between Staley and Epstein. Barclays Bank sent a letter to the FCA on October 8, 2019, which included three affirmations: (1) Staley did not have a close relationship with Epstein (2) Staley had not seen anything that would have suggested the misconduct by Epstein; and (3) Staley's last contact with Epstein was 'well before he joined Barclays in 2015. Shortly after the letter was issued, U.S. investigators sent Barclays Bank a cache of emails between Epstein and Staley that were discovered during its investigations of Epstein. The bank engaged a law firm to review the emails, conduct interviews, and provide a report to the Board. On February 13, 2020, Barclays Bank disclosed an FCA investigation into the relationship between Staley and Epstein and issued its 2019 Annual Report and a press release announcing that Staley retained the full confidence of the Board. On November 1, 2021, Barclays Bank issued a press release announcing Staley would step down immediately as CEO. Subsequently, On October 12, 2023, the FCA issued a decision notice on the results of its investigation into the relationship between Staley and Epstein. The FCA found Staley acted 'recklessly' in approving the 2019 Letter and found that the 2019 Letter contained two misleading statements about the nature of the relationship between Epstein and Staley, and the date of their last contact. The FCA fined Staley and banned him from holding a senior management position in the financial services industry. That day, the price of Barclays ADRs and ordinary shares declined by 4.99% and 3.12% respectively The First Amended Complaint brings three causes of action. Count 1 alleges that Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 by knowingly or with reckless disregard disseminating or approving of statements containing material misrepresentations, thereby inflating the price of Barclays Bank's NYSE-traded ADRs during the Class Period. Count 2 alleges that Defendants violated their duty to disseminate accurate and truthful information as 'controlling persons' of Barclays Bank and thereby participated in conduct that inflated the market price of Barclays Bank's ADRs, in violation of Section 20(a) of the SEA. Count 3--brought only against Defendants Barclays Bank by the Firemen--alleges that Barclays Bank omitted matters required to be included in published information and knew those omissions to be dishonest concealment of a material facts in violation of Section 90A of the Financial Services and Markets Act of the United Kingdom. The Court found that Plaintiffs adequately pleaded material misstatements. Regarding a statement in the New York Times article where a Barclays Bank spokesperson was quoted as saying that Mr. Staley has never engaged or paid fees to Mr. Epstein to advise him, or to provide professional services, either in his various roles at JPMorgan, or personally. According to the court, this was potentially misleading because a reasonable investor's interpretation of the statement would be that Staley and Epstein did not advise or provide professional services to each other, whether formally paid or not. Judge Frimpong also found misleading statements in press releases and the annual report where Defendants stated that 'Mr. Staley developed a professional relationship with Mr. Epstein. The Court concluded this supports an inference that Staley and Epstein only had a professional relationship, which would be potentially misleading. Additionally, the Court found that Staley's conference call statements were plausibly misleading when he stated on February 13, 2020, that his relationship with Epstein began to taper off quite significantly after Staley left JPMorgan and stopped before Staley joined Barclays Bank. Judge Frimpong determined that the allegedly misleading statements were material, noting that Defendants have not shown that a reasonable investor could not find the relationship of a top executive of Barclays Bank with a convicted sex offender related to their decisions. Regarding scienter, the Court found scienter pleaded with sufficient specificity as to Barclays Bank and Higgins, stating that intent to deceive or deliberate recklessness is supported by the allegations that Barclays Bank and Higgins received evidence revealing the true nature of Staley's relationship with Epstein as early as December 2019, and yet continued to make statements fully in support of Staley. The Court found adequate loss causation, determining that the detailed, 79-page FCA Decision Notice and 2023 Press Release could plausibly have caused the alleged loss. The Court noted that the FCA's final determination provided confirmation of Staley's misrepresentations that the 2021 Press Release did not, and also provided details about Defendants' specific misleading statements to the FCA. The Court denied Staley's motion to dismiss Count 1, finding all elements sufficiently pleaded. For Barclays Bank and Higgins, the Court granted the motion in part, dismissing only one specific statement by Higgins regarding his declination to comment on Staley's departure from Barclays Bank as not misleading, but otherwise denied their motion. The Court denied all Defendants' motions to dismiss Count 2, finding that as the Court has found a primary violation sufficiently pleaded under Count 1, the Court denies Defendants' Motions as to Count 2. The Court found it had jurisdiction over the UK law claim, rejecting Barclays Bank's argument that it should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. However, the Court granted Barclays Bank's motion to dismiss Count 3 with leave to amend, finding that the allegations are insufficient to plead a Section 90A claim for dishonest delay at this time. The Court's order allows most of the securities fraud claims to proceed against all Defendants, with only minor exceptions. The Court stated: For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies Staley's Motion to Dismiss and grants in part Barclays Bank's Motion to Dismiss with leave to amend. The case will proceed to discovery on the federal securities law claims, while Plaintiffs may attempt to replead their UK law claim. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ofgwiu BECKER PROFESSIONAL: Discloses Info to Third Parties, Garcia Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BECKER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-12157 (D. Mass., July 31, 2025) alleges violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act. The Defendant operates becker.com, which offers review materials for the Certified Public Accountant, Certified Management Accountant, Enrolled Agent, and Certified Internal Auditor exams, in addition to Continuing Professional Education materials for accounting professionals. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and Class Members, however, the Defendant knowingly and intentionally disclosed website users' personally identifiable information--including a record of every video viewed by the user--to unrelated third parties such as Google and Meta, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings this action for damages and other legal and equitable remedies resulting from Defendant's violations of the VPPA. Headquartered in St. Louis, MO, Becker Professional Development Corporation provides educational resources for professionals in the areas of accounting and finance. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT: Hettinger's Summary Judgment Bid OK'd in Part ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chief Judge James E. Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a Memorandum Opinion granting in part the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment in the lawsuit styled LAURA HETTINGER, Plaintiff v. BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-03687-JEB (D.D.C.). Plaintiff Laura Hettinger, formerly a tenant of the NOVEL South Capitol apartment building managed by Defendant Bozzuto Management Company, asserts that Bozzuto neglected to adequately inform her of the requirement to pay it utility fees -- plus an associated service charge -- when she applied to rent an apartment in the NOVEL. In so doing, she argues, Bozzuto violated D.C.'s Rental Housing Act, which requires disclosure of the "applicable rent" for an apartment at the time a prospective tenant files an application to lease it. The Plaintiff brought this potential class action against the Defendant for that and other purportedly unlawful trade practices, alleging a violation of the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA). Her Amended Complaint currently alleges one CPPA count comprising 15 subcounts. The parties have now cross-moved for summary judgment on some of these subcounts. The Defendant has moved for summary judgment on Subcounts A–C and O of the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. The Plaintiff opposes while also cross-moving for summary judgment on Subcounts A and O only. The Court delivers a split decision, granting the Plaintiff's Cross-Motion as to Subcount A only, while denying the Defendant's Motion in full. The Motions center principally on Hettinger's allegation that Bozzuto engaged in a "drip pricing scheme" whereby it hid the ball on charging prospective tenants a variable utility fee, plus a fixed service fee, until after they had already submitted their applications and paid the application fee. That scheme forms the basis of three of the four CPPA subcounts at issue here: (1) Subcount A, which alleges a predicate violation of the Rental Housing Act's disclosure provision; (2) Subcount B, which alleges a violation of the CPPA's general prohibition on deceptive and unfair trade practices; and (3) Subcount O, which alleges a violation of the CPPA's prohibition on advertising goods "without the intent to sell them as advertised or offered." For reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion, the Court: -- denies the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Subcounts A-C and O, -- grants the Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment as to Subcount A, and -- denies the Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment as to Subcount O. With respect to the Plaintiff's Cross-Motion, the Court concludes that, under the unique circumstances presented in the case, the utility payments and service fee made to Bozzuto qualify as "rent" that, under the RHA, had to be disclosed to the Plaintiff when she applied for an apartment. Judge Boasberg opines, among other things, that the charges for HVAC, water, sewer, trash, and a flat monthly service fee constituted "rent" because they were paid directly to Bozzuto, the payment was a condition of occupancy and the lease explicitly treated nonpayment as lease violation and grounds for eviction. Judge Boasberg denies the Defendant's motion as to Subcount B because the Plaintiff introduced enough evidence to show that she paid over $1,100 in fees, Bozzuto did not disclose fees in the online application, and not all applicants received the Pricing Sheet. Judge Boasberg adds, among other things, that these omissions could mislead a reasonable consumer. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/4mndup56 from PacerMonitor.com. * * * Bozzuto disagrees with the Court's decision and has filed a Motion to Certify Order for Interlocutory Appeal. The Court, meanwhile, has entered a scheduling order providing that: (1) Class Certification Discovery shall close on October 30, 2025; (2) Plaintiff shall file her Motion for Class Certification and make Class Certification Expert disclosures by December 5, 2025; (3) Defendant shall file its Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion and make any Class Certification Expert disclosures by February 9, 2026; (4) Plaintiff shall file her Reply in support of her Motion and her Class Certification Expert rebuttals by March 27, 2026; and (5) A status conference will be set following the Court's order on class certification. BROWN UNIVERSITY: Faces Price Fixing Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- Kate Butts of The Brown Daily Herald reports that on Friday, August 8, a group of three students and a recent graduate filed a class action lawsuit against 32 colleges and universities, including Brown, accusing them of inflating the cost of attendance through early decision admissions in violation of antitrust laws. None of the plaintiffs are known to be directly affiliated with Brown. Brown's Senior Vice President for Communications Cass Cliatt wrote in a statement that the complaint has no merit and the University "is prepared to mount a strong defense to make this clear." "Brown has always made decisions about its admissions processes and financial aid independently as part of the University's longstanding commitment to enhancing access to the benefits of a Brown education regardless of socioeconomic circumstances," she wrote. The suit also names two college application platforms -- the Common Application and Scoir -- along with the Consortium of Financing Higher Education as defendants. The plaintiffs argue early decision practices are tantamount to collusion between colleges and universities who have "mutually agreed not to compete for students accepted through Early Decision, which both raises prices for tuition and other services." Under this system, the vast majority of students are not given the opportunity to compare financial aid offers from other schools. Since early decision offers high rates of acceptance, the plaintiffs argue that this puts price-sensitive applicants at a disadvantage. If a student is accepted through early decision, they agree to rescind all applications to other universities and enroll at the school. Colleges typically favor this system as it provides the chance to solidify the makeup of much of their first-year class before the less-restrictive regular decision application cycle. The plaintiffs challenged the enforceability of such an agreement, saying the application "is presented in a form that resembles a contract, an applicant's commitment is not actually legally binding." Instead, they claim, it imposes an "honor-bound," "ethical" requirement to attend that school. Brown previously settled a separate antitrust admissions lawsuit in January 2024 for $19.5 million. They maintain no wrongdoing. The Consortium of Financing Higher Education and Scoir did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Common Application declined to comment. [GN] CAR WASH: Gonzalez Sues Over Property's Architectural Barriers -------------------------------------------------------------- JESUS GONZALEZ, Plaintiff v. CAR WASH & QUICK OIL CHANGE INC, d/b/a Las Brisas Hand Car Wash & Oil Change and LAS BRISAS HOLDING COMPANY, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-23414 (S.D. Fla., July 30, 2025) is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On July 3 2025, the Plaintiff personally visited the "Las Brisas Hand Car Wash & Oil Change," to inquire and/or use of their services, and to test for compliance with the law, but due to the fact that he perambulates with the assistance of a wheelchair, Plaintiff was denied full and equal access, and enjoyment of the facilities, services, goods, and amenities, because of the architectural barriers met at the subject property. As a result of the joint and several discriminations by the Defendants, the Plaintiff has suffered loss of dignity, mental anguish and other tangible injuries and has suffered an injury-in-fact, says the suit. Car Wash & Quick Oil Change, Inc, a Florida for profit Corporation, is the owner and operator of "Las Brisas Hand Car Wash & Oil Change" commercial property located in Miami.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Juan Courtney Cunningham, Esq. J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC 8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 351-2014 E-mail: cc@cunninghampllc.com legal@cunninghampllc.com CARE AND DEVELOPMENT: Faces McGary Suit Over FLSA Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action has been filed against Care and Development Center, Inc. The case is styled as Sabrina McGary, on behalf of herself and all those similarly situated v. Care and Development Center, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01426-BWA-KWR (E.D. La., July 12, 2025). The case is brought over Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case is assigned to Judge Barry W. Ashe. Care and Development Center, Inc. is an accredited early childhood program.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jody Forester Jackson, Esq. Mary Stanfield Bubbett, Esq. JACKSON & JACKSON 201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 2500 New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 599-5953 E-mail: jjackson@jackson-law.net mjackson@jackson-law.net CENTRAL BUCKS: $516,000 in Counsel Fees Awarded in Marinello Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuits titled REBECCA CARTEE-HARING v. CENTRAL BUCKS SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01995-MMB (E.D. Pa.), and DAWN MARINELLO, on behalf of herself and similarly situated plaintiffs, Plaintiff v. CENTRAL BUCKS SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-02587-MMB (E.D. Pa.), Judge Michael M. Baylson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania reduces the requested attorneys' fees from $2,756,662 to $516,415. Following the successful second trial of this case, Plaintiffs Dawn Marinello and Rebecca Cartee-Haring, through their attorney, Edward Mazurek, filed a Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs. The Defendant opposed the Motion, pointing out several errors, or matters overlooked by the Plaintiffs' Counsel. In view of the Defendant's opposition, the Court entered an Order on July 7, 2025, allowing the Plaintiffs to file an amended petition by July 14, 2025, which was the deadline for the Plaintiffs to file a reply. Although the Plaintiffs filed a supplemental petition, Mr. Mazurek did not take the opportunity to file an amended petition. The Court generally agrees with the Plaintiffs that any attorney undertaking an Equal Pay Act case on a contingency basis is embarking on a little known but important statute and has significant burdens of proof to satisfy. However, the Court in its award of fees and costs must consider the Plaintiffs' Counsel's many errors and mistakes, as pointed out by the Defendant in its response. Accordingly, for reasons set forth in its Memorandum, the Court rejects the Plaintiffs' requested lodestar multiplier, reduces the lodestar amount to reflect what the Court in its discretion considers to be a reasonable fee, and awards most of the Plaintiffs' costs. There have been two trials of these cases. At an early point in the case, on Feb. 28, 2022, the Plaintiffs moved for certification of a collective action consisting of many female teachers in the Defendant school district. After an evidentiary hearing on June 14, 2022, in which the two Plaintiffs and several other female teachers testified, the Court issued an Order granting final certification of the collective action, finding that the witnesses were credible. As the case progressed, circumstances indicated that this Order was premature and probably issued in error. The second trial began on May 5, 2025, and lasted three days. The jury unanimously found in favor of both Plaintiffs and against the Defendant. The Court has since ruled on all other post-trial motions. The instant Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs is the final order in this case. The Plaintiffs' Counsel asserts that the Plaintiffs should receive an award of counsel fees of $2,625 per hour, which is three and a half times the hourly rate that the Plaintiffs' counsel would have charged for this case ($750) but for the contingent fee agreement. The Plaintiffs' Counsel requests a total of $2,756,662.50 for work on this case. The Court rejects the Plaintiffs' Counsel's request for a contingency multiplier of 3.5 times his hourly rate and reduces the fee award to $516,415.26, as explained in the Memorandum. While the Plaintiffs' Counsel was impressive in the way he promptly sought certification of a collective action and similarly impressive in the way he cross-examined defense witnesses, Judge Baylson points out that the Plaintiffs' Counsel had a series of missteps that caused extensive delays, drove up costs, and hindered judgment in the first trial. Among other things, the Plaintiffs' Counsel failed to manage discovery efficiently with the hundreds of former opt-in Plaintiffs, requiring several motions to compel the opt-in Plaintiffs to cooperate with discovery, and the Plaintiffs' Counsel disregarded many Court-imposed deadlines throughout the entirety of the litigation, including up to the eve of the second trial when the Plaintiffs' Counsel failed to timely file his proposed voir dire, prompting another Court Order. The Plaintiffs' Motion also asks the Court to award $217,738.62 in reimbursement for out-of-pocket costs the Plaintiffs' Counsel incurred over the course of this litigation. The Court grants in part these requests and will reduce the recoverable costs to $119,863. The Court denies the request for costs based on the work of one of the Plaintiffs, Rebecca Cartee-Haring, who Mr. Mazurek asserts was hired as a paralegal to work on the companion Marinello case and suggests an hourly rate of $250. Judge Baylson opines, among other things, that there is no indication that the Plaintiffs' Counsel provided this Court or the Defendant with any notice that he was hiring one of the Plaintiffs while the case was active. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs do not cite any reported decision approving such a payment which the Court expects, at a minimum, before requiring the Defendant to reimburse the Plaintiffs for the salary that Mr. Mazurek asserts he paid to Ms. Cartee-Haring. For these reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Fees and Costs. The Court reduces the requested fees from $2,756,662.50 to $516,415.26, and reduces the requested costs from $217,738.62 to $119,863.62. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/5e5js26t from PacerMonitor.com. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/55v2srz5 from PacerMonitor.com. * * * The Central Bucks School District is taking an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from: -- the civil judgment entered in favor of the Plaintiff on May 8, 2025 [ECF 454]; -- the Order on PostTrial Motions and Amended Civil Judgment entered on July 15, 2025 [ECF 485] and its accompanying Memorandum [ECF 484]; and -- the Order on Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs [ECF 487] issued on July 21, 2025, and its accompanying Memorandum [ECF 486]. Attorneys for Defendant: Michael I. Levin, Esq. David W. Brown, Esq. LEVIN LEGAL GROUP, P.C. 1800 Byberry Road, Suite 1301 Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006 Phone: (215) 938-6378 E-mail: mlevin@levinlegalgroup.com dbrown@levinlegalgroup.com CENTURY ALUMINUM: $944K Alumina Suit Settlement Gets Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Katie Leigh McDaniel, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Century Aluminum Company, Century Aluminum of South Carolina, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-5766-RMG (D.S.C.), Judge Richard Mark Gergel of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina granted Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class action settlement and petition for class counsel attorneys' fees, costs, and a class representative service award. As previously reported, the Plaintiffs in this putative class action are a class of persons who owned single-family homes in the Class Area as of September 1, 2023, seeking property damages from Defendants stemming from repeated emissions of aluminum oxide particulates, also known as alumina, into the air from Defendants' Mount Holly aluminum smelter in September 2023 that Plaintiffs allege damaged their properties. Plaintiffs bring claims of trespass, nuisance, negligence and gross negligence and negligence per se against Defendants. The Court certified the settlement class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). The Settlement Class is composed of "all persons who, as of September 1, 2023, owned a single-family home located in the Class Area as reflected by the Berkeley County public record." The Court confirmed that the Rule 23(b)(2) Settlement Class satisfies the numerosity requirement as there are 725 single-family homes with 719 different property owners located within the Class Area. The commonality requirement is met as the Court noted the commonality requirement is relatively easy to satisfy and found various common questions enumerated by the Parties show the requirement is met. Regarding typicality, the Court stated there is a sufficient link between Plaintiffs' claims and those of absent class members. Like absent class members, Plaintiff McDaniel is an individual residential property owner who resided within the Class Area during the relevant time period. The Court found that Plaintiff and the Settlement Class Members' claims arise out of the same alleged course of conduct by Defendants and are based on identical legal theories. The Court determined the parties' Settlement Agreement is adequate, noting that Plaintiffs highlighted this was a difficult case that involved complex issues of environmental science and factual and legal obstacles that made class certification and Plaintiffs' ability to prevail on the merits uncertain. The Court found that the likelihood of substantial future costs weighed against the uncertainty of further litigation favors approving the proposed settlement. The Court found the $944,000 settlement amount reasonable, explaining it "will result in payments of approximately $700.00 to the owner(s) of each single-family home within the Class Area, which correlates adequately with the claims of damages and losses asserted by Plaintiffs." The Court received no objections to the Settlement Agreement The Court appointed McGowan, Hood, Felder & Phillips, LLC and Steinberg Law Firm, LLC as Class Counsel under Rule 23(g)(1), and appointed Plaintiff Katie Leigh McDaniel as Class Representative. Regarding attorneys' fees and expenses in connection with settlement, the Court granted Class Counsel's request for a total award of $396,000 -- consisting of $236,000 in attorney's fees and $150,000 in actual expenses, as well as a $1,000 class representative service award to Plaintiff McDaniel. A copy of the Court's Final Approval of the Settlement is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XfyZLN CHICK-N-SMASH CORP: Gomez Sues Over Breaches of Labor Laws ---------------------------------------------------------- DEIVI GOMEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHICK-N SMASH, CORP. and NORMAN ALSAIDI, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-04255 (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2025) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a food preparer and cleaner from on or about July 14, 2024 to on or about March 17, 2025. Throughout their employment, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff, as well as the FLSA Plaintiffs, all of the wages due to them under the law, including overtime wages. In addition, the Defendants failed to furnish Plaintiffs with accurate wage statements on each payday as the NYLL requires. The Defendants also failed to post required notices regarding payment of minimum and overtime wages as required by the FLSA and NYLL, says the suit. Chick-N-Smash, Corp. owns and operates a restaurant in New York, NY. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amit Kumar, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO 108 West 39th Street, Suite 602 New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 583-7400 E-mail: AKumar@Cafaroesq.com CINMAR LLC: Sud Sues Over Fake Discount Ads on Emails ----------------------------------------------------- ANKIT SUD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CINMAR, LLC and FRONTGATE MARKETING, INC., Defendants, Case No. 25-2-22196-2 SEA (Wash. Super., King Cty., July 31, 2025) arises from Defendants' deceptive discount advertisements on their promotional emails. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violate the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act and the Consumer Protection Act. Allegedly, the Defendants have been promoting fake discounts by sending emails with false and misleading subject lines, creating false impression that their products' regular prices are higher than they truly are. In addition, the Defendants have been advertising that their percent-off discounts are only for a limited time. However, the said substantial discounts on Defendants' products are nearly always available, says the suit. Cinmar, LLC d/b/a Frontgate and Frontgate Marketing, Inc. sell and market furniture and home decor products online through the Frontgate brand and website, www.frontgate.com. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cody Hoesly, Esq. BARG SINGER HOESLY PC 121 SW Morrison St., Ste. 600 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 241-3311 E-mail: choesly@bargsinger.com - and - Jonas B. Jacobson, Esq. Martin Brenner, 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 martin@dovel.com CONTINUING HEALTHCARE: Alley Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- Shannon Alley, individually, and all others similarly situated v. Continuing Healthcare Solutions, Inc. d/b/a Continuing Healthcare of Milan (CHS), CHS Employment Services, LLC, CHS Employment Services II LLC, Milan Skilled Nursing, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-01624 (N.D. Ohio, Aug. 4, 2025) is a class action suit of fraud, claim for unpaid wages, and retaliation against Continuing Healthcare pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Alley began employment with CHS at the Milan nursing facility location in June of 2020 as a nurse's aide. Her first paycheck was dated July 3, 2020. She did not consent to any health benefits or supplemental insurance benefits when she began employment with CHS. However, she was informed that certain coverages were provided as employee benefits to all employees, says the suit. The Plaintiff is a resident of Fremont, Ohio located in Sandusky, County Ohio. Continuing Healthcare is a healthcare company with headquarters located in Cuyahoga County, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary J. Murry, Esq. BARKAN & ROBON LTD. 1701 Woodlands Drive, Suite 100 Maumee, Ohio 43537 Telephone: (419) 897-6500 Facsimile: (419) 897-6200 E-mail: zmurry@barkan-robon.com COSM HOLLYWOOD: Robinson Files Labor Class Suit in Cal. Super. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Cosm Hollywood Park, LLC. The case is styled as LAQUITA ROBINSON, on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COSM HOLLYWOOD PARK, LLC, a Limited Liability Company, Case No. 25TRCV02295 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 11, 2025). The suit is brought over Defendant's alleged employment law violations including failure to pay minimum and overtime wages. A case management conference is set for October 13, 2025. COSM HOLLYWOOD PARK, LLC is a global technology company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vache A. Thomassian, Esq. KJT LAW GROUP, LLP 230 N Maryland Ave., Ste 306 Glendale, CA 91206-4281 Telephone: (818) 507-8525 Facsimile: (818) 507-8588 E-mail: vache@kjtlawgroup.com DAIKIN COMFORT: AC Units Have Defective Capacitors, Cissell Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ AARON CISSELL, and BIG STATE AIR CONDITIONING AND HEATING COMPANY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. DAIKIN COMFORT TECHNOLOGIES NORTH AMERICA, INC., GOODMAN COMPANY, LP., Case No. 1:25-cv-00980-UNA (D. Del., Aug. 5, 2025) arises from the Defendants' deceptive and misleading practices in connection with the design, manufacturing, marketing, and sale of Amana brand air conditioning units. Like many modern high-energy appliances, Amana air conditioning units utilize an electrical device called a capacitor. Capacitors are responsible for supplying the electrical jolt to both start the AC units and keep a steady current of electricity to keep them running after startup. The capacitors used by Defendants in their Amana AC units are defective because the dielectric oil used within the capacitor is defective and prone to thinning out prematurely, which causes the capacitors to be unable to hold a charge, the suit says. Once the Defect manifests, the AC unit will prematurely fail and be unable to supply the necessary electricity for the AC unit to operate, and the AC units will not be able to blow cool air as expected, added the suit. Allegedly, the Defendants knew the capacitors in Amana air conditioning units were defective because the capacitors in those units were failing at rates that far exceeded the industry average. DAIKIN COMFORT TECHNOLOGIES NORTH AMERICA, INC. offers heat pumps and air conditioning systems, gas furnaces, air handlers, and packaged units for residential and commercial sectors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph G. Sauder, Esq. Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq. Joseph B. Kenney, Esq. SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC 1109 Lancaster Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (888) 711-9975 Facsimile: (610) 421-1326 E-mail: jgs@sstriallawyers.com mds@sstriallawyers.com jbk@sstriallawyers.com - and - Michael J. Farnan, Esq. Brian E. Farnan, Esq. Michael J. Farnan, Esq. FARNAN LLP 919 N. Market St., 12th Fl. Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 777-0300 E-mail: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com mfarnan@farnanlaw.com DEUTSCHE BANK: Court Reverses Dismissal of Shaffer's Counterclaim ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Linda L. Shaffer, Appellant v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Indenture Trustee for American Home Mortgage Investment Trust 2006-1, Appellee, No. 2D2024-2310, the Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District, reverses the trial court's order granting Deutsche Bank's motion to dismiss count three of the Plaintiff's counterclaim on behalf of a putative class. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the order for the trial court to make the required findings and conclusions regarding class certification. The Court of Appeals concluded that rule 1.220(d)(1) makes no distinction between compulsory and permissive counterclaims regarding the requirement for findings and conclusions. The Court also stated that although cases involve compulsory counterclaims, those cases do not suggest that the nature of those counterclaims dictates whether the court must follow the rule. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's grant of Deutsche Bank's motion to dismiss count three of Shaffer's counterclaim on behalf of a putative class. Count three seeks a declaration that Deutsche Bank cannot enforce the underlying loan documents against Shaffer because it previously issued her an Internal Revenue Service Form 1099-C indicating that the loan had been discharged. The count also seeks that same relief on behalf of other persons similarly situated to Shaffer. According to the Court, the trial court denied Deutsche Bank's motion to dismiss count three on behalf of Shaffer individually but dismissed that count on behalf of the putative class without any written findings or conclusions. The Court of Appeals determined that in dismissing count three solely on behalf of the putative class, the trial court effectively denied class certification as a matter of law. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court erred in failing to make the requisite findings and conclusions under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220(d)(1). The rule states that Irrespective of whether the court determines that the claim or defense is maintainable on behalf of a class, the order shall separately state the findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which the determination is based. Upon examination of the rule requirements, the Court noted that rule 1.220 requires a trial court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting its ruling to either certify a class or deny certification. The Court observed that the trial court truncated this review by denying the motion to amend without proper findings. The Court of Appeals addressed Deutsche Bank's contention that the trial court was not required to set forth its findings and conclusions because Shaffer's count three asserts a permissive counterclaim rather than a compulsory one. The Court determined that count three is doubtless compulsory, explaining that if Shaffer is right about the consequences of the 1099-C issued to her, Deutsche Bank will be unable to enforce the loan documents against her. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Nwu6Yy DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA: Class Certification, Settlement Ruling Vacated ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the appeal styled KARLA MAREE; MOURAD GUERDAD, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. JANA CASTANARES; DENNIS CASTANARES, Objectors-Appellants, v. DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA A.G., Defendant-Appellee, No. 23-55795 (9th Cir.), Judges Sidney R. Thomas, Kim McLane Wardlaw and Daniel P. Collins of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacate the order of the United States District Court for the Central District of California granting class certification and final settlement approval, and remand for further proceedings. Objectors-Appellants Jana Castanares and Dennis Castanares appeal the district court's order granting class certification and final approval of a class settlement reached by Plaintiffs-Appellees Karla Maree and Mourad Guerdad and Defendant-Appellee Deutsche Lufthansa A.G. resolving claims that Lufthansa failed to timely provide refunds to customers after cancelling flights during the COVID-19 pandemic. The settlement resolves two putative class actions against Lufthansa. The first -- the Castanares action -- was filed by Objectors-Appellants' relatives, who purchased their tickets directly from Lufthansa. The second -- the Maree action -- was filed the following day by Maree, who purchased her ticket indirectly through the travel agent Expedia. Lufthansa moved to compel arbitration of Maree's claims, arguing that she was bound by a mandatory arbitration provision in Expedia's terms of use. The district court denied Lufthansa's motion but later stayed the Maree action pending Lufthansa's interlocutory appeal. Because Lufthansa had no mandatory arbitration provision in its contracts with direct purchasers, the court denied Lufthansa's motion to likewise stay the Castanares action, which proceeded to discovery. Maree and Lufthansa executed a "binding term sheet" agreeing to settle claims on behalf of both direct and indirect purchasers whose flights Lufthansa had cancelled. About six weeks later, Maree amended her complaint to name Guerdad, a direct purchaser who was not involved in the mediation between Maree and Lufthansa, as an additional class representative, and the two moved for provisional class certification and preliminary approval of the settlement four days later. After initially denying the motion for provisional class certification and preliminary approval of the settlement, the district court later granted reconsideration and granted the motion. The district court granted class certification and final approval of the settlement in August 2023. The court's order summarized the results of the claims process as follows. Of the 166,360 members that the district court estimated to be in the class, 106,203 received direct notice of the settlement, representing approximately 64% of the class, and a digital notice campaign and press release received about 8.6 million views. As of July 31, 2023, 21,419 claims had been filed, representing approximately 13% of the class. Among the claimants, 18,470 chose to receive $10 cash; 1,947 chose to receive a $45 voucher; and 1,002 requested refunds, plus 1% interest payments that the court estimated will average approximately $18.16 each. Thus, Lufthansa's payments to the class, excluding refunds, are expected to total approximately $290,511. After the pro rata adjustments necessary in light of the $500,000 minimum distribution to the class are made, claimants receiving cash will ultimately receive approximately $17.50, claimants receiving vouchers will receive about $78.75, and claimants receiving 1% interest payments will receive about $31.78. Objectors-Appellants timely appealed. Class Settlement In In re Bluetooth Headset Products Liability Litigation, 654 F.3d 935, 947 (9th Cir. 2011), the Ninth Circuit identified three subtle signs of collusion for which it requires district courts to look. These "Bluetooth factors" are: (1) when counsel receive a disproportionate distribution of the settlement; (2) when the parties negotiate a clear sailing arrangement (i.e., an arrangement where defendant will not object to a certain fee request by class counsel); and (3) when the parties create a reverter that returns unclaimed [funds] to the defendant. The Ninth Circuit concludes the district court failed to adequately scrutinize the first of these Bluetooth factors. According to the Ninth Circuit, the district court calculated the settlement value based on a totally unrealistic claims rate, and then found the attorneys' fee award proportional to that inflated settlement value. Under the original terms of the settlement, Lufthansa's payments to the class would have been estimated at around $290,511. Plaintiffs-Appellees argue that the settlement is in fact valued at about $3.5 million because, in addition to service awards, class counsel's fees, administration costs, and the $500,000 minimum distribution floor, Lufthansa is also paying an estimated $1.8 million in refunds to the class. But the district court did not indicate that it included refunds in its valuation of the settlement for purposes of the first Bluetooth factor; on the contrary, at one point in its final order approving the settlement, the court acknowledged that the settlement is about interest owed to the class not the underlying refunds. According to the Ninth Circuit, the settling parties' reliance on refunds to justify the court's conclusion post-hoc cannot cure its failure to carry its procedural burden of comprehensively reviewing the settlement for collusion. The Ninth Circuit finds the district court's conclusory statement that class counsel will not receive a disproportionate distribution of the settlement was insufficient to satisfy its heightened procedural burden. According to the Circuit Judges, "Particularly in light of the specter of implicit collusion raised by other aspects of the settlement -- including the reversion of funds to Lufthansa, Lufthansa's voluntary concession of a $500,000 minimum distribution floor after the settlement had been preliminarily approved, the stay on the Maree action pending appeal, and the seemingly clandestine way negotiations were conducted -- the district court had an obligation to question the disproportionate cash distribution to attorneys' fees, substantively address concerns that the settlement value was inflated, and clearly explain why the total benefits to the class justified the fees awarded. Because the district court did not provide such explanation, we must vacate the Approval Order and remand for further consideration." Class Certification Objectors-Appellants also challenge the adequacy of the class representatives under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4). The district court recognized that whether Plaintiff Maree is an adequate representative for direct purchasers was a close question because her claim, unlike those of direct purchasers, was potentially subject to a mandatory arbitration provision, and her case had been stayed pending appeal of that issue. But, the court reasoned, it need not resolve the question of Maree's adequacy because Maree had amended her complaint to name Guerdad, a direct purchaser, as an additional class representative. Although Plaintiff Guerdad was added late to the case, the court stated, Plaintiff Guerdad's declaration persuades the Court that he is an adequate representative of direct purchasers. The Circuit Judges hold, "The district court's reliance on Guerdad's declaration to establish adequacy was erroneous, and we therefore vacate class certification and remand for further consideration. Nowhere in Guerdad's declaration did he address the crucial fact that Maree and Lufthansa executed a binding term sheet setting forth the material terms of the settlement before he was named a class representative." A copy of the Court's Memorandum dated August 8, 2025, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jIldfj DINESOL PLASTICS: Underpays Process Technicians, Hunt Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ ZACHARY HUNT, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DINESOL PLASTICS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-01552-BYP (N.D. Ohio, July 25, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and common law. The Plaintiff began working for Defendant in June 2023 as a non-exempt, hourly process technician, and is currently employed by Defendant. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, the Plaintiff was not earning a consistent and properly calculated overtime wage that included Attendance Bonus pay and other non-discretionary remuneration in the regular rate for proper overtime calculation, says the suit. As non-exempt employees, Defendant's hourly employees were entitled to full compensation for all overtime hours worked at a rate of one and a half times their "regular rate" of pay. Headquartered in Niles, Ohio, Dinesol Plastics, Inc. is a plastic injection molding company with locations in Ohio and Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew L. Turner, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: mturner@sommerspc.com ENDUE INC: Court Consolidates Six Related Suits Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Robert Pauley, Moira Polite, Daniel Martinez, Sidney Stollings, Kiley Echols, and Elizabeth Healy, Plaintiffs v. Endue, Inc., d/b/a Endue Software, and Rheumatology Associates of Baltimore, LLC, Defendants, Case Nos. 2:25-cv-00177-JAW, 2:25-cv-00181-JAW, 2:25-cv-00183-JAW, 2:25-cv-00189-JAW, 2:25-cv-00200-JAW, and 2:25-cv-00237-JAW (D. Me.), United States Magistrate Judge Karen Frink Wolf of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine grants the Plaintiffs' motion to consolidate six related data security cases and appointed interim class action counsel. The litigation arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to implement reasonable data protection and security practices that resulted in the exposure of the Plaintiffs' personal information during a data breach. The six plaintiffs filed separate but related data security cases against Endue, Inc., with two cases also naming Rheumatology Associates of Baltimore, LLC as a defendant. The Court found that the related actions clearly involve both a common party and common questions of fact and law. Each action: (1) Names Endue, Inc. as a defendant; (2) Arises out of the same set of operative facts: the Defendants' alleged failure to implement reasonable data protection and security practices that resulted in the exposure of the Plaintiffs' personal information during a data breach; (3) Alleges negligence, unjust enrichment, and various breach of contract causes of action, among other claims; and (4) Seeks similar damages and some form of declaratory judgment or injunctive relief. The Court applied the First Circuit's two-step framework, noting that the threshold issue is whether the two proceedings involve a common party and common issues of fact or law." Upon finding these requirements met, the Court exercised its broad discretion in weighing the costs and benefits of consolidation to decide whether that procedure is appropriate. Consolidation is typically granted unless the party opposing it can show demonstrable prejudice. According to the Court, any differences between the related actions are outweighed by the benefits of their consolidation. The Court determined that these actions share many overlapping factual and legal issues, which increases the likelihood that they will require many of the same documents and witnesses as litigation progresses. The Court further noted that consolidating the actions now, while litigation is still in the early stages, will avoid duplicate discovery efforts, saving the court and the parties time and expense, without delaying proceedings. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(3), the Court appointed Attorneys A. Brooke Murphy of Murphy Law Firm and Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A. to serve as interim co-lead class counsel. The Court considered the attorneys' "significant involvement in and commitment to prosecuting these actions to date, as well as their depth of knowledge, resources, and professional experience. The Court ordered that: 1. Attorneys A. Brooke Murphy and Jeff Ostrow shall serve as interim co-lead class counsel; 2. The Plaintiffs shall file an amended class action complaint by September 3, 2025; 3. All deadlines to file an answer are stayed and shall be reset after the amended class action complaint is filed; and 4. Pauley v. Endue, Inc., d/b/a Endue Software, No. 2:25-cv-00177-JAW, is designated as the lead case. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WQXEJL ENERGY BUILDING: Romero Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------- MAXIMO PATRICIO ROMERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENERGY BUILDING CONSTRUCTION INC., and JOSE CRUZ and JUAN CRUZ, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-06323 (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2025) alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from in or around May 2015 until in or around July 2025, as a construction assistant and helper. The Plaintiff was regularly required to work approximately 45 to 54 hours, or more hours per week from in or around July 2019 until in or around July 2025. However, the Defendants did not pay Plaintiff time and a half for hours worked over 40. In addition, the Defendants failed to timely pay Plaintiff for his first week of wages each biweekly period and thus violated the frequency of pay requirements of NYLL Section 191 by failing to pay him on a weekly basis, says the suit. Energy Building Construction Inc. is a construction company based in Bronx, NY. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 ETHEREUMMAX: Investors Secure Partial Win in Class-Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Turner Wright of CoinTelegraph reports that investors who were parties to a 2022 lawsuit may be closer to pursuing legal action against celebrities who promoted the EthereumMax (EMAX) token after a recent decision by a California judge. In a Wednesday, August 6, filing in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Michael Fitzgerald granted a motion allowing class-action lawsuits filed in four US states to move forward, but denied the request for a nationwide class against EMAX promoters. The order will allow cases involving investors who purchased EMAX between May 2021 and June 2021 to continue in New York, California, Florida and New Jersey. "Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the proposed state classes comport with the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure," the Wednesday filing reads. "However, the risk of inappropriate extraterritorial application of California and Florida law is simply too high with regard to the proposed Nationwide Class, as is the risk of individuated questions not amenable to common proof at trial." EVERBRIDGE INC: 9th Cir. Flips Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Sylebra Capital Partners Master Fund Ltd., Sylebra Capital Parc Master Fund, and Sylebra Capital Menlo Master Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Everbridge, Inc., David Meredith, Patrick Brickley, and Jaime Ellertson, Defendants-Appellees, Appeal No. 24-2474, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reverses and remands the district court's dismissal of the putative class action securities fraud complaint. Circuit Judges Susan P. Graber, Kim McLane Wardlaw, and Gabriel P. Sanchez rendered the decision after arguments and submission on May 20, 2025, in Pasadena, California. The appeal arose from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, with District Judge Fred W. Slaughter presiding (D.C. Case No. 2:22-cv-02249-FWS-RAO). The Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their putative class action against Everbridge and its officers. In the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that Everbridge and its officers gave false and misleading information about the company's acquisition strategy, growth projections, and integration efforts, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. The district court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), ruling that it inadequately alleged scienter and falsity. The Court of Appeals found that Plaintiffs adequately alleged scienter regarding Everbridge's statements concerning integration of acquired companies and revenue estimates. Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, a complaint must "state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that defendant acted with scienter." An inference is strong if a reasonable person would deem the inference of scienter cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference one could draw from the facts alleged. The Court of Appeals credited confidential witness statements in the Second Amended Complaint. The witnesses alleged that Everbridge and its officers: (1) told investors that integration of acquisitions was going well or completed when the company was facing large hurdles that stood in the way of integrating acquisitions and; (2) understated revenue contribution from an acquisition to hide slowing growth. Confidential witnesses 1, 2, and 3 were described with sufficient particularity to establish their reliability and personal knowledge" of Everbridge's integration efforts. Their job titles and experiences demonstrated they were in a reliable position to observe. Everbridge integrate its acquisitions. For example, Confidential Witness 1's "responsibilities included work related to Everbridge's mergers and acquisitions process," Confidential Witness 2 worked as part of the integration team during the xMatters acquisition," and Confidential Witness 3 was involved in the vetting of a target company. The Court of Appeals examined confidential witness hearsay reports to determine if they were "sufficiently reliable, plausible, or coherent." The Court credited allegations attributed to Confidential Witness 1 because they formed a plausible and coherent narrative. Confidential Witness 1 was in a position to be personally knowledgeable about forecasts because she sent weekly or bi-weekly emails to Brickley and Meredith with the modeling in the lead--up to the acquisition. Confidential Witness 1 explained in detail that the company forecasted to investors that the xMatters acquisition would contribute revenue of 9-11 million dollars in 2021, when Everbridge's internal estimates showed the contribution would actually be 20-25 million dollars. When Confidential Witness 1 expressed concerns about the forecasts to Meredith and Brickley, Meredith explained that the discrepancy in figures was to 'buffer' the declines in Everbridge's organic revenue. Reviewed holistically, the Second Amended Complaint suggested that issues with integration were widespread and that the company's officers misstated revenue estimates to conceal these issues. Therefore, the Court concluded that regarding Everbridge's statements concerning post-acquisition integration and revenue estimates, the inference that defendants intentionally or recklessly misled investors was at least as compelling as any competing inference. However, the Court agreed with the district court that the Second Amended Complaint failed to allege scienter adequately regarding Everbridge's statements about its general acquisition strategy and motivations for acquiring one2many, Techwan, SnapComms, Connexient, CNL Software, RedSky, and xMatters. The allegations regarding these statements were too conclusory to support a strong inference of scienter. According to the Court of Appeals, Plaintiffs also adequately alleged falsity. The district court correctly found that "certain statements" were forward-looking statements protected under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act's safe-harbor provision or inactionable puffery, such as Everbridge's statements that it expected "continued strong performance," that it was "well down the path of rightsizing and integrating that business," and that "integration is going great." However, some alleged statements neither fell within the safe harbor nor were puffery. Everbridge repeatedly touted its past success integrating acquisitions, stating "we've really integrated NC4 and Risk Center into our entire product offering," "we now truly can be that unified enterprise-wide operating system, they've already been integrated," "we've locked up key hires, and we're retaining them, Everbridge's new Digital Operations Platform represents the seamless integration of Everbridge and xMatters, and we've got that integrated now. We've integrated the people, the sales, and the funnels." According to the Court of Appeals, each of these statements relayed past or current facts. When read in combination with the Second Amended Complaint's other allegations, these statements affirmatively created an impression of a state of affairs that differed in a material way from the one that actually existed. Once defendants choose to tout positive information to the market, they are bound to do so in a manner that wouldn't mislead investors, including disclosing adverse information that cuts against the positive information. Though Everbridge's statement anticipating the partial year contribution to 2021 revenue from xMatters as approximately 9-11 million was forward-looking, the Second Amended Complaint plausibly alleged, based on Confidential Witness 1's report, that the statement was made with actual knowledge that the statement was false or misleading, such that the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act's safe harbor would not apply. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court found that Plaintiffs adequately alleged both scienter and falsity regarding certain statements about integration efforts and revenue estimates, though not regarding general acquisition strategy statements. A copy of the Court of Appeals decision is available at https://tinyurl.com/4r39mxuy FINASTRA TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Atiles Says --------------------------------------------------------------- LISETTE ATILES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FINASTRA TECHNOLOGY, INC., Case No. 6:25-cv-01481 (M.D. Fla., Aug. 4, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information that was impacted in a data breach Defendant disclosed in June 2025. As part of its business, and to gain profits, the Defendant obtained and stored the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members. By taking possession and control of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, the Defendant assumed a duty to securely store and protect it. The Defendant breached this duty and betrayed the trust of Plaintiff and Class Members by failing to properly safeguard and protect their Private Information, thus enabling cybercriminals to access, acquire, appropriate, compromise, disclose, encumber, exfiltrate, release, steal, misuse, and/or view it, asserts the suit. On Nov. 7, 2024, the Defendant identified a cybersecurity incident that impacted certain internal systems. Once the incident was discovered, Defendant launched an investigation, to determine the nature and scope of the Data Breach. The Defendant's investigation revealed that an unauthorized third-party accessed a Secure File Transfer Platform at various times between Oct. 31, 2024, and Nov. 8, 2024. The Defendant uses this SFTP to provide technical and customer support to its customers related to certain products. The Defendant is a financial software company that provides solutions to banks, lenders, and other financial institutions. They offer a broad range of software and services for retail banking, lending, payments, treasury and capital markets, and universal banking.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com - and - James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1200 17th Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com - and - Nathan, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 357-1100 E-mail: snathan@hausfeld.com FRAGRANCENET.COM INC: Purscelley Balks at Telemarketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS PURSCELLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRAGRANCENET.COM, INC., a Delaware entity, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-07042 (C.D. Cal., July 30, 2025) arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. To protect the public, Congress enacted the TCPA that prohibits telemarketing communication before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m., which are designated as "Quiet Hours." According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the law by initiating telephone solicitations to telephone subscribers such as Plaintiff and the Class members before the hour of 8 a.m. or after the hour of 9 p.m. (local time at the called party's location). FRAGRANCENET.COM, Inc. is a New York corporation that does business in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com FRUITVALE OPERATING: Faces Wilson Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- CONSUELA WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRUITVALE OPERATING COMPANY, LP; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25CV135444 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., August 6, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to permit rest breaks, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay all wages due upon separation of employment, and unfair business practices. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt employee in California. Fruitvale Operating Company, LP is a provider of services or goods throughout California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel A. Wong, Esq. Kashif Haque, Esq. Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. AEGIS LAWFIRM, PC 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 379-6250 Facsimile: (949) 379-6251 Email: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com FTAI AVIATION: Court Names Lead Roles in Shannahan Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Michael Shannahan, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. FTAI Aviation Ltd., et al., Defendants, Case No. 25-CV-0541 (JAV) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Jeannette A. Vargas of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the unopposed motion of Boston Retirement System and City of Hollywood Firefighters Pension Fund for appointment as lead plaintiffs and approves the selection of Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, as co-lead counsel for the Class. FTAI sells and leases aviation assets and equipment. The Complaint alleged that, during the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose materially adverse facts about FTAI's business to manipulate its financial reporting. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Defendants: 1. Listed one--time aircraft engine sales as Maintenance, Repair & Overhaul revenue, thereby exaggerating the size of its aftermarket aerospace business; 2. Reported each engine sales as three individual module sales, thereby overstating its module sales numbers; and 3. Depreciated engines that are not on lease, which misleadingly lowered the reported cost of goods sold and inflates earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization. On January 17, 2025, the same day as the Complaint was filed, notice of this class action lawsuit was published in Business Wire. The Notice announced that a securities class action had been filed against FTAI and other defendants, as well as advised investors in FTAI securities that they had 60 days from the date of the Notice's publication to file a motion to be appointed as lead plaintiff. The Court received seven motions to serve as lead plaintiff, on behalf of Boston Retirement and Hollywood Firefighters Fund; Roger Wolter; Cady Pham; Ricardo Vilalta; Paulo Buigasco; the Central Pennsylvania Teamsters Pension Fund Defined Benefit Plan, the Central Pennsylvania Teamsters Pension Fund Retirement Income Plan 1987, and the City of Detroit General Retirement System; and the Nova Scotia Public Service Superannuation Plan and Nova Scotia Teachers' Pension Plan. Four of the movants subsequently withdrew their motions. The Nova Scotia Plans and Vilalta filed notices of non-opposition to Boston Retirement and Hollywood Firefighters Fund's motion. Lead Plaintiff Appointment Standards The PSLRA governs the appointment of a lead plaintiff in a private securities class action. The PSLRA directs the Court to appoint the most adequate plaintiff to serve as lead plaintiff. In appointing lead plaintiff, the Court must adopt a rebuttable presumption that the most adequate plaintiff is the person or group of persons that: (aa) Has either filed the complaint or made a motion in response to a notice under subparagraph (A)(i); (bb)Has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class in the determination of the court; and (cc) otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This presumption may be rebutted only with proof that the presumptive lead plaintiff will not fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class or is subject to unique defenses that render such plaintiff incapable of adequately representing the class. Statutory notice was timely published on January 17, 2025. Boston Retirement and Hollywood Firefighters Fund filed their motion for appointment as lead plaintiff on March 18, 2025. Accordingly, they satisfied the first requirement to become the presumptive lead plaintiffs. The Court found that Boston Retirement and Hollywood Firefighters Fund are the movants asserting the largest financial interest. In assessing relative financial interests, courts in this Circuit have traditionally applied a four factor test, which considers: 1. The total number of shares purchased during the class period; 2. The net shares purchased during the class period (in other words, the difference between the number of shares purchased and the number of shares sold during the class period); 3. The net funds expended during the class period (in other words, the difference between the amount spent to purchase shares and the amount received for the sale of shares during the class period); and 4. The approximate losses suffered. Of these factors, courts have consistently held the fourth, the magnitude of the loss suffered, most significant. Boston Retirement and Hollywood Firefighters Fund are a permissible group, as they satisfy the factors described in Varghese. The Court noted that although the joint declaration in support of their motion does not describe a pre-litigation relationship between the two funds, this is a negative factor but not disqualifying by itself. The Joint Declaration describes at a high-level joint involvement by the funds in preparing for the motion and joint consideration of their cooperative approach to the litigation. Boston Retirement purchased 17,080 shares of FTAI securities during the Class Period, and did not sell any of those shares during the Class Period. Hollywood Firefighters Fund purchased 7,920 net shares during the Class Period. Boston Retirement and Hollywood Firefighters Fund together have asserted losses of $494,121.67 on a first-in first-out basis in connection with their purchase of securities during the Class Period. No other movant for lead plaintiff has asserted a larger financial interest. According to the Court, Boston Retirement and Hollywood Firefighters Fund made a preliminary showing that they otherwise satisfy the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Like other members of the proposed class, Boston Retirement and Hollywood Firefighters Fund claim that Defendants issued false and misleading statements resulted in losses to its investors. The court determined that nothing suggests that Boston Retirement and Hollywood Firefighters Fund have any conflict of interest with the proposed class, are subject to a unique defense or suffer any other infirmity that would impair its ability to represent the Class. Both Boston Retirement and Hollywood Firefighters Fund are sophisticated institutional investors that have served as lead plaintiffs or co-lead plaintiffs in other securities class actions brought pursuant to the PSLRA and are familiar with the duties attendant thereto. Subject to the Court's approval, lead plaintiff shall select and retain counsel to represent the class. Boston Retirement and Hollywood Firefighters Fund selected Labaton and Kessler Topaz as co-lead counsel. Each firm has substantial experience in the prosecution of securities fraud class actions, having served as lead or co-lead counsel in many securities class actions. Both firms are qualified to prosecute this securities action on behalf of the Class. Given the lack of opposition to Boston Retirement and Hollywood Firefighters Fund's motion, no proof was offered rebutting this presumption. The Court therefore found that Boston Retirement and Hollywood Firefighters Fund are the most adequate plaintiffs and appointed them to serve as lead plaintiffs. The Court approved the selection of Labaton and Kessler Topaz as co-lead counsel. Boston Retirement and Hollywood Firefighters Fund are appointed as lead plaintiffs, and Labaton and Kessler Topaz are appointed as co-lead counsel. The parties will submit a joint letter setting forth their positions regarding a schedule for any amendment to the operative complaint and briefing on any potential motions to dismiss. A copy of the Court's opinion and order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6FHsku GEN DIGITAL: Fails to Control Plan's RKA Costs, Northcutt Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- Deborah Northcutt, Jamin Bracken, Scott Wolstenholm and Trent Lyght, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Gen Digital Inc., f/k/a NortonLifeLock Inc., f/k/a Symantec Corporation, The Board of Directors of Gen Digital Inc., The Employee Benefits Administrative Committee ("Board"), and John Does 1-30, Case No. 2:25-cv-02768-DWL (D. Ariz., Aug. 4, 2025) is a class action brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, against the Plan's fiduciaries, which include Gen Digital Inc. for breaches of their fiduciary duties. According to the complaint, the Department of Labor has explicitly stated that employers are held to a "high standard of care and diligence" and must, among other duties, both "establish a prudent process for selecting investment options and service providers," including providers of the Plan's administrative and recordkeeping ("RKA") services. At all times during the Class Period, the Plan had about $1 billion in assets under management. At the Plan's fiscal year end in 2019, the Plan had $1,241,884,655 in assets under management that were entrusted to the care of the Plan's fiduciaries, the suit says. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants failed to employ a process to leverage the size of the Plan to pay reasonable fees for the Plan's RKA services. The Defendants, as fiduciaries of the Plan, breached the duty of prudence they owed to the Plan by requiring the Plan to pay excessive RKA fees. Gen Digital Inc. -- https://www.gendigital.com/us/en/ -- is a multinational software company co-headquartered in Tempe, Arizona and Prague, Czech Republic.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jay F. Parmelee, Esq. DENTON PETERSON DUNN, PLLC 1930 N. Arboleda, Suite 200 Mesa, AZ 82513 Telephone: (480) 325-9900 Facsimile: (480) 325-9901 E-mail: jay@dentonpeterson.com GOOGLE LLC: Pixel 6a Phone Has Defective Battery, Kuending Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ JONATHAN KUENDIG, MICHELE HADLEY, AURELIO MORALES, and GLEN NESBITT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-06606 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 5, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated consumers who purchased the Defendant's Google Pixel 6a mobile phone pursuant to the California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, and the California's False Advertising Law. In 2022, the Defendant introduced the Google Pixel 6a, a $449-$499 "lower-cost" alternative to the premium Google Pixel. The Product was the first in Defendant's "Pixel" line of smartphones made with Google's Tensor processing chip. Moving to this new chip allowed the Product to offer improved capabilities from previous models. As such, Google proudly proclaimed that the Pixel 6 and Pixel 6a smartphones were "super fast and secure" with a "battery [that] lasts up to 72 hours with Extreme Battery Saver." Unfortunately for consumers like Plaintiffs however, the Product's battery was defective. Consumers saw their Products overheat during charging and ordinary use, which caused significant performance issues. Worse, some consumers even experienced their phones overheating and catching fire, the Plaintiffs contend. To remedy this issue, the Defendant issued a software update as part of its monthly Pixel patch in July that further limited the Product's capabilities by reducing battery capacity and charging performance which, in turn, reduced the Product's performance capacity, the suit says. The Plaintiff is a citizen of California who resides in Guerneville, California. In August 2022, Mr. Kuendig purchased a Google Pixel 6a smartphone from Defendant's website and entered into a finance plan making monthly payments for the Product. Google LLC is an American multinational corporation and technology company focusing on online advertising, search engine technology, cloud computing, computer software, quantum computing, e-commerce, consumer electronics, and artificial intelligence.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Daniel S. Guerra, Esq. Joshua B. Glatt, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com dguerra@bursor.com jglatt@bursor.com GREYSTAR MGMT: Bid to Stay Discovery in Miles Suit Granted in Part ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Nylynn Miles, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Greystar Management Services, LP and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00262-APG-EJY (D. Nev.), United States Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Ruling on Defendant's Motions to Compel Arbitration, to Dismiss Claims, and to Strike Class Allegations. The Court considered Defendant's motion seeking three different forms of relief: to compel arbitration, dismiss claims, and strike class allegations. Plaintiff's Second Amended Individual and Class Action Complaint asserts state and federal class/collective claims arising from alleged failures to comply with laws addressing overtime pay and payment of wages at termination of employment. The complaint also includes individual claims of sexual harassment/discrimination, retaliation, negligent hiring, wrongful termination, hostile work environment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The central issue addressed by the Court was whether the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault Act (EFAA) exempts the entire case from arbitration. Plaintiff opposes the stay of discovery relying heavily on the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault Act, codified at 9 U.S.C. Section 42 et seq. Plaintiff contends that case law interpreting the EFAA requires the Court to exempt her entire case from arbitration. Upon examining relevant case law, the Court found that Plaintiff's wage-hour claims are unrelated to her sexual harassment and retaliation claims rendering these claims subject to arbitration so long as the arbitration agreement is enforceable. The Court explained that Plaintiff's sexual harassment and retaliation claims will likely proceed in federal court while Plaintiff's wage--hour claims will proceed in arbitration. Regarding Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, the Court determined it was not convinced that all of Plaintiff's non-arbitrable claims will be dismissed. However, the Court found that with respect to Plaintiff's other non-arbitral claims, including wrongful termination in violation of public policy, negligent hire/training, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, the Court finds each is likely to fail under well-settled Nevada law. The Court granted a partial stay of discovery, explaining that discovery will proceed on these claims regarding individual wage-hour, sexual harassment, and retaliation claims. However, to ensure efficiency and prevent duplication, initial discovery related to these claims is limited to interrogatories, document requests, and requests for admissions. No deposition or third party discovery is permitted. Therefore, the Court ordered that Defendant's Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Ruling on Defendant's Motions to (1) Compel Arbitration, (2) Dismiss Claims, and (3) Strike Class Allegations is granted in part and denied in part consistent with the contents of this Order. The Court granted a stay of discovery for Plaintiff's wage-hour class/collective claims as it is unclear whether these claims will proceed at all and also for the claims of wrongful termination in violation of public policy, negligent hire/training, and infliction of emotional distress claims as these claims are not likely to proceed in any forum. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qxeIm5 HARTFORD INSURANCE: Abdullah Sues Over Invasion of Privacy ---------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH ABDULLAH, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. THE HARTFORD INSURANCE GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-06453-PHK (N.D. Cal., July 31, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating the California Invasion of Privacy Act. The Plaintiff and the Class Members did not consent to the installation, execution, embedding, or injection of the trackers on their devices and did not expect their behavioral data to be disclosed or monetized. The trackers silently collect routing and addressing information for commercial use without user interaction. Moreover, by installing and using these trackers without prior consent and without a court order, Defendant violated CIPA's section 638.51, says the suit. The Hartford Insurance Group, Inc. operates as an insurance and financial services company. It provides a range of property & casualty insurance, group benefits, and mutual funds. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (949) 270-2798 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC 40729 Village Dr., Suite 8 - 1989 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Telephone: (562) 612-1708 E-mail: rc@rosscornelllaw.com HOMESTEAD SUPERMARKET: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Pardo Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO v. HOMESTEAD SUPERMARKET, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-23508 (S.D. Fla., Aug. 5, 2025) is a class action seeking injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant owns, operates and/or oversees the commercial property; to include its general parking lot, parking spots, and entrance access and path of travel specific to the tenant business therein and all other common areas open to the public located within the commercial property. The Plaintiff contends that the he found the commercial property and commercial mini mart business located within the commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. He encountered architectural barriers at the commercial property and commercial mini mart business located within the commercial property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises, says the Plaintiff. The Defendant owned and/or operated a commercial property at 831 NE 8th St. Homestead, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Telephone: (305) 350-3103 E-Mail: rdiego@lawgmp.com ramon@rjdiegolaw.com HORIZON FINANCIAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Hromek Says ------------------------------------------------------------- SYLVIA HROMEK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. HORIZON FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT LLC d/b/a HORIZON HEALTHCARE RCM, Case No. 2:25-cv-00356 (N.D. Ind., Aug. 5, 2025) arises from a recent cyberattack resulting in a data breach of sensitive information in the possession and custody and/or control of Defendant (the Data Breach). The Data Breach resulted in unauthorized disclosure, exfiltration, theft, and dissemination on the dark web of Defendant's clients' current and former patients' highly personal information, including names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, passport numbers, payment card information, checking or financial account information, and medical information, such as health insurance claims processing information and medical record numbers. Horizon's Data Breach affects current and former patients of Defendant's clients who had no relationship with Horizon, never sought one, and never consented to Horizon collecting and storing their information, the suit says. Ms. Hromek is a natural person and citizen of Florida, residing in Ocala, Florida where she intends to remain. The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim. Horizon is a "is a healthcare revenue cycle management company" that assists healthcare entities to "improve their cash flow and grow their revenue."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenmalad.com athomas@cohenmalad.com - and - Raina Borrelli, Esq.   STRAUSS BORELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N Michigan Ave, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 HUNTINGTON HOSPITALITY: Fails to Secure Clients' Info, Ramos Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- ROSA RAMOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HUNTINGTON HOSPITALITY FINANCIAL CORPORATION d/b/a HUNTINGTON HOTEL GROUP, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-02083-N (N.D. Tex., August 6, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence/negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. 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 discovered on or about December 12, 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. Huntington Hospitality Financial Corporation, doing business as Huntington Hotel Group, is a hospitality financial firm based in Irving, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - 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 IEM INTERNATIONAL: Must Arbitrate Class Action Wage Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Alyssa Turner, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. IEM International, Inc., f/k/a Innovative Emergency Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 24-cv-2352 (CRC) (D.D.C.), Judge Christopher R. Cooper of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration in this class action seeking to recover unpaid overtime wages. The Court concluded that a valid agreement to arbitrate exists between IEM and Turner and that the agreement is not unconscionable. Accordingly, the Court granted IEM's Motion to Compel Arbitration and stayed the case. Turner filed this class action against her former employer IEM International, seeking to recover unpaid overtime wages. She alleged that IEM's policy of paying so-called 'Straight Time Employees' the same hourly rate for overtime hours violates the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as California and D.C. law. IEM International is an emergency management firm headquartered in North Carolina. Turner served as a planner and project manager at IEM for approximately two years beginning in September 2021 and worked in California, Washington, District of Columbia, and Virginia. On September 13, 2021, Turner electronically counter-signed an employment offer letter she received from IEM offering her "a position as a Medical Logistics Coordinator with a starting hourly rate of $41.50." The parties disputed what happened next. IEM asserted that two days later, on September 15, Turner signed an employee agreement including a mandatory arbitration provision. The agreement requires an employee to give notice of any claim relating to or arising out of Employee's hire, employment, and/or termination of employment with IEM. If such a claim cannot be settled through negotiation or nonbinding mediation, either party may submit the dispute for resolution by final binding confidential arbitration. According to IEM's Director of Human Resources, Amy Stewart, IEM provides this agreement to new hires as part of the onboarding process and retains each employee's signed agreement in their personnel file. The electronic signature page showed that Alyssa Crawford, with username "ACrawford@IEMI," signed the agreement on September 15, 2021 at 9:36 A.M. EDT. Stewart attested that Turner was logged into her ADP Workforce account using a unique password that only she could create and access. Turner, however, declares that she never signed the employee agreement and claims this was the only agreement she signed with IEM." She also says she had never seen the employee agreement until her lawyers provided it to her after she filed this lawsuit. The Court applied D.C. law to determine contract formation. Under D.C. law, mutual assent to a contract, often referred to as a 'meeting of the minds,' is most clearly evidenced by the terms of a signed written agreement. The Court noted that a signature, contract, or other record relating to such transaction may not be denied legal effect solely because an electronic signature or electronic record was used in its formation. The Court found that IEM offers an employee agreement permitting either party to submit any claim arising out of an individual's employment with IEM to binding arbitration. Stewart's declaration provided that based on her review of personnel records, Turner signed and acknowledged a variety of documents during onboarding, including this employee agreement. In response to Turner's denial, the Court stated that Turner's statement that she has 'no recollection of signing, reading, or negotiating' the agreement does not 'create a genuine dispute regarding her assent' to it. The Court emphasized that Turner's denial alone does not create a dispute of fact because she has not shown 'sufficient facts in support' of her statement. Her "mere assertion with no evidence supporting the disavowal is insufficient to create an issue of fact in light of" the signed agreement and Stewart's supporting declaration. The Court noted that Turner's reliance on her offer letter "furthers IEM's position, not hers because her electronic signature page is nearly identical to the signature page accompanying her employee agreement identical to the signature page accompanying her employee agreement, except that it includes her email rather than her ADP username—which she presumably had not yet created." Turner argued that even if she signed the employment agreement, the arbitration clause is substantively and procedurally unconscionable. The Court applied North Carolina law based on the choice-of-law provision in the agreement, finding that IEM is headquartered in North Carolina, so it has a 'reasonable relationship' to that state. Under North Carolina law, a court will find a contract to be unconscionable only when the inequality of the bargain is so manifest as to shock the judgment of a person of common sense, and where the terms are so oppressive that no reasonable person would make them on the one hand, and no honest and fair person would accept them on the other. To establish unconscionability, "a party must demonstrate both procedural unconscionability and substantive unconscionability." Turner contended the agreement makes arbitration a recipe for financial ruin by requiring each party to pay their own attorneys' fees. The Court rejected this argument, explaining that the shifting of attorneys' fees and expenses from Defendants to Plaintiffs is "precisely the sort of provision that the North Carolina Court of Appeals determined could not support an unconscionability claim." The Court noted that the North Carolina Court of Appeals specifically concluded that high arbitration costs could no longer be a basis for substantive unconscionability" following Supreme Court decisions. Turner also argued the agreement was unconscionable because IEM retains the right to file a lawsuit to enforce its rights, while she does not. However, the Court found that the one-sided quality of an arbitration agreement is not sufficient to find it substantively unconscionable." The Court concluded the agreement was not procedurally unconscionable either. Turner contended the agreement was procedurally unconscionable because IEM has greater bargaining power than she does, and she had no opportunity to negotiate its terms. The Court responded that mere inequality of bargaining power, by itself, is insufficient to render an arbitration provision unenforceable." Additionally, Turner was provided as much time as she needed to review the material prior to signing it. A copy of the Court's order and opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8CqsLi from PacerMonitor.com INKITT INC: Discloses Private Information, Hastings Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN HASTINGS, individually on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INKITT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-06442 (N.D. Cal., July 31, 2025), arises from Defendant's unlawful business acts or practices that violate the California Reader Privacy Act and other privacy statutes and regulations incorporated into the California Unfair Competition Law through the "borrowing" doctrine. Allegedly, the Defendant began intercepting user data before ever asking for consent. Through its Galatea App, it rents, exchanges, or otherwise discloses its customers' information, including personally identifying information along with titles of publications read or subscribed to data aggregators, marketing and retargeting companies, and other third parties. Moreover, the Defendant's practice of disclosing its users' personal reading information from their Galatea App--including titles read, reading habits, and genre preferences--to third parties without explicit consent directly violates the privacy rights that protections like the California Reader Privacy Act were specifically designed to safeguard. Headquartered in San Francisco, CA, Inkitt, Inc. operates as a publishing platform. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Wesley M. Griffith, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 111 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 426 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (310) 896-5813 E-mail: wes@almeidalawgroup.com - and - David S. Almeida, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone (708) 437-6476 E-mail: david@almeidalawgroup.com JOHNSON MARK: Ray Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Tex. ----------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Johnson Mark, LLC. The case is captioned as Natalie Ray, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Johnson Mark, LLC et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00187 (S.D. Tex., July 12, 2025). The suit alleges Defendants' violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act. The case is assigned to Judge David S. Morales. Initial Pretrial Conference is set for October 28, 2025 at 09:30 AM before Judge Morales. Johnson Mark, LLC is a law firm in Taylorsville, Utah.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Karen L. Kellett, Esq. Claude Dabney Smith, Esq. Theodore O Bartholow, III, Esq. KELLETT & BARTHOLOW PLLC 11300 N Central Expy, Ste 301 Dallas, TX 75243 Telephone: (214) 696-9000 Facsimile: (214) 696-9001 E-mail: kkellett@kblawtx.com claude@kblawtx.com thad@kblawtx.com - and - Ashburn Hunter Bywaters, III, Esq. THE BYWATERS LAW FIRM, PLLC 400 N. St Paul St., Ste 1420 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 810-6805 E-mail: hunter@bywaterslawfirm.com KANDO LOGISTICS: Hernandez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- EVARISTO HERNANDEZ, JR., and JONATHAN GOMEZ, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. KANDO LOGISTICS CORP., EVAN KANAREK, AND TANIA KANAREK, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-01363-JKM (M.D. Pa., July 25, 2025) arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act as a result of the failure of Defendants to pay Plaintiffs, and other similarly situated employees who are members of the Collective and Class, all of their earned wages. The Plaintiffs, as well as the Collective and Class members, are persons who perform or performed work for Defendants as delivery drivers. Because Plaintiffs and other Drivers drive vehicles weighing 10,000 pounds or less, they are eligible to receive overtime pay. The Plaintiffs and other Drivers regularly work more than 40 hours per workweek; however, pursuant to Defendants' uniform policies and practices, Defendants do not compensate Plaintiffs and other Drivers at one-and-one-half times their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek, says the suit. KanDo Logistics Corp. is an independent service provider that contracts with FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. and/or its affiliates to deliver packages.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Peter C. Wood, Jr., Esq. MOBILIO WOOD 900 Rutter Ave., Box 24 Forty Fort, PA 18704 Telephone: (570) 234-0442 Facsimile: (570) 266-5402 E-mail: peter@mobiliowood.com - and - Alex A. Pisarevsky, Esq. COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN HERRMANN & KNOPF LLP Park 80 West-Plaza One 250 Pehle Avenue, Suite 401 Saddle Brook, NJ 07663 Telephone: (201) 845-9600 Facsimile: (201) 845-9423 E-mail: ap@njlawfirm.com KARINA BAKERY: Meza-Vazquez Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Premiums --------------------------------------------------------------- RUBEN MEZA-VAZQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KARINA BAKERY, INC. d/b/a KARINA’S BAKERY, KARINA CHACON-ALAS, and EDELMIRA CHACON-ALAS, Jointly and Severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-04283-JPB (N.D. Ga., July 31, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime premium pay, owed to Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a baker from approximately June 1, 2021 to December 8, 2024. Throughout Plaintiff's employment, he received no overtime wages despite working excess of 40 hours each week and being a non-exempt employee. Karina Bakery, Inc. owns and operates bakeries in Marietta, GA and Austell, GA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon A. Thomas, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON A. THOMAS, PC 1 Glenlake Parkway, Suite 650 Atlanta, GA 30328 Telephone: (678) 862-9344 Facsimile: (678) 638-6201 E-mail: brandon@overtimeclaimslawyer.com KOUZINA HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Hernandez Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JUAN HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff, v. KOUZINA HOSPITALITY GROUP CORP. (DBA AMBROSIA GARDEN) and NIKOLAOS KORDERAS, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-04254 (E.D.N.Y., July 31, 2025) is a class action accusing the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, the Wage Theft Prevention Act, and related provisions of Title 12 of the New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as sous chef and head chef from approximately July 5, 2024, until May 11, 2025. Plaintiff worked without appropriate overtime wages from the beginning and until the end of his employment with Defendants. Among other things, the Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with accurate wage statements accompanying each payment of wages, says the suit. Kouzina Hospitality Group Corp. owns and operates a Greek restaurant in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 Website: www.StillmanLegalPC.com KRISTIN SHEELER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Goncalves & Ketcham Say ------------------------------------------------------------------- TERESA GONCALVES and DINA KETCHAM, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KRISTIN SHEELER DESIGNS, LLC, KRISTIN SHEELER, and JAMES "JIM" BRINNEN, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-04264 (E.D.N.Y., July 31, 2025) seeks recovery against Defendants for their various willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Allegedly, the Defendants carried out an unlawful payroll policy and practice by failing to pay Plaintiffs for all worked hours as required by law, including non-payment of overtime compensation, and failing to remit payroll taxes to the federal, state, and local taxing authorities despite deducting said taxes from Plaintiffs' and other employees' paychecks. Moreover, the Defendants' willful failure to keep accurate records of Plaintiffs' hours worked prevented Plaintiffs from being able to calculate their total hours worked and determine if they were being paid in accordance with the FLSA, says the suit. Kristin Sheeler Designs, LLC is engaged in the fashion and clothing business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emanuel Kataev, Esq. CONSUMER ATTORNEYS, PLLC 6829 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367-1305 Telephone: (718) 412-2421 Facsimile: (718) 489-4155 E-mail: ekataev@consumerattorneys.com LARGO PIPING: Genevish Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- RAYMOND GENEVISH, for himself and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LARGO PIPING & GAS, INC., a Florida Profit Corporation, and AARON WORKMAN, Individually, Case No. 8:25-cv-02066 (M.D. Fla., Aug. 5, 2025) seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants employed Plaintiff and other similarly situated service technicians, but failed to pay them the appropriate overtime pay in overtime weeks as required by the FLSA. The Defendants' practice of failing to compensate Plaintiff and other similarly situated service technicians overtime premiums for all of their hours worked over 40 each workweek violates the overtime provisions of the FLSA, says the suit. The Plaintiff further brings this action to recover unpaid back wages owed to other service technicians who worked with him for Defendants' company within the three years preceding the date this Complaint is filed, as the result of Defendants' alleged failure to pay all overtime wages owed. Largo provides gas plumbing services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Angeli Murthy, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A 8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 327-5369 Facsimile: (954) 327-3016 E-mail: amurthy@forthepeople.com LATOYA HUGHES: Court Vacates Judgment in Daniels, et al. Case ------------------------------------------------------------- In the appeals styled PATRICE DANIELS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, Cross-Appellees, v. LATOYA HUGHES, Acting Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections, et al., Defendants-Appellees, Cross-Appellants, Nos. 23-3388 & 23-3110 (7th Cir.), Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit vacate the judgment of the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois with respect to the parties' settlement agreement, and remand for further proceedings. Ashoor Rasho filed a pro se complaint in the Central District of Illinois in November 2007, challenging the adequacy of mental healthcare provided to persons in IDOC's custody. The litigation grew into a class action against IDOC officials seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for failures to provide mental healthcare. In August 2015, the district court certified a class of persons in IDOC's custody who are identified or should have been identified by IDOC's mental health professionals as in need of mental health treatment. Rasho, Patrice Daniels, and other inmates served as class representatives. After class certification, the parties reached an agreement regarding the plaintiffs' claims. This agreement required the defendants to meet certain benchmarks across more than a dozen areas of mental-health treatment. The agreement provided for judicial enforcement until July 2020, later extended to July 2022 for a subset of the agreement's terms. This appeal raises a dispute about one provision of the settlement agreement, which provided that $1.9 million in attorney's fees and costs would become immediately due to plaintiffs' counsel if the district court issued an order granting relief for violations of the agreement. In 2018, the district court issued such an order: an injunction requiring the defendants to address five areas of noncompliance While the defendants' interlocutory appeal of this order was pending, the parties reached two agreements regarding the $1.9 million in deferred fees. As a result of these agreements, IDOC paid $1.9 million into a trust account at Dentons US LLP, and Dentons disbursed the payment to plaintiffs' counsel. In addition, this appeal concerns what remained of the underlying class-action claims after the district court's enforcement jurisdiction over the settlement agreement expired. The court neither dismissed those claims when it approved the settlement agreement nor when its enforcement jurisdiction expired by the agreement's own terms. Instead, after its enforcement jurisdiction expired, the court returned the case to its "active docket" and entertained an amended complaint, a motion to dismiss, and another amended complaint. More than a year after the district court returned the case to its "active docket," the court sua sponte raised concerns about its subject-matter jurisdiction over the underlying claims related to mental healthcare. It ultimately concluded that its jurisdiction over these claims ended when its jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement ended. But jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement and jurisdiction over underlying claims are separate issues. In this case, the district court's jurisdiction over the underlying claims turns on whether the settlement agreement moots those claims. The defendants challenge the district court's order denying their motion seeking repayment of the $1.9 million in deferred attorney's fees and costs. The plaintiffs challenge the district court's order dismissing this case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The defendants point to the provision stating, in the event of an order that determines that plaintiffs are not presently entitled to the $1.9 million, Dentons will return the $1.9 million to the State. According to the Circuit Judges, "This provision refers to Dentons, not plaintiffs' counsel. We therefore agree with the district court that this provision does not require plaintiffs' counsel to return the payment disbursed to them." At the inception of this case, Rasho invoked the district court's jurisdiction by asserting in his November 2007 pro se complaint claims under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983; Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 12131–34; and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 794. In the Third Amended Complaint, with counsel's help, the plaintiffs asserted claims under the same federal laws. Neither the parties nor the district court entered a voluntary dismissal order relinquishing the court's jurisdiction over these claims. So the question is whether intervening circumstances -- namely, the parties' settlement agreement -- moots those claims. The settlement agreement executed by the parties and approved by the district court in May 2016 purported to "resolve the claims raised by this action as set forth in Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint." Subsequently, however, the parties also agreed to return this case to the district court's "active trial docket," the court indeed returned the case to its active docket, and the parties litigated this case for more than a year (from July 2022 to September 2023) without the parties or the court raising the settlement agreement as a barrier. According to the Circuit Judges, "In this context, we are unsure whether the parties' settlement agreement moots some or all of the plaintiffs' claims related to the adequacy of mental healthcare provided to persons in IDOC's custody. As part of the settlement agreement, did the parties waive their right to litigate these claims? If not, what did they intend with respect to these claims?. We think the interpretation of the settlement agreement, and ultimately the mootness issue, needs to be resolved in the district court in the first instance, with the benefit of adversarial presentation. The district court is free to order discovery on remand and hold a hearing, if it deems it appropriate. We leave the procedures to the district court's sound discretion. Its thorough understanding of the record will help guide the resolution of the mootness issue." Even if the district court determines on remand that the settlement agreement contains a waiver of the parties' right to litigate the underlying claims (or otherwise moots the claims), this will not necessarily resolve the mootness issue. If the parties agreed to modify or rescind the settlement agreement when they agreed to return this case to the district court's "active trial docket," this could justify Rule 60(b)(6) relief from a judicial decree embodying the settlement agreement. Neither party moved for Rule 60(b)(6) relief below, and the district court did not construe their request to return the case to its active docket as a request for Rule 60(b)(6) relief. On remand, however, the parties and the district court may consider this avenue for litigating the underlying claims. The Circuit Judges hold, "We therefore vacate the judgment of the district court and remand for the court to determine whether the parties' settlement agreement moots the underlying claims and any further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We affirm the court's denial of the defendants' motion to reopen plaintiffs' counsel's entitlement to the $1.9 million payment." A copy of the Court's Opinion dated August 8, 2025, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oL8hEb LECTRIC EBIKES: Loses Bid to Dismiss Certain Claims in Cabot Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Rita F. Lin of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Lectric eBikes, LLC's motion for judgment on the pleadings in the case captioned as MICHAEL CABOT, Plaintiff, v. LECTRIC EBIKES LLC, Defendant, Case No. 24-cv-06446-RFL (N.D. Cal.). In this putative class action, Plaintiff Michael Cabot alleges that Lectric eBikes, LLC, an electric bicycle retailer, engages in deceptive practices on its website and in its advertising materials suggesting that items are being sold for a discount when they are not. Cabot brings suit for violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), False Advertising Law ("FAL"), Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), and for unjust enrichment. Lectric moves for judgment on the pleadings, contending that Cabot's CLRA claim for damages, various claims for restitution, and claims for injunctive relief must be dismissed. CLRA Claim for Damages Lectric contends that Cabot's CLRA claim for damages must be dismissed for failure to comply with the CLRA's notice requirement. In this case, the Court finds Cabot has satisfied the purpose of the notice provision, which is to afford Lectric a thirty-day window to cure the alleged violation before facing liability for damages. Accordingly, Lectric's motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the CLRA damages claim is denied. Claims for Restitution Lectric argues that, under Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp., Cabot must allege that he lacks an adequate remedy at law -- i.e., he is not entitled to damages -- in order to obtain equitable relief in the form of restitution for his CLRA, UCL, FAL, and unjust enrichment claims. According to Judge Lin, "Here, Cabot has alleged that the 'scope of actionable misconduct under the unfair prong of the UCL is broader than the other causes of action asserted in this Complaint' and that 'legal claims for damages are not equally certain as restitution because claims under the UCL and unjust enrichment entail fewer elements.' At the pleading stage, where plaintiffs may seek relief in the alternative or different types of relief, this is sufficient to allege that Cabot lacks an adequate remedy at law -- and thus, that Cabot may be entitled to restitution." Therefore, because Cabot has plausibly alleged that he may be entitled to equitable relief, the motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Cabot's claims for restitution is denied, the Court holds. Claims for Injunctive Relief Lectric further contends that Cabot lacks Article III standing to pursue injunctive relief under his CLRA, UCL, FAL, and unjust enrichment claims because he fails to allege a "certainly impending" threat of future injury. The Court finds Cabot's allegation that he may be interested in purchasing Defendant's bikes in the future, so long as Defendant more accurately reflects its products' typical prices and properly label their products going forward is sufficient to allege a threat of future injury. The motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Cabot's claims for injunctive relief is therefore denied, the Court concludes. A copy of the Court's Order dated August 7, 2025, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=19qxkJ from PacerMonitor.com. LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA: Sipaque Balks at Bereavement Leave Process ------------------------------------------------------------------ HUGO SIPAQUE v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY and DOES 1-50, Inclusive, Case No. 255TCV22889 (Aug. 4, 2025) is a class action suit brought the Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, alleging violation of California Family Rights Act. Accordingly, in August of 2024 Plaintiff's son passed away, causing plaintiff significant grief an emotional distress. In early August, the Plaintiff requested bereavement leave in accordance with Metro policy and applicable law to grieve for his son. The Defendant interfered with this request and prevented Plaintiff from taking bereavement leave. The Plaintiff had to make multiple attempts to request the leave and received negative remarks about taking the leave from Administrator Aguilar. On August 26, 2024, soon after requesting bereavement leave, Mr. Sipaque was charged with violations of falsifying documents that itself was a fabricated charged designed to retaliate against Mr. Sipaque for pretextual reasons, the suit says. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an operator and line instructor. The Defendant operates a public transportation system.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan J. Delshad, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN J. DELSHAD, PC. 1663 Sawtelle Blvd., Suite 220 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (424) 255-8376 Facsimile: (424) 256-7899 E-mail: jdelshad@delshadlegal.com LOWE'S COMPANIES: Court Remands Masry Suit to Alameda Super. Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Omar Masry and Elliot Mass, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Lowe's Companies, Inc. and Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 25-cv-02959-CRB (N.D. Cal.), Judge Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants the Plaintiffs' motion to remand and denied as moot the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The lawsuit is remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs failed to establish Article III standing for their class action lawsuit challenging alleged non-disparagement clauses in the Defendants' website terms of use. The case is a class action lawsuit regarding an alleged non-disparagement clause in the terms of use of Lowe's website, Lowes.com. Before the Court were two motions: a motion to remand and a motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs Omar Masry and Elliot Mass, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, moved to remand this action to state court. Defendants Lowe's Companies, Inc. and Lowe's Home Centers, LLC moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' first amended complaint. In their first amended complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that a clause in the terms of use of Lowe's website violated California Civil Code Sections 1670.8(a)(1) and 1670.8(a)(2). Plaintiffs took issue with a provision of the Terms prohibiting users from posting content that defames, misrepresents or contains disparaging remarks about Lowe's Organization or its products, or other people, products, services, or companies. The relevant portion of Section 1670.8 states: (1) A contract or proposed contract for the sale or lease of consumer goods or services may not include a provision waiving the consumer's right to make any statement regarding the seller or lessor or its employees or agents, or concerning the goods or services. (2) It shall be unlawful to threaten or to seek to enforce a provision made unlawful under this section, or to otherwise penalize a consumer for making any statement protected under this section. On November 7, 2024, this Court granted Plaintiffs' motion to remand in 24-cv-750. On March 31, 2025, Defendants removed the instant case from Alameda County Superior Court. On April 7, 2025, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint. On April 29, 2025 and May 2, 2025, Plaintiffs moved to remand. The Court noted that Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only that power authorized by Constitution and statute. Accordingly, a removed case in which the plaintiff lacks Article III standing must be remanded to state court under Section 1447(c). To establish standing under Article III of the Constitution, Plaintiffs must establish the following elements: 1. The plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized, and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; 2. There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of; and 3. It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. Cases implicating the First Amendment right to free speech face a relaxed standing analysis." However, even in the First Amendment context, a plaintiff must show a credible threat of enforcement." To determine whether Plaintiffs face a credible threat in the pre-enforcement context, the Court evaluates: 1) The likelihood that the law will be enforced against the plaintiff; 2) Whether the plaintiff has shown, 'with some degree of concrete detail,' that she intends to violate the challenged law; and 3) Whether the law even applies to the plaintiff. The Court determined that remand was proper because Plaintiffs had not established an injury-in-fact for two reasons. First, Plaintiffs had not alleged that they intended to violate the challenged provision with some degree of concrete detail. The Court noted that pre-enforcement plaintiffs who fail to allege a concrete intent to violate the challenged law cannot establish a credible threat of enforcement. The Court found that Plaintiffs did not allege that any individual plaintiff intended to engage in speech prohibited by the Terms. Because Plaintiffs did not allege an intent to violate the challenged provision with some degree of concrete detail, Plaintiffs had not articulated an injury-in-fact. Second, contrary to Defendants' argument, Plaintiffs had not alleged that they had censored themselves in response to a credible threat of enforcement. The Court previously noted that allegations that Plaintiffs are self-censoring in fear of violating the Terms may support a finding of an injury-in-fact. However, the Court found that Plaintiffs' allegations did not demonstrate that they had engaged in any specific act of self-censorship in fear of violating the Terms. Plaintiffs did not allege that they had, in fact, muzzled themselves. Rather, Plaintiffs alleged that the Terms were designed to limit their ability to make statements about Lowe's. Thus, Plaintiffs had not alleged any acts of self-censorship in support of a finding of an injury-in-fact. Therefore, Plaintiffs had not established Article III standing. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=x5iOu1 LUCY BURNS: Mitchell Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- JACLYN MITCHELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE LUCY BURNS INSTITUTE, INC. d/B/A BALLOTPEDIA, Case No. 8:25-cv-01959 (M.D. Fla., July 25, 2025) is a collective action arising from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant has willfully failed to pay Plaintiff, and all similarly situated persons, in accordance with the FLSA. Specifically, Plaintiff, and similarly situated employees were not paid premiums for all hours they worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Staff Writer from March 2018 to June 2, 2025. The Lucy Burns Institute is a nonpartisan educational organization that publishes Ballotpedia, an online encyclopedia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq. FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP 12610 Race Track Road, Suite 225 Tampa, FL 33626 Telephone: (813) 639-9366 Facsimile: (813) 639-9376 E-mail: mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com M.A.C. COSMETICS: Judge Approves $12M Settlement Framework ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Ignacio Maciel, et al., Plaintiffs, v. M.A.C. Cosmetics Inc., Defendant, Case No. 23-cv-03718-AMO (N.D. Cal.), Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted the motion for preliminary approval of class action and PAGA settlement. The Court granted preliminary approval for a $12 million settlement in this class action lawsuit concerning M.A.C.'s alleged failure to compensate employees for time and expenses incurred to comply with the company's dress code. The settlement covers 5,282 class members who were employed by M.A.C. in California as hourly paid, non-exempt employees from April 27, 2018, to July 24, 2025. The Court conditionally certified the proposed class for settlement purposes pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3). The Court found that the class satisfied all requirements under Rule 23(a), including numerosity with 5,282 individuals, commonality regarding M.A.C.'s policy of failing to include qualifying wages in the regular rate when calculating overtime pay, typicality as the representative parties held the same positions as class members, and adequacy of representation. The settlement provides for a gross settlement amount of $12 million with no funds reverting to M.A.C. According to the Court, "The Settlement contemplates that Plaintiffs' counsel may request up to 35 percent of the gross settlement amount, caps costs at $150,000, and provides for class representative awards of $20,000 each." The settlement allocates $300,000 to PAGA penalty claims, resulting in $225,000 to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency and $75,000 distributed among class members." According to the Court, "The net settlement amount will be distributed to class members with an estimated payment of $2,271.86 each and average net recovery of $1,378.45. The Court noted that the average recovery per class member here is higher than most of the comparators provided, and this settlement represents the highest percentage of potential estimated exposure of all comparators." The Court determined that the settlement is fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable under Rule 23(e). The Court found adequate representation, noting that Maciel and Torres have demonstrated that they have adequately represented the class and that counsel has prosecuted over 20 class and PAGA representative actions, including actions asserting wage and hour violations. Regarding arm's length negotiation, the Court stated that the parties participated in a full day of mediation with an experienced mediator and found no signs of collusion or fraud. The Court noted there is no reverter clause and no clear sailing arrangement that would benefit the defendant at the expense of the class. The Court found the relief adequate, explaining that Plaintiffs estimate the settlement represents 53.23 percent of the potential estimated exposure of $22,543,530.90. The average recovery per class member is estimated to be $2,271.86, with the highest potential individual award being $16,216.20" The Court emphasized that class members would have faced risks, costs, and delays in pursuing further litigation, including entry of summary judgment in Defendant's favor or delay from a lengthy appeal process. However, the Court expressed concerns about certain aspects of the proposed settlement. Regarding attorney fees, the Court cautioned that Plaintiffs have provided no explanation, much less authority, justifying deviation from the 25% benchmark for reasonable awards under the percentage-of-recovery method. The Court noted that at this stage they have not justified the attorneys' fees that they seek. The Court also questioned the proposed service awards, stating that "Maciel and Torres have not justified their proposed service award of $20,000 for each of them. The Court indicated that $5,000 is a reasonable amount as a general matter and warned it is unlikely to award the requested amount at the final hearing absent additional evidence." The Court approved the proposed notice plan and appointed ILYM Group, Inc. as Settlement Administrator. The Court found that notice will be distributed by first class mail with skip tracing conducted for any undeliverable mail. The Court stated that the notice sufficiently informs class members of the Settlement's terms, their rights under the Settlement, the process for objecting and receiving payment, and the date and location of the final approval hearing. The Court ordered the parties to submit proposed deadlines by July 31, 2025, for various settlement administration tasks including submission of the class list, mailing of notices, opt-out and objection deadlines, and motions for final approval. The Court appointed Ignacio Maciel and Ruth Torres as class representatives and appointed Righetti Glugoski, P.C. and Nathan & Associates, APC as class counsel. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GtWEEF from PacerMonitor.com MAREX GROUP: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Marex Group plc (NASDAQ: MRX) resulting from allegations that Marex may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Marex securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=43100 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On August 5, 2025, during market hours, NINGI Research published a report entitled "Marex Group plc: A Financial House of Cards." In announcing the report, NINGI Research stated that, in its opinion, "Marex has engaged in a multi-year accounting scheme involving a web of opaque off-balance-sheet entities, fictitious intercompany transactions, and misleading disclosures to conceal significant losses, inflate profits, and mask its true risk exposure. We have uncovered evidence suggesting Marex is a financial house of cards, with a balance sheet riddled with holes and financials that we believe are unreliable." On this news, the price of Marex Group stock fell 7.6% on August 5, 2025. 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. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. 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. 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. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] MDL 2704: Court Approves $50K Service Awards to Retirement Funds ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as In Re Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2704, Master Docket No. 16 MD 2704 (JPO) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge J. Paul Oetken of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the Plaintiffs' application for service awards. The Plaintiffs are the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association and the Public School Teachers' Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago, who brought this class action lawsuit. Judge Oetken approved the payment of service awards in the amount of $25,000 to each of the two named Plaintiffs in this Action for a total of $50,000. The Court ordered that the awards shall be drawn proportionally from each Settlement Fund associated with a Settlement that becomes final. The Court also awarded interest on such service awards at the same rate as the earnings in the respective Settlement Funds, accruing from the inception of each of the Settlement Funds. The Court found that the Credit Suisse Settlement created a fund of $25,000,000 in cash, and the New Settlement created a Fund of $46,000,000 in cash, for a total of $71,000,000 in total cash settlements in the Action. The Court determined that numerous members of the Settlement Classes who have submitted valid Proof of Claim and Release Forms will benefit from the Settlements achieved by Plaintiffs and Co-Lead Counsel. In making these service awards, the Court considered several factors: a) The named Plaintiffs undertook risk in pursuing this suit against investment banks that provide them with essential services; b) The named Plaintiffs expended significant time and effort preserving, gathering, and producing substantial volumes of documents, and responding to other discovery; producing key personnel for depositions; and supervising Co-Lead Counsel for nearly nine years; c) The Court found that the requested service awards are reasonable in light of the risk undertaken by the named Plaintiffs, the efforts they dedicated to pursuing the litigation, and the size of the cash award and the value of the non-monetary relief; and d) The Court determined that public policy concerns favor the award of plaintiff service awards, encouraging class members to participate in class action lawsuits, which are designed to provide a mechanism by which class members who could not efficiently pursue claims on their own can seek redress for their injuries, and treating named plaintiffs, who have undertaken a heavier burden of litigation than other class members, equitably. The Court found that notice of Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Litigation Expenses, and Service Awards was given to potential members of the Settlement Classes in a reasonable manner and that such notice complies with Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, due process requirements, and any other applicable law. Importantly, the Court noted that no objections to the Motion have been made. The Court clarified that these service awards are independent of the Court's consideration of the fairness, reasonability, and adequacy of any of the settlements reached in this Action, and is also independent of the Court's consideration of the Plans of Allocation, fee award, and expense award. The Court ordered that in the event that one or both Settlements are terminated or do not become Final or the Effective Date does not occur in accordance with the terms of their respective Settlement Agreements, this Order shall be rendered null and void to the extent provided in each respective Agreement and shall be vacated as to that Agreement. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bbgV2q MDL 2873: AFFF/TOG Products "Defective," Cox Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER COX, individually and as Personal Representative/Administrator/Executor of the Estate of CHRISTOPHER COX, deceased, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; CB GARMENT, INC.; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCT USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO., INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC. d/b/a TENCATE PROTECTIVE FABRICS; SPRINGFIELD LLC; STEDFAST USA, INC.; VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-09925-RMG (D.S.C., August 7, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, wantonness, wrongful death, and fraudulent transfer. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Decedent as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing fluorochemical products. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their AFFF and TOG products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Decedent, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Decedent was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with liver cancer. The Decedent's diagnosis caused and/or contributed to his death. The Cox case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Allstar Fire Equipment is a supplier sells firefighting and safety equipment in California. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. BASF Corporation is a chemicals company based in New Jersey. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. CB Garment, Inc. is a manufacturer of safety equipment in Oregon. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Daikin America, Inc. is a chemicals company in New York. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Fire-Dex, LLC is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in Ohio. Fire Service Plus, Inc. is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in Georgia. Globe Manufacturing Company LLC is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in New Hampshire. Honeywell Safety Product USA, Inc. is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in Rhode Island. Innotex Corp. is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment in Alabama. Johnson Controls, Inc. is a global diversified technology and industrial business company in Wisconsin. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. L.N. Curtis & Sons is a manufacturer of fire safety products in Utah. Lion Group, Inc. is a protective clothing supplier in Vandalia, Ohio. Milliken & Company is a chemical industry company in South Carolina. Mine Safety Appliances Co., LLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products in Pennsylvania. MSA Safety Inc. is a manufacturer and supplier of safety equipment in Pennsylvania. Municipal Emergency Services, Inc. is a public safety company offering fire equipment services based in Utah. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West Chester, Pennsylvania. PBI Performance Products, Inc. is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment in North Carolina. Perimeter Solutions, LP is a chemicals company in Missouri. Ricochet Manufacturing Co., Inc. is manufacturer of firefighting equipment in Pennsylvania. Safety Components Fabric Technologies, Inc. is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment in South Carolina. Southern Mills, Inc., d/b/a Tencate Protective Fabrics, is a manufacturer of protective clothing fabric for industrial and military use in Georgia. Springfield LLC is a supplier of a variety of fabrics based in Jericho, New York. Stedfast USA, Inc. is a manufacturer of protective barrier technologies in Tennessee. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. Veridian Limited is a manufacturer of fire protective equipment in Iowa. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. is an American multinational manufacturing company in Delaware. Witmer Public Safety Group is a safety equipment supplier in Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq. KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC 2 Bridge Ave., Bldg. 6, 2nd Fl., Suite 623 Red Bank, NJ 07701 Telephone: (732) 224-9400 Facsimile: (732) 224-9494 MDL 2873: AFFF/TOG Products Can Cause Cancer, Lechner Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ BLANCA LECHNER, as Surviving Spouse of RICHARD E. LECHNER, deceased, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCT USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MSA SAFETY INC.; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO., INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; NARCOTE LLC d/b/a STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-09912-RMG (D.S.C., August 7, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, wantonness, wrongful death, and fraudulent transfer. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Decedent as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing fluorochemical products. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their AFFF and TOG products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Decedent, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Decedent was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with liver cancer. The Decedent's diagnosis caused and/or contributed to his death. The Lechner case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Allstar Fire Equipment is a supplier sells firefighting and safety equipment in California. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. BASF Corporation is a chemicals company based in New Jersey. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. CB Garment, Inc. is a manufacturer of safety equipment in Oregon. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Daikin America, Inc. is a chemicals company in New York. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Fire-Dex, LLC is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in Ohio. Fire Service Plus, Inc. is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in Georgia. Globe Manufacturing Company LLC is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in New Hampshire. Honeywell Safety Product USA, Inc. is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in Rhode Island. Innotex Corp. is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment in Alabama. Johnson Controls, Inc. is a global diversified technology and industrial business company in Wisconsin. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. L.N. Curtis & Sons is a manufacturer of fire safety products in Utah. Lion Group, Inc. is a protective clothing supplier in Vandalia, Ohio. Milliken & Company is a chemical industry company in South Carolina. Mine Safety Appliances Co., LLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products in Pennsylvania. MSA Safety Inc. is a manufacturer and supplier of safety equipment in Pennsylvania. Municipal Emergency Services, Inc. is a public safety company offering fire equipment services based in Utah. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West Chester, Pennsylvania. PBI Performance Products, Inc. is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment in North Carolina. Perimeter Solutions, LP is a chemicals company in Missouri. Ricochet Manufacturing Co., Inc. is manufacturer of firefighting equipment in Pennsylvania. Safety Components Fabric Technologies, Inc. is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment in South Carolina. Southern Mills, Inc. is a manufacturer of protective clothing fabric for industrial and military use in Georgia. Narcote LLC, doing business as Stedfast USA, Inc., is a manufacturer of protective barrier technologies in Tennessee. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. Veridian Limited is a manufacturer of fire protective equipment in Iowa. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. is an American multinational manufacturing company in Delaware. Witmer Public Safety Group is a safety equipment supplier in Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. Yahn E. Olson, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, PC 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Email: gregc@elglaw.com gary@elglaw.com kmckie@elglaw.com yolson@elglaw.com MDL 2873: AFFF/TOG Products Harmful to Human Health, Gamble Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ WILLIAM GAMBLE, KIMBERELY BRASELTON, JIMMY W. DOOLEY, LEONARD HERNANDEZ, MITCHELL K. KLEIN, PATRICK O'BRIEN, ROBERT ORTEGA, MANUEL W. ROMERO, JON E. ROSELL, JANE ROSELL, WELDON M. SIMMONS III, JAMES SMITH, SHAWN WAGNER, KENNETH WATERS, BRENDA THIGPEN, and LEVI WARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCT USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO., INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC. d/b/a TENCATE PROTECTIVE FABRICS; SPRINGFIELD LLC; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-10005-RMG (D.S.C., August 7, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, wantonness, and per quod claim. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiffs as a result of their exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing fluorochemical products. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their AFFF and TOG products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiffs, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiffs were exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with cancer and/or medical related conditions. The Gamble, et al. case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Allstar Fire Equipment is a supplier sells firefighting and safety equipment in California. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. BASF Corporation is a chemicals company based in New Jersey. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. CB Garment, Inc. is a manufacturer of safety equipment in Oregon. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Daikin America, Inc. is a chemicals company in New York. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Fire-Dex, LLC is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in Ohio. Fire Service Plus, Inc. is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in Georgia. Globe Manufacturing Company LLC is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in New Hampshire. Honeywell Safety Product USA, Inc. is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in Rhode Island. Innotex Corp. is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment in Alabama. Johnson Controls, Inc. is a global diversified technology and industrial business company in Wisconsin. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. L.N. Curtis & Sons is a manufacturer of fire safety products in Utah. Lion Group, Inc. is a protective clothing supplier in Vandalia, Ohio. Milliken & Company is a chemical industry company in South Carolina. Mine Safety Appliances Co., LLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products in Pennsylvania. Municipal Emergency Services, Inc. is a public safety company offering fire equipment services based in Utah. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West Chester, Pennsylvania. PBI Performance Products, Inc. is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment in North Carolina. Perimeter Solutions, LP is a chemicals company in Missouri. Ricochet Manufacturing Co., Inc. is manufacturer of firefighting equipment in Pennsylvania. Safety Components Fabric Technologies, Inc. is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment in South Carolina. Southern Mills, Inc., d/b/a Tencate Protective Fabrics, is a manufacturer of protective clothing fabric for industrial and military use in Georgia. Springfield LLC is a supplier of a variety of fabrics based in Jericho, New York. Stedfast USA, Inc., is a manufacturer of protective barrier technologies in Tennessee. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. Veridian Limited is a manufacturer of fire protective equipment in Iowa. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. is an American multinational manufacturing company in Delaware. Witmer Public Safety Group is a safety equipment supplier in Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq. KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC 2 Bridge Ave., Bldg. 6, 2nd Fl., Suite 623 Red Bank, NJ 07701 Telephone: (732) 224-9400 Facsimile: (732) 224-9494 MDL 2873: Briggs Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products -------------------------------------------------------------- MAX BRIGGS, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-09900-RMG (D.S.C., August 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with kidney cancer. The Briggs case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Constantine Venizelos, Esq. CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP 737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440 Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 815-9000 Facsimile: (216) 274-9365 MDL 2873: Bryson Sues Over Exposure to PFAS From AFFF Products -------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES BRYSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-09921-RMG (D.S.C., August 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with kidney cancer. The Byrson case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Telephone: (540) 672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com MDL 2873: Collins Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products --------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES COLLINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-09945-RMG (D.S.C., August 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with testicular cancer. The Collins case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Telephone: (540) 672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com MDL 2873: Courtney Sues Over Exposure to PFAS From AFFF Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- BILLY COURTNEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-09952-RMG (D.S.C., August 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with liver cancer. The Courtney case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Telephone: (540) 672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com MDL 2873: Exposed Firefighters to Toxic Products, Hallama Says -------------------------------------------------------------- JASON MICHAEL HALLAMA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCT USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE RESPIRATOR COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO., INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-10022-RMG (D.S.C., August 7, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, wantonness, and fraudulent transfer. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing fluorochemical products. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their AFFF and TOG products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with kidney cancer. The Hallama case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Allstar Fire Equipment is a supplier sells firefighting and safety equipment in California. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. CB Garment, Inc. is a manufacturer of safety equipment in Oregon. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Daikin America, Inc. is a chemicals company in New York. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Fire-Dex, LLC is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in Ohio. Fire Service Plus, Inc. is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in Georgia. Globe Manufacturing Company LLC is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in New Hampshire. Honeywell Safety Product USA, Inc. is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in Rhode Island. Innotex Corp. is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment in Alabama. Johnson Controls, Inc. is a global diversified technology and industrial business company in Wisconsin. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. L.N. Curtis & Sons is a manufacturer of fire safety products in Utah. Lion Group, Inc. is a protective clothing supplier in Vandalia, Ohio. Milliken & Company is a chemical industry company in South Carolina. Mine Respirator Company, LLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products in Pennsylvania. Municipal Emergency Services, Inc. is a public safety company offering fire equipment services based in Utah. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West Chester, Pennsylvania. PBI Performance Products, Inc. is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment in North Carolina. Perimeter Solutions, LP is a chemicals company in Missouri. Ricochet Manufacturing Co., Inc. is manufacturer of firefighting equipment in Pennsylvania. Safety Components Fabric Technologies, Inc. is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment in South Carolina. Southern Mills, Inc. is a manufacturer of protective clothing fabric for industrial and military use in Georgia. Stedfast USA, Inc., is a manufacturer of protective barrier technologies in Tennessee. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. Veridian Limited is a manufacturer of fire protective equipment in Iowa. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. is an American multinational manufacturing company in Delaware. Witmer Public Safety Group, Inc. is a safety equipment supplier in Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Ryan Ziminskas, Esq. THEMIS LAW, PLLC 7718 Wood Hollow Drive, Suite 105 Austin, TX 78731 Telephone: (737) 208-1636 Email: rziminskas@themislawpllc.com MDL 2873: Faces King Suit Over AFFF/TOG Products' Harmful Effects ----------------------------------------------------------------- CYNTHIA LYNN KING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCT USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE RESPIRATOR COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO., INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-10015-RMG (D.S.C., August 7, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, wantonness, and fraudulent transfer. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of her exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing fluorochemical products. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their AFFF and TOG products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with thyroid disease. The King case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Allstar Fire Equipment is a supplier sells firefighting and safety equipment in California. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. CB Garment, Inc. is a manufacturer of safety equipment in Oregon. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Daikin America, Inc. is a chemicals company in New York. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Fire-Dex, LLC is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in Ohio. Fire Service Plus, Inc. is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in Georgia. Globe Manufacturing Company LLC is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in New Hampshire. Honeywell Safety Product USA, Inc. is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in Rhode Island. Innotex Corp. is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment in Alabama. Johnson Controls, Inc. is a global diversified technology and industrial business company in Wisconsin. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. L.N. Curtis & Sons is a manufacturer of fire safety products in Utah. Lion Group, Inc. is a protective clothing supplier in Vandalia, Ohio. Milliken & Company is a chemical industry company in South Carolina. Mine Respirator Company, LLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products in Pennsylvania. Municipal Emergency Services, Inc. is a public safety company offering fire equipment services based in Utah. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West Chester, Pennsylvania. PBI Performance Products, Inc. is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment in North Carolina. Perimeter Solutions, LP is a chemicals company in Missouri. Ricochet Manufacturing Co., Inc. is manufacturer of firefighting equipment in Pennsylvania. Safety Components Fabric Technologies, Inc. is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment in South Carolina. Southern Mills, Inc. is a manufacturer of protective clothing fabric for industrial and military use in Georgia. Stedfast USA, Inc., is a manufacturer of protective barrier technologies in Tennessee. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. Veridian Limited is a manufacturer of fire protective equipment in Iowa. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. is an American multinational manufacturing company in Delaware. Witmer Public Safety Group, Inc. is a safety equipment supplier in Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Ryan Ziminskas, Esq. THEMIS LAW, PLLC 7718 Wood Hollow Drive, Suite 105 Austin, TX 78731 Telephone: (737) 208-1636 Email: rziminskas@themislawpllc.com MDL 2873: Faces Wilson Suit Over Firefighters' Exposure to PFAS --------------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS JAMES WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-10029-RMG (D.S.C., August 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with kidney cancer, colon cancer, and high cholesterol. The Wilson case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Hochman Esq. THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC 5411 McPherson Rd., Ste. 110 Laredo, TX 78041 Telephone: (956) 704-5187 Facsimile: (956) 368-1343 MDL 2873: Ferguson Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF/TOG Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- DONNA FERGUSON-COMPTON, as Surviving Spouse of PHILLIP COMPTON, deceased, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCT USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE RESPIRATOR COMPANY LLC f/k/a MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MSA SAFETY INC.; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO., INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; NARCOTE LLC d/b/a STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-09939-RMG (D.S.C., August 7, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, wantonness, wrongful death, and fraudulent transfer. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Decedent as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing fluorochemical products. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their AFFF and TOG products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Decedent, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Decedent was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with thyroid cancer. The Decedent's diagnosis caused and/or contributed to his death. The Ferguson-Compton case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Allstar Fire Equipment is a supplier sells firefighting and safety equipment in California. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. BASF Corporation is a chemicals company based in New Jersey. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. CB Garment, Inc. is a manufacturer of safety equipment in Oregon. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Daikin America, Inc. is a chemicals company in New York. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Fire-Dex, LLC is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in Ohio. Fire Service Plus, Inc. is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in Georgia. Globe Manufacturing Company LLC is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in New Hampshire. Honeywell Safety Product USA, Inc. is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in Rhode Island. Innotex Corp. is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment in Alabama. Johnson Controls, Inc. is a global diversified technology and industrial business company in Wisconsin. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. L.N. Curtis & Sons is a manufacturer of fire safety products in Utah. Lion Group, Inc. is a protective clothing supplier in Vandalia, Ohio. Milliken & Company is a chemical industry company in South Carolina. Mine Safety Appliances Co., LLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products in Pennsylvania. MSA Safety Inc. is a manufacturer and supplier of safety equipment in Pennsylvania. Municipal Emergency Services, Inc. is a public safety company offering fire equipment services based in Utah. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West Chester, Pennsylvania. PBI Performance Products, Inc. is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment in North Carolina. Perimeter Solutions, LP is a chemicals company in Missouri. Ricochet Manufacturing Co., Inc. is manufacturer of firefighting equipment in Pennsylvania. Safety Components Fabric Technologies, Inc. is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment in South Carolina. Southern Mills, Inc. is a manufacturer of protective clothing fabric for industrial and military use in Georgia. Narcote LLC, doing business as Stedfast USA, Inc., is a manufacturer of protective barrier technologies in Tennessee. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. Veridian Limited is a manufacturer of fire protective equipment in Iowa. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. is an American multinational manufacturing company in Delaware. Witmer Public Safety Group is a safety equipment supplier in Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. Yahn E. Olson, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, PC 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Email: gregc@elglaw.com gary@elglaw.com kmckie@elglaw.com yolson@elglaw.com MDL 2873: Hancock Sues Over Toxic Effects of AFFF/TOG Products -------------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS ALAN HANCOCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCT USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE RESPIRATOR COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO., INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-10000-RMG (D.S.C., August 7, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, wantonness, and fraudulent transfer. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing fluorochemical products. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their AFFF and TOG products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with kidney cancer. The Hancock case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Allstar Fire Equipment is a supplier sells firefighting and safety equipment in California. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. CB Garment, Inc. is a manufacturer of safety equipment in Oregon. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Daikin America, Inc. is a chemicals company in New York. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Fire-Dex, LLC is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in Ohio. Fire Service Plus, Inc. is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in Georgia. Globe Manufacturing Company LLC is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in New Hampshire. Honeywell Safety Product USA, Inc. is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in Rhode Island. Innotex Corp. is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment in Alabama. Johnson Controls, Inc. is a global diversified technology and industrial business company in Wisconsin. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. L.N. Curtis & Sons is a manufacturer of fire safety products in Utah. Lion Group, Inc. is a protective clothing supplier in Vandalia, Ohio. Milliken & Company is a chemical industry company in South Carolina. Mine Respirator Company, LLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products in Pennsylvania. Municipal Emergency Services, Inc. is a public safety company offering fire equipment services based in Utah. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West Chester, Pennsylvania. PBI Performance Products, Inc. is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment in North Carolina. Perimeter Solutions, LP is a chemicals company in Missouri. Ricochet Manufacturing Co., Inc. is manufacturer of firefighting equipment in Pennsylvania. Safety Components Fabric Technologies, Inc. is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment in South Carolina. Southern Mills, Inc. is a manufacturer of protective clothing fabric for industrial and military use in Georgia. Stedfast USA, Inc., is a manufacturer of protective barrier technologies in Tennessee. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. Veridian Limited is a manufacturer of fire protective equipment in Iowa. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. is an American multinational manufacturing company in Delaware. Witmer Public Safety Group, Inc. is a safety equipment supplier in Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Ryan Ziminskas, Esq. THEMIS LAW, PLLC 7718 Wood Hollow Drive, Suite 105 Austin, TX 78731 Telephone: (737) 208-1636 Email: rziminskas@themislawpllc.com MDL 2873: LaFranca Sues Over AFFF Products' Toxic Elements ---------------------------------------------------------- PETER LAFRANCA JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-10012-RMG (D.S.C., August 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with kidney cancer. The LaFranca case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Hochman Esq. THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC 5411 McPherson Rd., Ste. 110 Laredo, TX 78041 Telephone: (956) 704-5187 Facsimile: (956) 368-1343 MDL 2873: Moody-Paige Suit Claims PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products ------------------------------------------------------------------ GERALDINE MOODY-PAIGE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-10023-RMG (D.S.C., August 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of her exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with thyroid disease. The Moody-Paige case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Hochman Esq. THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC 5411 McPherson Rd., Ste. 110 Laredo, TX 78041 Telephone: (956) 704-5187 Facsimile: (956) 368-1343 MDL 2873: Saxonhouse Suit Claims Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOAN JOY SAXONHOUSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-10017-RMG (D.S.C., August 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of her exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis. The Saxonhouse case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Hochman Esq. THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC 5411 McPherson Rd., Ste. 110 Laredo, TX 78041 Telephone: (956) 704-5187 Facsimile: (956) 368-1343 MERCEDES BENZ: Court Narrows Claims in Monilaw Suit --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER MONILAW, et al., v. MERCEDES BENZ GROUP AG, f/k/a Daimler AG, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00608-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Thomas Thrash, Jr. entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Motion is granted as to Count I (breach of express warranty; Count II (breach of implied warranty); Count IV (violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act); Count V (unjust enrichment) with respect to all Plaintiffs except Plaintiff David Oblon; Count XIV (violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act); Count XVI (violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act); and Count XVII (violation of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act) with respect to the putative class claims but not as to Plaintiff Keneshia Wright). The Motion is denied as to all other requested relief. The Court does not find the Defendants' single case on this venue question persuasive since it did not discuss the Erie issue nor provide other analysis. Therefore, the Court denies the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for lack of standing as to vehicle models and model years not owned or leased by the Named Plaintiffs. The Court concludes that the Amended Complaint is not a shotgun pleading. A complaint that collectively refers to multiple defendants, as is the case here, is not automatically a shotgun pleading. Therefore, the Court declines to dismiss the Amended Complaint on shotgun pleading grounds. The action arises from a purported defect in the veneer wood trim in six models of Mercedes-Benz vehicles between 2013 and 2022. Mercedes-Benz manufactures luxury vehicles and light commercial vehicles. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated July 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mOqQvS at no extra charge.[CC] MERWICK CARE: Fails to Remit Insurance Premiums, Latka Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- HELEN LATKA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. MERWICK CARE & REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC, MERWICK HEALTHCARE AND REHAB CENTER LLC, WINDSOR HEALTHCARE, LLC, and WINDSOR HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Case No. 3:25-cv-14150 (D.N.J., Aug. 5, 2025 is an action brought by Plaintiff and all similarly situated participants and beneficiaries of the Windsor Healthcare Employee Health Plan under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 against the Defendants for deducting health insurance premiums from employees' wages but failing to remit those funds to the Plan's administrator, leaving medical claims unpaid and breaching fiduciary duties under ERISA. The Plaintiff asserts her ERISA claims individually, and on a class basis pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on behalf of a putative "Rule 23 ERISA Class," defined as: "All persons who were participants or beneficiaries in the Windsor Healthcare Employee Health Plan at any time within the period of six years preceding the commencement of this action through present, whose wages were deducted for health plan premiums or who otherwise contributed toward the cost of Plan coverage, and whose contributions were not properly remitted or whose claims for medical, mental health, or related benefits were unpaid, delayed, or denied as a result of Windsor Healthcare's failure to fund the Plan." In addition, the Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated hourly-paid, non-exempt employees against all Defendants to recover unpaid overtime wages, unpaid straight time wages, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as a result of Defendants' willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law. The Plaintiff brings her FLSA, NJWHL, and NJWPL claims individually and on a collective and class basis on behalf of Defendants' current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees, including, but not limited to, Registered Nurses, Licensed Practical Nurses, Certified Nursing Assistants, Medical Records Coordinators who worked at healthcare facilities operated and managed by the Defendants, including but not limited to Merwick Care and Rehabilitation Center. MERWICK CARE & REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC is a rehabilitation center in Plainsboro, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas Conlon, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5279 E-mail: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com MICHAELS STORES: Echeverria-Corzan Files Fraud Suit in N.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action has been filed against Michaels Stores, Inc. The case is captioned as Sonnia Echeverria-Corzan, et al., individually, on behalf of themselves, the general public, and those similarly situated v. Michaels Stores, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-05839-SK (N.D. Cal., July 11, 2025). The suit is brought over Defendant's alleged fraud conduct. The case is assigned to Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim. Case Management Statement is due by October 13, 2025. An initial case management conference is set for October 20. Michaels Stores, Inc., doing business as Michaels, is an American privately held arts and crafts retail chain.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth Adam Safier, Esq. Marie Ann McCrary, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com MISSISSIPPI MEDICAL: Summary Judgment Ruling in Woods Case Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the appeal styled Stanley Wood, Individually, and on Behalf of a Class of Similarly Situated Persons; Chastity Wood, Individually, and on Behalf of a Class of Similarly Situated Persons, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus North Mississippi Medical Center, Incorporated; Tupelo Service Finance, Incorporated; North Mississippi Health Services, Incorporated; North Mississippi Clinics, L.L.C., Defendants-Appellees, No. 24-60546 (5th Cir.), Judges Carl E. Stewart and Cory Wilson of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi granting summary judgment in favor of the health providers on claims under Mississippi law for breach of contract, fraud and misrepresentation, and civil conspiracy. This case involves a dispute over medical bills. In 2017, Chastity Wood received non-emergent treatment in Tupelo, Mississippi at the North Mississippi Medical Center, Inc. and North Mississippi Clinics, L.L.C., entities owned by North Mississippi Health Services, Inc. (the "Health Providers"). At the time, Chastity was covered by an employee benefits plan. The Plan did not have an in-network agreement with the Health Providers, but Chastity asserts that the doctor from whom she received treatment was in-network. In total, the Health Providers demanded Chastity pay almost $50,000. Her balance remained unpaid for an extended period of time, so the Health Providers enlisted Tupelo Service Finance to begin the payment collection process. Chastity's medical debt was eventually assigned to Alliance Collection Service, Inc., which operates as a debt collector. In March 2019, however, the Medical Center offered Chastity a 20% reduction in the amount she owed if she agreed to satisfy her medical debt within three weeks by April 1, 2019, just days ahead of the federal tax filing deadline (the "Tax-Time Deal"). Chastity inquired about the amount she owed with the Health Providers, and they provided her with a sum. Believing this sum represented her total medical debt, the Woods paid the discounted balance to the Medical Center after obtaining a home equity loan. But a clerical error led to more chaos. The Medical Center later realized it inadvertently had left $8,936.05 owed to Alliance Collection out of the Tax-Time Deal. The Health Providers then requested Chastity pay the overlooked balance, offering the same discount on the remaining amount. Believing they were victims of unlawful billing practices, Stanley and Chastity Wood filed a putative class action complaint against North Mississippi Health Services, Inc., its subsidiaries North Mississippi Medical Center, Inc. and North Mississippi Clinics, L.L.C., and debt collectors Tupelo Service Finance, Inc. and Alliance Collection Service, Inc. They asserted claims -- in relevant part on appeal -- for: (1) breach of contract, (2) fraud and misrepresentation, and (3) civil conspiracy. At summary judgment, the district court ruled in favor of the Health Providers on all three claims. Breach of Contract In the Woods' brief opposing summary judgment, they argued Chastity was a third-party beneficiary to an accord and satisfaction agreement between the Health Providers and the Plan -- an agreement purportedly breached when the Health Providers accepted the Plan's conditional payments before reimbursing the Plan and subsequently balance billing Chastity. The Woods claimed third-party status, in other words, to a new agreement substituted for an old contract which had been discharged by the breach. Such a proposition is indeed different than contending a party breached a preexisting contract, like the Woods pleaded in their complaint -- specifically, identifying an alleged breach of an agreement between the Health Providers and the Plan. Mississippi does not consider accord and satisfaction anything other than an affirmative defense against a lawsuit to collect on an original debt. Because Mississippi law does not consider accord and satisfaction an independent cause of action, the Woods' theory is debunked. Therefore, the Fifth Circuit affirms the grant of summary judgment to the Health Providers on this claim. Fraud and Misrepresentation On appeal, the Woods marshal two familiar theories to show the district court erred. They argue the Health Providers refunded conditional payments made by the Plan so they could bill Chastity directly, a move which, in the Woods' view, suggests the Health Providers sought to defraud them. According to the Circuit Judges, "This theory lacks merit. The Woods on appeal have failed to identify any statute or contractual term prohibiting the practice of balance billing, much less by clear and convincing evidence." The Woods also contend the Health Providers committed fraud by making false and misleading statements intended to entice their acceptance of the Tax-Time Deal. They argue the Health Providers misrepresented the scope of the Tax-Time Deal by conveying it would resolve all outstanding debt. The offer authorized by the Health Providers instead contained both a discount and a deadline to pay a sum purporting to resolve all debt, despite failing to account for an amount owed to one of the involved parties. The Fifth Circuit finds no record evidence undercuts the district court's conclusion that exclusion of this balance was anything other than a mistake, especially considering that the Health Providers offered the same discount for payment of this amount and are not seeking to recover it. The Fifth Circuit therefore concludes the Health Providers were entitled to summary judgment on the claims of fraud and misrepresentation. Civil Conspiracy The Woods present a catch-all section challenging the enforceability of the Financial Responsibility provision in the consent form, the validity of the assignment of benefits provision, and the sufficiency of the Health Providers' accord and satisfaction defense. The Fifth Circuit concludes because a civil conspiracy claim cannot stand alone under Mississippi law, the Health Providers were entitled to summary judgment. A copy of the Court's Opinion dated August 8, 2025, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6aaobu MULTI-CRAFT CONTRACTORS: Jackson Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- CURTIS JACKSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MULTI-CRAFT CONTRACTORS, INC., Case No. 6:25-cv-03213-BP (W.D. Mo., Aug. 5, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and Missouri state law. According to the complaint, the Defendant's policy and practice is to deny Plaintiff Jackson and the Putative Collective/Class Members earned wages, including overtime wages, by paying them based on their scheduled work hours rather than on their true work hours, which often exceed their scheduled wok hours. The Putative Collective Collective/Class Members are those similarly situated individuals to Plaintiff Jackson who worked for Defendant during the applicable limitations period and have not been fully compensated for all hours worked, including overtime hours. Plaintiff Jackson worked for Defendant and was denied earned wages, including overtime wages, at its facility in Springfield, Greene County, Missouri. The Defendant is a full-service MEP (mechanical, electrical, plumbing) contractor, serving Northwest Arkansas and Southwest Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John F. Doyle, Esq. Daniel L. Doyle, Esq. Brittany K. Ussery, Esq. DOYLE & BRUCE LLC 748 Ann Avenue Kansas City, Kansas 66101 Telephone; (913) 543-8558 Facsimile: (913) 543-3888 E-mail: John@KCLaw.com Daniel@KCLaw.com Brittany@KCLaw.com NZXT INC: Conspires With Fragile to Defraud Consumers, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JACOB BURNS, JONATHAN MOULTON, AND STEVEN ZOU, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. NZXT, INC. & FRAGILE, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-06604 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 5, 2025) alleges that NZXT falsely advertised and sold the NZXT PC Flex Program in conjunction with Fragile. According to the complaint, NZXT and Fragile conspired to defraud consumers through gross misrepresentations and illegal business practices. To provide the Flex Program, NZXT partnered with Fragile, a debt collection and payment services company that administers and manages the Program. NZXT and Fragile associated to create a criminal enterprise that defrauded consumers in Defendants' Program. The Defendants conspired to defraud NZXT's rental customers through false representations and material omissions about the Program and the rights and obligations created through the Program. The Defendants explicitly entered into an agreement and formed the Enterprise to intentionally commit fraud against consumers and execute a bait-and-switch scheme through the use of the mails and wires. They knowingly disseminated grossly misleading advertisements and communications regarding the nature of the Program and the specifications, components, and attributes of the leased PCs, says the suit. NZXT is a computer hardware manufacturer that specializes in high-end gaming PCs. Aside from selling PCs and PC parts, NZXT also provides rental-based PC hardware under NZXT's PC Flex Program. NZXT owns and operates the website and the subdomains at https://nzxt.com.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq. Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. Karin B. Swope, Esq. Jacob M. Alhadeff, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 840 Malcom Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com tloeser@cpmlegal.com kswope@cpmlegal.com jalhadeff@cpmlegal.com - and - Reich, Esq. Michael N. Pollack, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, Floor 17 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: mreich@zlk.com mpollack@zlk.com OPTUMRX INC: 8th Cir. Affirms Waiver, Reverses Arbitration Denial ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Lackie Drug Store, Inc., on behalf of itself and Arkansans similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee v. OptumRx, Inc., Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 24-1231 (8th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirms in part and reverses in part the district court's denial of Defendant's motion to compel arbitration. OptumRx operates as a pharmacy benefits manager, contracting with health insurance plans to manage prescription drug benefits for the plans' members. The company does not contract directly with pharmacies but works through collective bargaining groups like Elevate Provider Network, which negotiated and executed an agreement with OptumRx comprising two documents: the Provider Network Agreement and the Provider Manual. Lackie Drug Store filed this putative class action in November 2020, alleging that OptumRx and other pharmacy benefit managers failed to disclose, update, and notify it and other pharmacies of changes to their respective MAC lists in violation of several Arkansas statutes. The plaintiff defined its putative class as "all independent pharmacy business entities that are citizens of Arkansas and that are operating as an independent pharmacy store(s) within the State of Arkansas during past five years. The case proceeded through extensive litigation. OptumRx initially moved to dismiss Lackie's complaint twice over" on various grounds including failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and failure to state a claim. The district court "granted the motions to dismiss in part" but denied OptumRx's individual motion regarding contract validity. OptumRx actively participated in litigation for over two years before seeking arbitration. The defendant filed its answer to Lackie's complaint, engaged in discovery by serving initial discovery disclosures and producing over a hundred pages of responsive documents, and later made an additional responsive disclosure of almost 900 pages of documents. Both parties also jointly moved for a nine--month extension of deadlines, which the district court granted. In May 2023, the same day that OptumRx served its own requests for production, Lackie moved to amend its complaint, adding two new claims for unjust enrichment and equitable estoppel while retaining the three surviving original claims. The amended complaint also tailored the class to OptumRx, limiting it to all pharmacy business entities that are citizens of Arkansas, that are operating within the State of Arkansas, and that have been subjected to OptumRx's MAC List during past five years. The Court of Appeals applied a two-part test for waiver, examining whether OptumRx: (1)Knew of its 'existing right'; and (2) Acted 'inconsistently with' it. The court determined OptumRx satisfied both requirements regarding the original claims. First, regarding knowledge, the court found that OptumRx had both the Network Agreement and the Provider Manual, so it 'knew of its existing right to arbitrate.' The defendant had attached the Network Agreement to its original motion to dismiss and "explicitly acknowledged its right to arbitrate" by listing binding alternative dispute resolution procedures as an affirmative defense in its answer. Second, regarding inconsistent conduct, the court concluded OptumRx acted inconsistently with those rights by waiting almost two years after moving to dismiss Lackie's claims before seeking arbitration. The court noted that moving to dismiss Lackie's complaint in its entirety, filing an answer with arbitration as an affirmative defense, seeking a nine--month extension of deadlines, and actively participating in discovery falls well short of that standard and and cannot be described as "promptly" seeking arbitration. OptumRx argued its arbitration rights could be revived due to Lackie's amended complaint. The Court of Appeals recognized two circumstances where waived arbitration rights might be reasserted: when a plaintiff brings entirely new claims, and when an amended complaint unexpectedly changes the scope or theory of the plaintiff's claims. The Court of Appeals held that for the for the first circumstance, a waiver of arbitral rights only applies to claims that were actually pled, not hypothetical ones not yet raised. Therefore, OptumRx retained its right to seek arbitration on the two new claims - unjust enrichment (Count 4) and equitable estoppel (Count 5) - because those claims were absent from all earlier pleadings. However, regarding the second circumstance, the court rejected OptumRx's arguments about the three surviving original claims. The court found that changes to the class definition, factual allegations, and requested relief did not unexpectedly change the scope or theory of the case. Instead, the amended complaint merely restates, in a clearer and more orderly fashion, the claims arising out of the matters already pleaded and dealt with. For the two new claims not subject to waiver, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court's denial of the motion to compel arbitration based on a delegation clause analysis. The Court of Appeals noted that parties can agree by contract that an arbitrator, rather than a court, will resolve threshold arbitrability questions. The Provider Manual contained a delegation clause directing that all questions of arbitrability must be resolved exclusively by binding arbitration under American Arbitration Association rules and procedures. Since Lackie has not argued that the delegation clause itself is invalid or inapplicable, the court held the district court should have respected the parties' decision to delegate the arbitrability question to an arbitrator and granted OptumRx's motion to compel on that basis. The Court of Appeals distinguished this case from Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski, noting that unlike Coinbase which involved two different contracts, here there was one contract, the Network Agreement, which incorporates the Provider Manual's arbitration and delegation clause. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part the district court's decision. Specifically, the court affirmed the denial of OptumRx's motion to compel arbitration as to the three original claims (Counts 1, 3, and 5 renumbered as Counts 1, 2, and 3 in the amended complaint) due to waiver. However, the court reversed the denial as to the two new claims (Counts 4 and 5) and remanded with instructions that the district court should grant OptumRx's motion to compel arbitration as to Counts 4 and 5. The decision establishes important precedent regarding waiver of arbitration rights in the context of amended complaints, particularly that waiver applies only to claims actually pled and that substantial changes in litigation theory are required to revive waived arbitration rights. The court's order and opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=74l0Gl PEPSICO INC: Faces Suit Over Soft Drinks' Unfair Price Advantage ---------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL GIANNASCA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PEPSICO, INC. and PEPSICO BEVERAGE SALES, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-06440 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 5, 2025) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated against the Defendants for anticompetitive and unfair and deceptive business practices associated with the manufacture, marketing, and sale of Pepsi soft drinks, which includes providing Walmart, Inc. with unfair price advantages to the disadvantage of other retailers of Defendant's Products. The Plaintiff contends that creating an artificial competitive advantage for Walmart exclusively, in this manner, violates the Robinson-Patman Act as well as Massachusetts state law. These advantages include promotional payments, allowances, and services to Walmart that are not available to other retailers on proportionally equal terms. Because of Defendant's unfair promotions and price discrimination resulting in artificially inflated prices, Walmart is able to charge lower prices for the Products compared to Plaintiff and class members causing them to lose significant business, the Plaintiff says. Plaintiff Giannasca made large purchases for multiple cases of the Products to his store, Michael G's Handcrafted Italian, located at 1066 Revere Beach Pkwy, Revere, Massachusetts. The Plaintiff purchased the Products directly from Defendant Pepsico Beverages Sales, LLC in interstate commerce. The Defendant markets and distributes the soft drink products throughout the United States. The Defendant sells its products to consumers on websites and through retail stores nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Julian C. Diamond, Esq. Spencer N. Migotsky, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com diamond@bursor.com smigotsky@bursor.com - and - Thomas H. Burt, Esq. Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-4600 E-mail: burt@whafh.com malmstrom@whafh.com PERALTA-BUENO CORP: Ramirez Sues Over Wage and Hour Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- RAMIRO EVARISTO HERNANDEZ RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PERALTA-BUENO CORP. d/b/a ASSOCIATED SUPERMARKET and ERASMO BUENO, EVI PERALTA, FREDDY PERALTA and VICTOR ARIEL ESPINAL, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-04262 (E.D.N.Y., July 31, 2025) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff Ramirez has been employed by Defendants as a stocker and product packager while performing other related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants, from in or around January 2005 until the present. Allegedly, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff the legally prescribed minimum wage for all his hours worked for the relevant statutory period, a blatant violation of the minimum wage provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL. In addition, the Defendants did not pay Plaintiff time and a half for hours worked over 40, says the suit. Based in Brooklyn, NY, Peralta-Bueno Corp. provides retail solutions to independently owned grocery stores. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 PHEONIX HOLDING: Disabled Can't Access Properties, Pardo Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PHEONIX HOLDING LLC and JENNI'S PANADERIA SALVADORENA CORP., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-23509 (S.D. Fla., August 6, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their facilities to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other persons with disabilities. The Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of their properties and businesses. 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. Pheonix Holding LLC is a commercial property owner and operator doing business in Florida. Jenni's Panaderia Salvadorena Corp. 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 PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Wins Summary Judgment v. Thurston ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW THURSTON, KATHERINE BRIDGES, and GENEVIEVE MCDONALD, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY and UNITED FINANCIAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Case No. 1:22-cv-00375-NT (D. Me.), the Hon. Judge Nancy Torresen entered an order granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiffs claim the Defendants violated Maine's Unfair Claim Settlement Practices Act ("UCSPA"), and the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act ("UTPA") by failing to pay the Actual Cash Value for their totaled vehicles as the Policy promised. In October of 2022, Plaintiff Matthew Thurston filed a class action complaint in state court alleging that the Defendants had underpaid him and others similarly situated for claims on their vehicles. Progressive provides personal, automobile, homeowner, boat, renters, business, life, and health insurance services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ByUs7Y at no extra charge.[CC] RANCOURT & COMPANY: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Pittman Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- DEBBIE PITTMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Rancourt & Company Shoecrafters, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09038 (N.D. Ill., July 31, 2025) alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against Rancourt & Company Shoecrafters for their 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. Based in Lewiston, ME, Rancourt & Company Shoecrafters, Inc. owns and operates the website, Rancourtandcompany.com, which offers shoes for men and women, as well as accessories like belts, bags, socks, shoe care items, and other products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Mobile: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law RDO EQUIPMENT: Class Settlement in Munoz Suit Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SIMON MUNOZ, et al., v. RDO EQUIPMENT CO., Case No. 1:23-cv-00979-DAD-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dale Drozd entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. 2. The proposed Class identified in the Settlement Agreement is certified for settlement purposes. 3. The Plaintiffs' counsel, David Thomas Mara and Jill Marie Vecchi of Mara Law Firm, PC, and Douglas Han, Shunt Tatavos- Gharajeh, and William Wilkinson of Justice Law Corporation, are appointed as Class counsel for settlement purposes. 4. The named plaintiffs Simon Munoz and Giancarlo Bianco are appointed as Class representatives for settlement purposes. 5. Phoenix Class Action Administration Solutions is approved as the Settlement Administrator. 6. The proposed Class Notice is approved in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. For settlement purposes, the parties request approval of the following class of an estimated 643 individuals: "All current and former non-exempt, hourly employees who were employed by RDO in California at any time from April 25, 2019, through Nov. 11, 2024." The parties have defined "Aggrieved Employees" in the Settlement Agreement as: "All current and former nonexempt, hourly employees who were employed by RDO in California at any time from Feb. 22, 2022, through Nov. 11, 2024." Under the parties’ Settlement Agreement, defendant will pay a gross settlement amount (“GSA”) of $2,000,000.00 allocated as follows: (1) up to $666,600 for attorneys’ fees and up to $50,000 for plaintiffs’ counsel’s documented litigation costs; (2) $10,000 incentive awards for each named plaintiff; (3) $100,000 in civil PAGA penalties, with $75,000 of the penalties payable to the LWDA; and (4) up to $15,000 for settlement administration costs. The Plaintiffs Simon Munoz and Giancarlo Blanco worked for defendant as hourly-paid, non-exempt warehouse employees from July 6, 2021, until Jan. 31, 2023. RDO operates as an industrial machinery and equipment wholesale company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OfydTy at no extra charge.[CC] RITECHECK CASHING: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Mercado Says -------------------------------------------------------------- YOLANDA MERCADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RITECHECK CASHING INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-06381 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information including date of birth, financial account number, and financial account access information. Accordingly, the Defendant could not perform its operations or provide its services without collecting Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information and retains it for many years, at least, even after the customer relationship has ended. On June 23, 2025, the Defendant confirmed that hackers targeted and accessed Defendant's IT systems and stole Plaintiff’s and Class Members' sensitive, confidential Private Information stored therein, causing widespread injuries to Plaintiff and Class Members. Businesses like Defendant that handle Private Information owe the individuals to whom that data relates a duty to adopt reasonable measures to protect such information from disclosure to unauthorized third parties, and to keep it safe and confidential. The Defendant breached these duties owed to Plaintiff and Class Members by failing to safeguard their Private Information it collected and maintained, including by failing to implement industry standards for data security to protect against, detect, and stop cyberattacks, which failures allowed criminal hackers to access and steal customers' Private Information from Defendant, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former customers of Defendant who, in order to obtain financial services from Defendant, were required to entrust Defendant with their sensitive, non-public Private Information. The Defendant is a convenient one-stop shop throughout the Bronx and Harlem offering financial services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven P. Sukert, Esq. Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.A. 1 West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: sukert@kolawyers.com ostrow@kolawyers.com ROSATI'S FRANCHISING: Williams Sues Over Blind Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------- DARNELL WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Rosati's Franchising, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09040 (N.D. Ill., July 31, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, Myrosatis.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online order on Defendant's website. Despite his efforts, however, the Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Based in Park Ridge, IL, Rosati's Franchising, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant and the website which offers information about its restaurant's menu and services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. QUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Mobile: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law SANFORD HEALTH: Discloses Personal Info to Meta, Hanson Says ------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Hanson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Sanford Health Corp., Case No. 0:25-cv-03129 (D. Minn., Aug. 5, 2025) is a case about a healthcare provider's decision to repeatedly infringe on the privacy of its patients and prospective patients by deploying covert third-party tracking technology (Tracking Tools) on its website, https://sanfordhealth.com, intercepting private information, and disclosing that information to third parties such as Meta, Snapchat, Google, Microsoft, and others. According to the complaint, Sanford engaged in the unauthorized disclosure of its patients' highly sensitive personal health information and personally identifiable information to third parties, in violation of Minnesota and federal law. According to Sanford's website, its health system is comprised of "56 hospitals, more than 270 clinic locations, 144 senior care communities, 4,500 physicians and advanced practice providers, nearly 1,000 active clinical trials and studies, and nine world clinic locations around the globe." This include 133 locations in the state of Minnesota. Sanford Health maintains a website at https://www/sanfordhealth.org. On the Sanford website, patients and prospective patients can, among other things, search for doctors, research Sanford locations, learn about the medical services Sanford provides, and find access to care. Unbeknownst to its patients and prospective patients, these communications with the Sanford website are intercepted and disclosed to third parties through Sanford's use of the Tracking Tools. One of the Tracking Tools Sanford deployed on its website is the Meta Pixel. Pixel is a snippet of code that, when embedded on a website, tracks the website visitor's activity on that website and sends that data to Meta. This includes tracking and logging pages and subpages the website user visits during a website session that reveal patient status and other Personal Information, which is not anonymized. Indeed, Pixel is routinely used to target specific individuals by utilizing the data gathered through Pixel to build profiles for the purpose of future targeting and marketing. Plaintiff Hanson is a natural person domiciled in the State of Minnesota. The Plaintiff is a current patient of Defendant. In the fall of 2024, Plaintiff was due to receive back surgery. In advance of his surgery, the Plaintiff went to the "Doctors" page on the Sanford Health website, where he input his physician's information. Sanford Health is a rural health system in the United States serving more than 1.4 million patients across fifteen states, primarily South Dakota, North Dakota, Minnesota, Wyoming, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. Rachel K. Tack, Esq. Madison M. DeMaris, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55042 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com rachel.tack@zimmreed.com madison.demaris@zimmreed.com SANTANDER CONSUMER: Wins Bid to Stay Brown Case Pending Arbitration ------------------------------------------------------------------- Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted Santander Consumer USA, Inc.'s motion to stay the case captioned as CRYSTAL BROWN, On Behalf of Herself and Those Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-CV-00665-NJR (S.D. Ill.) pending arbitration. The parties must file a joint status report on or before September 8, 2025, informing the Court whether they will pursue arbitration. Plaintiff Crystal Brown brings this putative class action on behalf of herself and others who financed the purchase of a car that -- unbeknownst to them -- as encumbered by a preexisting lien. Defendant Santander Consumer USA, Inc. buys the financing contracts from the dealerships that sell these vehicles, thus making it Brown's and the putative class members' creditor. On July 3, 2021, Brown bought a 2016 Honda Pilot from the Frank Leta Honda dealership in O'Fallon, Missouri. She financed over 95% of the purchase price pursuant to a Retail Installment Contract that was assigned to Santander on the same day. Brown did not know that the car was subject to a preexisting lien until she received a certificate of title showing two other "owners" and a bank as the "first lien" holder. These encumbrances prevented her from registering her car in Missouri. Brown requested a lien release from Santander so that she could resolve the preexisting lien. Santander refused to provide a lien release and demanded that Brown continue making payments on her car loan even though she was unable to register it. Brown eventually fell behind on her payments. On March 13, 2023, she entered into an extension agreement, whereby Santander granted her a two-month extension to make certain payments due under the RIC. Santander now moves to stay the case pending arbitration pursuant to section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. Sec. 3. Brown does not dispute her assent to the contractual language in the RIC or the Extension Agreement. Her signature appears on both documents and she neither contests the authenticity of her signatures nor the accuracy of the relevant contractual language. Instead, Brown contests the legal validity of the RIC, the Extension Agreement, and the arbitration clause itself. She argues that the RIC as a whole is invalid for a lack of consideration because she did not receive clear title to her car. She contends that the Extension Agreement is invalid because it concerned payments she did not owe due to the invalidity of the RIC. Her third argument takes aim at the arbitration provision itself by contending it is not supported by a mutuality of obligations to arbitrate. Brown asserts that the Extension Agreement was procured by mutual mistake and/or misrepresentation. She argues that the delegation clause (which submits "gateway" questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator) is invalid. The Court finds that the parties entered into an agreement to arbitrate certain disputes. The severability rule demands that this Court enforce the parties' agreement as written. Brown may present her argument concerning the RIC's validity under Missouri law to an arbitrator. The Court may not examine the validity of the Extension Agreement to determine if its arbitration agreement should be enforced. What matters is that Brown entered into a contract that contains an arbitration clause. Thus, Brown's second argument that the Extension Agreement is invalid must also be decided by an arbitrator. Brown takes issue with Santander's right to "extra-judicial self-help repossession" and to litigate "any action seeking to enforce a security interest" because it allows Santander to bring the claims it cares about in court, while forcing her into an arbitral forum. Thus, she argues, Santander's promise to arbitrate is illusory and the arbitration agreement invalid because it is not supported by consideration. According to the Court, this argument is an appropriate candidate for judicial review because it specifically targets the parties' agreement to arbitrate. With respect Brown's argument that the Extension Agreement should not be enforced because it is tainted by a mutual mistake, the Court is barred from considering the argument at this stage of the litigation. The underlying premise of this argument is that the RIC is legally void. The Court would have to make that finding before it could offer Brown the relief she seeks: rescission of the Extension Agreement and relief from the arbitration agreement. But to get to that point, the Court would have to evaluate the validity of the RIC. Such inquiries, as noted, are inappropriate in deciding whether to enforce an arbitration agreement. Brown, for her part, argues that the delegation clause is void and therefore inapplicable because the RIC and Extension Agreement are void in their entirety. This argument follows the same logic as her other arguments. By contesting the validity of the underlying contracts, Brown asks the Court to determine if they are compliant with Missouri law before enforcing the arbitration agreement. But having found that a valid arbitration agreement exists, the Court is in no position to do that. Brown also argues that the delegation clause fails to clearly and unmistakably submit questions of contract formation to the arbitrator. According to the Court, the delegation clause sends questions of whether the claim or dispute must be arbitrated, and the validity of this Extension Agreement to an arbitrator. Brown's contract "formation" arguments, at their core, dispute "whether the claim or dispute must be arbitrated." The Court finds the arbitration agreement clearly and unmistakably submits such disputes to an arbitrator. A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated August 8, 2025, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=c2vuYr SEGWAY INC: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Ninebot KickScooters ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Adams of About Lawsuits reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Segway Inc., alleging that the company has failed to provide a meaningful solution for a handlebar defect that led to a major recall of its Ninebot KickScooters earlier this year. The Plaintiffs claim the repair offered is inadequate, leaving consumers with unsafe scooters that are prone to sudden collapses. The complaint was filed by Paul Hanson in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on July 31. While Hanson originally brought the lawsuit in California in April, it was refiled in Washington following a change in Segway's corporate registration, since that is where Hanson purchased and used the recalled scooter. The case stems from a massive Segway recall issued on March 20, 2025, impacting approximately 220,000 Ninebot Kickscooters, following at least 68 reports of handlebar collapses that were received by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). The incidents included 20 injuries ranging from abrasions and bruises to broken bones and lacerations. The scooters, known for their foldable design and electric mobility features, have been on the market for more than 15 years and have been subject to prior recalls over safety concerns. In this latest case, users report that the folding mechanism in the handlebar can fail during use, causing riders to lose control and crash. The lawsuit seeks damages on behalf of all owners of the affected scooters, claiming Segway misrepresented the safety of the products and failed to adequately remedy a known defect after the recall was issued. Hanson claims Segway's March recall of its Ninebot KickScooter was inadequate, alleging the company failed to offer a meaningful fix or financial relief to consumers. Instead of a proper repair or refund, Segway only provided a do-it-yourself maintenance kit, which Hanson says placed the burden on customers to address a serious safety defect themselves. According to the lawsuit, Hanson purchased a Segway Max G30LP scooter for $905.26 through Amazon in July 2021, believing the company to be the most reputable brand in the e-scooter market. He points to Segway's own marketing, which describes its products as "safe and stable," as part of the reason he trusted the purchase. However, the complaint argues that Segway should have been aware of the defect well before the March recall, citing a similar handlebar-related recall involving another model in November 2024. Hanson says he only learned about the issue through Amazon notifications after relocating to Arizona, rather than through any direct outreach from Segway. After discovering the defect, Hanson requested the maintenance kit recommended in the recall notice. The kit reportedly included only wrenches and super glue, which the lawsuit describes as inadequate for a potentially dangerous mechanical issue. The repair also required technically complex steps that consumers were expected to perform without professional support. The kit's instructions advised users to continuously monitor and tighten the handlebars throughout the scooter's lifespan, a directive Hanson argues amounts to an admission that the underlying defect was never fully addressed. As a result, Hanson claims he would not have purchased the scooter, or would have paid significantly less, had he known about the defect. He now considers the product unsafe and devalued. "Thus, at all relevant times, Segway possessed continuous knowledge of the material dangers posed by the E-Scooter, and yet Segway knowingly continued to allow the sale of the EScooter." –Paul Hanson v. Segway Inc. Hanson raises allegations of violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, and the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, as well as breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and unjust enrichment. His complaint seeks class action status, with a special subclass for residents of Washington and Arizona, as well as actual, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages. Segway Injuries and Lawsuits Between 2014 and 2018, injuries involving scooters increased by more than 200%, with emergency room visits rising by 365%. This sharp rise in injuries was attributed partly to the growing popularity of electric scooter rental services in cities across the U.S., which has coincided with a spike in head and neck injuries. A U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report from 2019, found that head trauma made up nearly half of all electric scooter-related injuries. Researchers indicated that many of these incidents might have been preventable with helmet use and increased rider awareness. Additional studies have identified bone fractures and bruises as other frequently reported outcomes of e-scooter accidents. However, concerns about scooter safety date back years. As early as 2008, at least 13 individuals had filed class action lawsuits against Segway, citing multiple recalls and reports of serious harm, including neck, back and traumatic brain injuries, as well as broken limbs and concussions. In one notable case from 2011, a man was awarded $10 million in damages after sustaining a traumatic brain injury while participating in a Segway-sponsored event. He was instructed to navigate an obstacle course blindfolded and without a helmet. [GN] SMARTBANK: Faces Copper Class Action Lawsuit Over PPP Loans ----------------------------------------------------------- ERIK COOPER, individually for himself, doing business as ACUITY CONSULTING SERVICES and STORYMARK ENTERTAINMENT, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SMARTBANK, a Tennessee corporation, and GUS FLOODQUIST, individually and in his official capacity, Case No. 3:25-cv-00376 (E.D. Tenn., Aug. 4, 2025) alleges that the Defendants disguised standard bank loans as fully-forgivable, government-backed " Paycheck Protection Program Loans" knowing applicants the Defendants had solicited to apply for a "PPP Loan" were ineligible to receive such a loan and, upon the borrower's acceptance of Defendants' disguised "PPP Loan", the unforgiven PPP Loan would convert to an interest-bearing standard bank loan and cause the borrower to suffer the debt. The lawsuit is necessary to ensure that the Defendants are held accountable for their deceptive business practices committed in violation of Tennessee's criminal laws and causing Plaintiffs to suffer unnecessary consequences derived by Defendants' deceptive, false and misrepresentative business tactics and criminal conduct, asserts the suit. The COVID-19 pandemic caused economic upheaval unparalleled since the 1930s. On March 27, 2020, in response to the unprecedented economic crisis and the financial stress resulting from the global catastrophe, the United States adopted the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Securities Act ("CARES Act"). The CARES Act provided essential economic relief to millions of Americans, including small business owners. The CARES Act eventually authorized about $2 trillion worth of economic assistance. Among its provisions, Section 1102 of the CARES Act initially allocated $349 billion3 to the United States Small Business Administration ("SBA") to provide forgivable loans to eligible small businesses. So long as an eligible business used the loan primarily to cover "eligible payroll" costs, interest on mortgage obligations, rent under lease agreements, and utilities up to a certain percentage (25 percent, and then later, 40 percent) during the covered period, the loan would be forgiven if the business kept its workers employed through June 2020. This program, fully backed by the SBA and in consultation with the United States Department of the Treasury, was called the Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP"). The PPP rules provided that "eligible payroll costs" included, inter alia, "salary, wages, commissions, or tips (capped at $100,000 on an annualized basis for each employee)." However, the amount of the eligible loan was limited to "up to two months of [the business's] average monthly payroll costs from the previous year plus an additional 25% of that amount," subject to a "$10 million cap." The Plaintiff is the owner and operator of Acuity Consulting Services (Acuity) and Storymark Entertainment (Storymark). SmartBank is authorized to conduct, and is conducting, the commercial business of operating bank locations in the cities of Alcoa, Gatlinburg, Knoxville, Maryville, Pigeon Forge, and Sevierville, Tennessee. The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN] SPRINGER NATURE: Settles Data Sharing Class Action for $850,000 --------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that an $850,000 class action settlement will end litigation that alleged the company behind ScientificAmerican.com illegally collected and distributed user data to Meta without consent. The Scientific American class action settlement with Springer Nature America, Inc. received preliminary court approval on July 10, 2025 and covers anyone who, from June 12, 2022 through July 31, 2025, had login credentials for ScientificAmerican.com, had a Facebook account, and requested or obtained video content from and/or through the website while logged into Facebook. The court-approved website for the Scientific American settlement can be found at SpringerNatureVPPASettlement.com. Springer Nature settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form will be able to receive a pro-rata, or equal-share, portion of the $850,000 settlement fund after the payment of legal fees and lead plaintiff awards. To file a claim form online, class members must visit this page of the settlement website and log in with the unique notice ID and PIN found in their copy of the settlement notice. All claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by September 14, 2025. The amount of each individual payment from the class action settlement will depend on the total number of valid claims that are filed, the website states. Additionally, as part of the class action settlement, Springer Nature has agreed to suspend its use of Meta's data tracking tools and other tracking technologies on Scientific American website pages that include video content and have a URL that identifies the video content viewed. A hearing is set for October 15, 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 has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Springer Nature America class action lawsuit claimed that the company used the Meta Pixel -- a piece of back-end code -- in the video content on ScientificAmerican.com to collect users' personally identifiable information and send it to Meta without consent, in violation of the federal Video Privacy Protection Act. [GN] SWEEPSTEAKES LIMITED: Faces Dixon Suit Over Illegal Online Casino ----------------------------------------------------------------- JORDAN DIXON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SWEEPSTEAKES LIMITED, d/b/a Stake.us, Case No. 3:25-cv-09641-SAL (D.S.C., Aug. 4, 2025) arises out of the Defendant's operation of an illegal online casino, Stake.com, in violation of the South Carolina law. According to the complaint, although Stake.com has achieved global success, it is barred from operating in the United States due to stringent regulations on online gambling, which is entirely prohibited in several states, including South Carolina. In an apparent attempt to circumvent these legal restrictions, the Defendant launched Stake.us—a platform advertised to U.S. consumers as a "social casino" and sweepstakes gaming platform that allegedly does not involve real gambling. In truth, however, Stake.us is a virtual replica of Stake.com, merely rebranded to deceive both regulators and the public into believing it offers innocuous entertainment, when in fact it facilitates unlawful gambling activities. Through Stake.us, users have access to over approximately 1,200 industry games, including, inter alia, jackpots, slots, scratch cards, poker, baccarat, and roulette. Some of these games have the option to be played with a live dealer, further mimicking the experience of a physical casino, says the suit. The casino games offered on Stake.us are entirely or primarily determined by chance. Therefore, the outcomes of these games are determined regardless of users' skills or history with the website. As such, the games of chance offered on the website are gambling, similar to the games played at traditional casinos. The Defendant even admits to the existence of games of chance on their own website by advertising that players have "a chance to win big alongside Drake." Moreover, the Defendant admits to offering games such as Keno, "an ancient game of chance similar to lotto," and scratch cards, both of which are indisputably based entirely on random outcomes. On Stake.com, users purchase chips, place bets, and cash out their winnings -- mirroring the experience of a traditional casino. Defendant was well aware that directly selling gambling chips to U.S. consumers would immediately expose Stake.us as an illegal online casino, the suit further asserts. The Defendant owns and operates one of the world's most popular and lucrative online casinos, known as Stake.com, available at https://stake.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ashley B. Nance, Esq. PARKER LAW GROUP, LLP 601 W. Evans St. Florence, South Carolina 29501 Telephone: (803) 903-1874 E-mail: anance@parkerlawgroupsc.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Facsimile: (786) 623-0915 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com TAKE THE KEY: Faces Leiva Class Action Suit Over Debt Collection ---------------------------------------------------------------- MAURICIO LEIVA, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. TAKE THE KEY LLC, Case No. CACE-25-011623 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., Aug. 4, 2025) alleges that the Defendant violates the the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act. According to the complaint, on June 13, 2025, the Defendant placed telephone calls and sent text messages to Plaintiff attempting to collect a debt (the "Consumer Debt") from Plaintiff. The Consumer Debt is an obligation allegedly had by Plaintiff to pay money arising from a transaction between the creditor of the Consumer Debt and Plaintiff. The Defendant placed approximately 13 telephone calls and transmitted three text messages in an attempt to collect the consumer debt, the suit says. The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons as a class action.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Faaris K. Uddin, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (813) 340-8838 E-mail: faaris@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com TAPESTRY INC: Hernandez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JOVANNY HERNANDEZ on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TAPESTRY, INC. and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV13470, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 30, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-07010 to the proceeding. Plaintiff Hernandez worked for Tapestry as a non-exempt hourly employee from approximately 2018 to November 2024. He asserts claims under the California Labor Code for failure to pay minimum wages, pay overtime wages, provide meal and rest periods, provide accurate itemized wage statements, and pay all wages due upon termination. He also asserts claims for unfair competition. Plaintiff Hernandez asserts these claims on behalf of a putative class of all current and former hourly non-exempt employees employed by Tapestry in California at any time from four years prior to the filing of the complaint to the present. Tapestry, Inc. is an American multinational fashion holding company.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Gregory W. Knopp, Esq. Laura L. Vaughn, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 557-2900 Facsimile: (310) 557-2193 E-mail: gknopp@proskauer.com lvaughn@proskauer.com TEA DATING: Faces Doe Class Suit Over Private Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------- JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TEA DATING ADVICE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-06457-JCS (N.D. Cal., July 31, 2025) seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the injuries Tea inflicted on Plaintiff and tens of thousands of others due to Defendant's egregiously inadequate data security, which resulted in the private information of Plaintiff and those similarly situated to be exposed to unauthorized third parties. On July 25, 2025, Tea detected unauthorized access to its systems and determined that a cybercriminal obtained unauthorized access to a dataset from prior to February 2024. As a result of the cyberattack, the cybercriminal stole the Private Information of tens of thousands of users of Tea's mobile application, including Plaintiff and Class Members. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action against Tea and asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and declaratory and injunctive relief. Headquartered in San Francisco, CA, Tea Dating Advice, Inc. owns and operates a dating safety platform for women. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael F. Ram, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 358-6913 Facsimile: (415) 358-6293 E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Ronald Podolny, Esq. Antonio Arzola, Jr., Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 275-5272 Facsimile: (813) 222-4736 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com ararzola@forthepeople.com TEA DATING: Fails to Secure Sensitive Information, Class Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TEA DATING ADVICE, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-06559-TSH (N.D. Cal., Aug. 4, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to safeguard and protect alleged "anonymous" information of Plaintiff and the other members of the Class, including photos of users' faces, information from government IDs that identifies users, users' posts, users' chats, and more (the "Sensitive Information"). According to the complaint, the Defendant's failure to safeguard and protect the Sensitive Information is in direct contrast to its own public representations, as well as representations made in its privacy policy. The Defendant developed the mobile application Tea Dating Advice (Tea App) with a clear goal in mind -- "to give women the tools they need to date safely in a world that often overlooks their protection." Specifically, women users are able to take advantage of the App's safety tools, including background checks, catfish image searches, sex offender searches, phone number lookup, criminal record searches, and more. When women join the App, they are promised the App is safe. As Defendant's website touts, it is "the safest space to spill tea" given the App guarantees that users will be kept fully anonymous, does not permit screenshots, and verifies that all users are women. However, this is far from the truth. In the late afternoon of July 25, 2025, after it had already been widely reported online, the Defendant posted an official statement to its website stating that it "identified unauthorized access to our systems," asserts the suit. Tea Dating Advice, Inc. is the company behind the Tea app, a dating app designed to help women navigate the dating world by providing a platform for sharing information and advice about men they are interested in or have dated. The app allows women to anonymously post about their experiences, including potential "red flags" or "green flags," to help other women make informed decisions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Alec M. Leslie, Esq. Spencer N. Migotsky, Esq. Caroline C. Donovan, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com aleslie@bursor.com smigotsky@bursor.com cdonovan@bursor.com TROON GOLF: Misappropriated Servers' Cash Tips, Ferriello Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN FERRIELLO and JAKE DELLIPAOLI, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. TROON GOLF, L.L.C. and TG ADMINISTRATION LLC, Case No. 7:25-cv-06435 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 5, 2025) alleges that the Defendants misappropriated Class Members' cash tips and retained part or all of mandatory service charges/gratuities paid by banquet customers pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs bring the Second Claim for Relief pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23, on behalf of all banquet service staff who worked at Harrison Meadows on or after the date that is six years before the filing of the Original Complaint in this case. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as a banquet server at Harrison Meadows. The Defendants jointly operate the Harrison Meadows Country Club in Harrison, New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. Denise A. Schulman, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 32 Broadway, Suite 601 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 688-5640 Facsimile: (212) 981-9587 - and - Jeffrey E. Goldman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY E. GOLDMAN 260 Madison Avenue, 15th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 983-8999 Facsimile: (646) 693-2289 TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Holmes Files Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York. The case is styled as Shakeem Holmes, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York, Case No. 1:25-cv-06232 (S.D.N.Y., July 29, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Class Action Fairness Act. The Trustees of Columbia Universi in the City of New York operates as an educational institution. The University offers under graduate and graduated degrees arts and sciences, business, dentistry, education, engineering, law, medicine, nursing, pharmacy, and social work.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven M. Nathan, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (646) 357-1100 Fax: (212) 202-4322 Email: snathan@hausfeld.com TYSON FOODS: Beef Antitrust Class Certification Pending in Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tyson Foods Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 28, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2025, that the Beef Antitrust class certification motions are pending in court. Beginning on April 23, 2019, a series of class action complaints were filed against the Company and its beef and pork subsidiary, Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc. ("Tyson Fresh Meats"”), as well as other beef packer defendants, in various federal district courts, including the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, and the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, by putative classes of direct purchasers, cattle ranchers, indirect purchasers, and indirect cattle producers. The putative classes in these cases allege that the defendants engaged in one or more conspiracies beginning in roughly January 2015 with the aim of reducing fed cattle prices, manipulating the price of live cattle futures and options traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, artificially increasing the cost of beef, and reducing the price of cows, cattle, calves, steers or heifers. The putative classes allege that this conduct violated federal antitrust laws, the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, the Commodities Exchange Act, and various state unfair competition, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment laws. Their complaints seek, among other things, treble monetary damages, punitive damages, restitution, and pre- and post-judgment interest, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. Since the original filing, certain putative class members have opted out of the matter and are proceeding with individual direct actions making similar claims, and others may do so in the future. These cases have been transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota for pretrial purposes. The fact discovery phase ended in early April 2025, and the parties are now engaged in expert discovery. Additionally, the putative classes filed motions for class certification on September 25, 2024, which remain pending before the court. Tyson Foods, Inc. is a publicly traded company that provides approximately 20% of the beef, pork, and chicken in the United States. UMZU LLC: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts, Wiedinmyer Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- HEATHER WIEDINMYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UMZU, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06640-RMI (N.D. Cal., August 6, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of sending telemarketing text messages to the telephone numbers of consumers, including the Plaintiff, in an attempt to promote its goods and services without prior consent. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers suffered damages. UMZU, LLC is a manufacturer of supplements, headquartered in Boulder, Colorado. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. David J. McGlothlin, Esq. Mona Amini, Esq. Gustavo Ponce, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Email: ak@kazlg.com david@kazlg.com mona@kazlg.com gustavo@kazlg.com UNITED RENTALS: Van Horst Sued over Unlawful Fixing of Rental Prices -------------------------------------------------------------------- Van Horst General Contractors, LLC, on behalf of itself and other similarly situated v. UNITED RENTALS, INC.; SUNBELT RENTALS, INC.; HERC RENTALS INC.; HERC HOLDINGS INC.; H&E EQUIPMENT SERVICES, INC.; SUNSTATE EQUIPMENT CO., LLC; RB GLOBAL, INC.; and ROUSE SERVICES LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-01204 (D. Conn., July 29, 2025), is brought arising from Defendants' unlawful agreement to raise, fix, maintain, and/or stabilize the rental prices of "construction equipment," from one or more Rental Company Defendants from at least as early as March 31, 2021, and continuing through the present (the "Class Period"), the exact dates being unknown to Plaintiff. To carry out their price-fixing conspiracy, Defendants exchanged competitively sensitive, non-public information concerning rental rates, fleet utilization data, and other commercially sensitive metrics related to construction equipment. An agreement among horizontal competitors to share competitively sensitive, non-public information constitutes an unlawful information exchange in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The Rental Company Defendants' agreement to exchange confidential rental rates, fleet utilization data, and supply and demand information served as an effective mechanism for enforcing a broader price-fixing scheme. The competitively sensitive information disseminated through the Rouse Defendants' benchmarking platform was accessible only to subscribing construction equipment rental companies that contributed their own data. This information was not available to the public or non-subscribing competitors. By restricting access to contributing members, the platform enabled the Rental Company Defendants to regularly monitor competitors' pricing and utilization trends, thereby facilitating coordination and enforcement of supracompetitive pricing. Beyond the improper information exchange, other "plus factors" further support the existence of a price-fixing conspiracy: the construction equipment rental market is highly concentrated, features high barriers to entry, exhibits inelastic demand, and provided numerous opportunities for collusion, including meetings at trade associations. Thus, the structure of the industry made it particularly susceptible to coordinated conduct. As a result of the alleged conspiracy, the Rental Company Defendants have been able to raise their prices for construction equipment rentals year after year, collecting ever increasing profits. The Rouse Defendants, in turn, now have more than 400 construction equipment rental clients as subscribers to their benchmarking platform, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Van Horst General Contractors, LLC is a construction contracting company with operations in Connecticut and Florida. United Rentals is the largest construction equipment rental company in the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan M. Shapiro, Esq. AETON LAW PARTNERS LLP 311 Centerpoint Drive Middletown, CN 06475 Phone: (860) 724-2160 Email: jms@aetonlaw.com - and - Kimberly A. Justice, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 923 Fayette Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: (610)234-6486 Email: kjustice@fklmlaw.com - and - Douglas A. Millen, Esq. Samantha M. Gupta, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 100 Tri-State International, Suite 128 Lincolnshire, IL 60069 Phone: (224) 632-4500 Email: dmillen@fklmlaw.com sgupta@fklmlaw.com UNITED STATES: ACLS Appeals Suit Dismissal Order to 2nd Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- AMERICAN COUNCIL OF LEARNED SOCIETIES, et al. are taking an interlocutory appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled American Council of Learned Societies, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Michael McDonald, in his official capacity as Acting Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-3657, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. This lawsuit challenges the recent dismantling of the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), an agency created by Congress sixty years ago to foster the learning and advancement of humanities in this nation. The Plaintiffs and their members have suffered immense harm as a result of President Donald Trump Administration's efforts to illegally dismantle the only federal agency in the United States dedicated to funding the humanities. The Plaintiffs bring this suit to enjoin and set aside the Defendants' unlawful actions, and to require the Trump Administration to operate NEH as Congress intended, unless and until Congress says otherwise. On May 14, 2025 and May 23, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed motions for preliminary injunction. On May 30, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On July 25, 2025, Judge Colleen McMahon entered an Order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted to the extent of dismissing American Council of Learned Societies (ACLS) Counts I, II, III, IV, V, and VI, and Authors Guild Counts II (as it relates to the Impoundment Control Act), III, and IV, and is otherwise denied. The appellate case is entitled American Council of Learned Societies v. McDonald, Case No. 25-1905, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on August 6, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants AMERICAN COUNCIL OF LEARNED SOCIETIES, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: John Robinson, Esq. JACOBSON LAWYERS GROUP PLLC 1629 K. Street, NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Defendants-Appellees MICHAEL MCDONALD, in his official capacity as Acting Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, et al., are represented by: Benjamin H. Torrance, Esq. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 86 Chambers Street New York, NY 10007 UNITED STATES: Court Awards $910K in Attorney Fees in DHS v. UACs ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as J.O.P., et al., Plaintiffs v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al., Defendants, Case No. SAG-19-01944 (D. Md.), Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiff Class's Motion for Attorney Fees and Expenses. The Court awarded attorney fees in the amount of $909,809.17 and expenses in the amount of $4,812.00 to the prevailing Plaintiff Class under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). In 2019, a class of individuals, who arrived in this country as "unaccompanied alien children" ("UACs") filed this lawsuit to challenge a revision to policies governing adjudication of their subsequent asylum applications. The litigation began when the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service ("USCIS") reversed that policy in a memorandum dated May 31, 2019 ('the Redetermination Memorandum'). Previously, under a 2013 memorandum from USCIS Acting Asylum Division Chief Ted Kim ("the Kim Memorandum"), the agency maintained UAC determinations "without further inquiry" unless there was an affirmative act by the Department of Health and Human Services, ICE, or CBP to terminate the UAC filing before the applicant filed the initial asylum application. Accordingly, pursuant to the Kim Memorandum, the applicant would still be treated as a UAC and USCIS would exercise initial jurisdiction over the asylum application, regardless of whether the applicant had subsequently turned 18 or been reunited with a parent. The 2019 Redetermination Memorandum significantly changed this approach, requiring "USCIS adjudicators should also make independent factual inquiries in every case to see whether an applicant continued to fulfill UAC criteria on the date of filing the asylum application." The Plaintiff Class filed this lawsuit shortly after the Redetermination Memorandum issued in 2019, seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) to enjoin the policy change, arguing that it violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), the Due Process Clause, and immigration law. Judge Hazel "agreed with Plaintiffs' contention that the Redetermination Memorandum violated the APA and granted a nationwide TRO on August 2, 2019. He later converted his order to a preliminary injunction (PI) on October 15, 2019." On November 25, 2024, this Court held a fairness hearing and granted the parties' joint motion for final approval of a settlement agreement in this case. The Court applied the Equal Access to Justice Act, which provides that "a court shall award to a prevailing party other than the United States fees and other expenses" unless "the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust." The government does not contest that the Plaintiff Class qualifies as the prevailing party in this matter, but it otherwise contests this motion on two grounds. First, it argues that its position was substantially justified, making any fee award inappropriate. Second, it argues that if the Court awards fees, it should significantly reduce the award. The Court found that the government's litigation position has not been substantially justified. The Court noted several problematic government actions: 1. The government did not follow notice and comment rulemaking to try to align its processes with the BIA's decision. 2. It tried to apply the 2019 Redetermination Memorandum retroactively to pending asylum applications, which contravened the recommendation of USCIS's own counsel" and violated Supreme Court precedent in Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital. 3. In the face of Judge Hazel's TRO, PI, and amended PI, the government persisted in taking steps in the cases of individual class members to deprive them of their protections under the 2013 Kim Memorandum. The Court concluded that a reasonable person could not find that the government's overall litigation position had a reasonable basis in law and in fact. The Plaintiff Class requested enhanced hourly rates for three attorneys based on their specialized experience with unaccompanied children asylum cases. However, the Court denied this request, finding that while the attorneys possessed sterling credentials and expertise," the enhanced rate was not warranted because: 1. Plaintiffs have not shown a 'limited availability of qualified attorneys for the proceedings involved' - the Plaintiff Class found three such counsel to join their team." 2. A review of the billing statements in this case does not reflect that any billing counsel engaged in significant client-facing time during this litigation." The Court applied standard EAJA rates adjusted for cost of living increases, ranging from $209.88 (2019) to $255.27 (2024) for attorneys and $115.00 for paralegals. The government requested a general 75% reduction in Plaintiffs' requested fee award citing countless time entries that lack the requisite level of information and detail and "excessive and duplicative work. Both parties agree that Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing their entitlement to fees by providing appropriate documentation of the hours expended." The Court identified three main billing concerns: 1. Team Calls: The Plaintiff Class originally requested $460,849.69 for participation by various counsel in 'team calls. The Court noted concerns about the frequency and the unspecified nature of the team calls 'and that the coordination calls amount to an inordinate percentage of the overall fees billed. 2. Vague Entries: The government argued that billing entries were excessively vague, listing tasks such as 'amended complaint,' 'prepare for mediation,' or 'research' without specifying the actual nature of the work performed. 3. Excessive Billing: The government cited billing for about 200 hours on ex parte letters to the mediating United States Magistrate Judges, and the billing for 21.99 hours preparing for the hearing on the final approval order in November. Once again, the Court believes these hours are marginally high, though not to the degree urged by the government. The mediation efforts in this case were extensive and although the final approval hearing turned out to be brief and uncontested, counsel appropriately came to court prepared in case it was not. The Court rejected the government's request for a 75% reduction, finding it well overstates the severity of the billing issues presented. Instead, the Court believes that a reduction of 15% from the requested number of hours accounts for the billing deficiencies described above and allows for calculation of a reasonable lodestar. The Court also denied the request for enhanced hourly rates for the three specialized attorneys but otherwise found the Plaintiff Class entitled to reasonable attorney fees under EAJA given the government's failure to maintain a substantially justified litigation position. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QRi1PP UNITED STATES: Deprives Fundamental Rights, Tapp Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN M. TAPP, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated employees v. Terrence Emmert, Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of the Navy; in his official capacity Rear Admiral Michael Wettlaufer, individually and in his official capacity; Commodore Janice Smith, individually and in her official capacity; John Does 1-10, individually and in their official capacities, Case No. 2:25-cv-00471 (E.D. Va., Aug. 4, 2025) seeks justice and redress for the systematic deprivation of liberty, violation of due process, economic damages, emotional harm, religious discrimination, age discrimination, and unconstitutional treatment suffered at the hands of Defendants. The action addresses an extraordinary deprivation of fundamental rights perpetrated by senior officials within the United States Department of the Navy against civilian mariners of the Military Sealift Command, a component command of the U.S. Navy. On July 23, 2020, Kevin Tapp filed a formal Equal Employment Opportunity complaint, in which he alleged that the MSC2 discriminated against a class of approximately 5,500 employees through the enforcement of a quarantine order. That order, issued on or about March 21, 2020, prevented all MSC civilian mariners from leaving their assigned ships even when off duty, creating an indefinite quarantine of affected employees twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week. Under the pretense of operational necessity and irrational fears related to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Defendants imposed severe confinement upon thousands of dedicated employees, substantially violating their constitutional and statutory rights, asserts the suit. Plaintiff Tapp was employed by the U.S. Navy's Military Sealift Command as a Captain and served as Master of the U.S. Navy Ship Trenton (T-EPF5) at the time the quarantine order was issued. He brings this action individually and as a Class Representative on behalf of approximately 5,500 similarly affected employees of the MSC. Defendant United States Department of the Navy is a military department within the United States Department of Defense, responsible for the administration, oversight, and implementation of policies applicable to the Military Sealift Command, including the policies challenged herein. MSC is headquartered in Norfolk, Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Darrin W. Gibbons, Esq. GIBBONS LAW FIRM PLC 3900 Westerre Parkway, Suite 300 Richmond, VA 23233 Telephone: (804) 727-0036 Facsimile: (804) 884-3896 E-mail: dgibbons@dgibbonslaw.com UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: Carfora Suit Transferred to S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as John Carfora, Sandra Putnam, Juan C. Gonzales, individually and as representatives of a class of similarly situated individuals v. The University of Chicago, Case No. 1:25-cv-07971 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on July 25, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-06123-KPF to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as E.R.I.S.A. Labor. The University of Chicago -- http://www.uchicago.edu/-- is a private research university in Chicago, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel D. Rohlf, Esq. SCHLICHTER BOGARD LLC 100 S. 4th Street, Ste. 1200 St. Louis, MO 63102 Phone: (314) 621-6115 Fax: (314) 621-5934 Email: jrohlf@uselaws.com UPSTART NETWORK: Bronstin Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Upstart Network, Inc. The case is styled as Asher Bronstin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Upstart Network, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-01410-JKM (M.D. Pa., July 29, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Upstart -- https://www.upstart.com/ -- is a leading AI lending platform partnering with banks to expand access to affordable credit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Perrong, Esq. PERRONG LAW LLC 2657 Mt. Carmel Ave Glenside, PA 19038 Phone: (215) 225-5529 Fax: (888) 329-0305 Email: a@perronglaw.com US MARSHALS: Court Tosses Fogg's Motion for Reconsideration ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Christopher R. Cooper of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia will deny Matthew Fogg's motion for reconsideration in the case captioned as MATTHEW FOGG, Plaintiff, v. PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General, Defendant, Case No. 24-cv-00792-CRC (D.D.C.). Former Deputy United States Marshal Matthew Fogg brought a complaint before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging that the Marshals Service discriminated against him and other African American Deputy U.S. Marshals based on their race. In June 2024, an EEOC Administrative Judge approved the parties' settlement of the complaint. Dissatisfied with the settlement terms, however, Fogg filed this putative class action -- even though he had expressly released all claims against the Marshals Service by executing a waiver in connection with the settlement. In its last opinion, the Court denied Fogg's motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin proceedings before the EEOC and granted the government's motion to stay the case pending final approval of the settlement. Fogg now moves for reconsideration of the Court's decision. Fogg argues that reconsideration of the Court's decision is warranted because President Trump's recently issued Executive Orders render some provisions of the administrative settlement agreement unenforceable -- specifically, those mandating programmatic relief related to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives. Because Fogg did not raise his argument for reconsideration until after the Court issued its opinion and reconsideration would not be warranted in any event, the Court will deny his motion. A copy of the Court's Opinion dated August 8, 2025, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EKaGmd UTICA AMBULANCE: Lofton Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------- Jo Ann Lofton, individually and for others similarly situated v. UTICA AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC. d/b/a KUNKEL AMBULANCE SERVICE, Case No. 6:25-cv-01007-MAD-MJK (N.D.N.Y., July 29, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid wages and other damages owed by the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). The Plaintiff regularly worked 10 to 12 hours a day, 4 to 5 days a week. But The Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff at least 1.5 times her regular rate of pay--based on all remuneration--for all hours worked after 40 in a week. Instead, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff non-discretionary bonuses (e.g., sign on bonuses) that it excluded from the "regular rate" for overtime purposes (the "bonus pay scheme"). The Defendant's bonus pay scheme violates the FLSA and NYLL because overtime is not paid at 1.5 times its employees' regular rates of pay. Further, despite NYLL, The Defendant does not provide accurate, complete, and/or compliant pay statements. Nor does The Defendant provide the accurate and/or compliant written notices required by NYLL. The Defendant's failure to provide accurate and/or compliant itemized wage statements and/or written notices causes its employees (including The Plaintiff) to suffer concrete and cognizable injuries, including obscuring the wages they are lawfully owed and preventing them from determining the wages they are lawfully owed, preventing them from determining improper deductions from their wages, and by delaying their ability to remedy The Defendant's underpayment of their wages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for The Defendant as an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) in New York. Utica is an emergency medical transport company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com VECTOR SECURITY: Doe Sues Over Unauthorized Personal Info Access ---------------------------------------------------------------- JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VECTOR SECURITY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01200 (W.D. Pa., August 6, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach in December 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. Vector Security, Inc. is an electronic security company headquartered in Warrendale, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry Bendesky, Esq. Patrick Howard, Esq. SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, & BENDESKY, P.C. 1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-8282 Facsimile: (215) 496-0999 Email: lbendesky@smbb.com phoward@smbb.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com WALMART INC: Parties Seek Reschedule of Status Conference --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GIA KNIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WALMART INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-06623-GRB-SIL (E.D.N.Y.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting request that the currently set status conference be rescheduled from Aug. 5, 2025, until Sept. 5, 2025, or such later date that is convenient to the Court. Accordingly, the Parties are in agreement that it would be beneficial to reschedule the currently set status conference from August 5, 2025, until September 5, 2025 or such later date that is convenient to the Court, so that the Parties have time to fully analyze the opposing Party's discovery responses, meet and confer regarding the substance of the responses as needed, and make a determination as to what additional class certification discovery, including additional fact and expert discovery, is needed. On June 12, 2025, counsel for the Parties appeared for an Initial Conference before United States Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke, for purposes of scheduling discovery, resolution of discovery disputes, settlement conferences and any other purposes set forth at 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1)(A). Walmart operates discount stores, supercenters, and neighborhood markets. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nxjfCH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ariana V. Held, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN, P.A. NY State Bar No. 6024723 305 Broadway, Suite 700 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 500-3289 E-mail: ariana@avheld.com - and - L. DeWayne Layfield, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF L. DEWAYNE LAYFIELD, PLLC Beaumont, TX 77704 Telephone: (409) 832-1891 Facsimile: (866) 280-3004 E-mail: dewayne@layfieldlaw.com - and - Nicholas T. Zbrzeznj, Esq. SOUTHERN ATLANTIC LAW GROUP, PLLC 290 1st Street S Winter Haven, FL 33880 Telephone: (863) 656-6672 Facsimile: (863) 301-4500 E-mail: nick@southernatlanticlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: August T. Horvath, Esq. FOLEY HOAG LLP 1301 Ave. of the Americas, 25th floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 812-0344 E-mail: ahorvath@foleyhoag.com WAYNE, MI: Bid to Correct Ex Parte Communications in Bowles Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TONYA BOWLES, v. COUNTY OF WAYNE, Case No. 2:23-cv-10973-LVP-KGA (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Linda V. Parker entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for order to limit and correct Wayne County's ex parte communications. On Nov. 4, 2024, while the Court's class certification order in this action was still in place, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to preclude Defendant Wayne County from communicating ex parte with class members and the issuance of a notice correcting alleged false, deceptive, and incomplete information in previous communications. Wayne is located in the south-central section of Kentucky along the state border with Tennessee. A copy of the Court's order dated July 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SVgAJe at no extra charge.[CC] WEXFORD HEALTH: Appeals Class Certification Order in Spurlock Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Lauren Spurlock, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00476, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendant for failing to provide adequate medical care in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. On Mar. 24, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Robert C. Chambers granted on July 24, 2025. The Court finds that a class action is superior to other methods to adjudicate this controversy. The appellate case is entitled Wexford Health Sources, Inc. v. Lauren Spurlock, Case No. 25-182, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on August 7, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents LAUREN SPURLOCK, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: David Harley Carriger, Esq. Louis Dante DiTrapano, Esq. CALWELL LUCE DITRAPANO, PLLC 500 Randolph Street Charleston, WV 25302 Telephone: (304) 343-4323 - and - William J. Forbes, Esq. Jennifer N. Taylor, Esq. FORBES LAW OFFICES, PLLC 1118 Kanawha Boulevard East Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 343-4050 - and - Anna Claire Haac, Esq. Gemma Seidita, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 - and - Natalie Lesser, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 - and - Julie S. Selesnick, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1001 G Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 221-5279 Defendant-Petitioner WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC. is represented by: Michael James Bentley, Esq. Erin Saltaformaggio, Esq. Preston Garner Vance, Esq. BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS 188 East Capitol Street Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 592-9935 (601) 592-9946 - and - Harrison Michael Cyrus, Esq. Jordan K. Herrick, Esq. Justin C. Taylor, Esq. BAILEY & WYANT, PLLC 500 Virginia Street East Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 345-4222 WILLOWBROOK FORD: Spinder Sues Over Misclassification, Retaliation ------------------------------------------------------------------ MARC SPINDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WILLOWBROOK FORD INC. and WILLOWBROOK FORD d/b/a as WILLOWBROOK KIA, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-09307 (N.D. Ill., August 6, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for misclassification of employees and retaliation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. The Plaintiff worked for Willowbrook Ford as a finance manager from July 2024 until June 2025. Willowbrook Ford Inc. is an operator of a car sales dealership in Willowbrook, Illinois. Willowbrook Ford, doing business as Willowbrook Kia, is an operator of a car sales dealership in Willowbrook, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Ireland, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. IRELAND 636 Spruce Street South Elgin, IL 60177 Telephone: (630) 464-9675 Email: attorneyireland@gmail.com WITH YOU: Dalton Seeks Blind Users' Equal Website Access -------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. With You E-Commerce LLC d/b/a Jessica Simpson, Case No. 0:25-cv-03130 (D. Minn., Aug. 5, 2025) arises because the Defendant's Website, www.jessicasimpson.com, is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota; damages, and a damage multiplier. The Defendant offers clothing and home goods for sale, including but not limited to, tops, bottoms, dresses, jackets, shoes, handbags, swimwear, luggage, bedding, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com YUSEN LOGISTICS: Bermudez Class Suit Remanded to State Court ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Ivan Bermudez, Plaintiff v. Yusen Logistics Americas Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. CV 24-07339 TJH (SSCx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California grants the Plaintiff's motion to remand and denies the Plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees. On July 18, 2024, Bermudez filed this putative wage and hour class action against Yusen Logistics Americas Inc. and Staffmark Investment LLC in the Los Angeles Superior Court, asserting seven various wage and hour claims that arose over three putative class periods. YLA is a logistics and shipping company that is incorporated in New York, has its principal place of business in New Jersey, and has operations in California. Bermudez alleged that he worked at YLA's Long Beach, California, facility, from 2021 to October, 2023, and that he was hired through Staffmark. On August 28, 2024, YLA removed based on the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d), which permits removal when the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000.00 exclusive of interests and costs. Bermudez moved to remand. Because Bermudez's Superior Court complaint did not allege a specific dollar amount for the putative class's damages, YLA needed to plausibly assert that the CAFA amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional threshold of $5,000,000.00. Because Bermudez challenged the amount in controversy portion of YLA's removal, YLA bore the burden to produce admissible evidence to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy requirement had been met. YLA calculated the amount in controversy based only on the waiting time penalties for Bermudez's sixth claim. Waiting time penalties are calculated by multiplying an employee's daily wages by the number of days the employee waited for his final wages to be paid, up to a maximum of 30 days. The putative class period for the waiting time penalty from Bermudez's sixth claim is from July 18, 2021 to the date that notice is mailed to the appropriate certified class. The sixth claim alleged violations of Cal. Lab. Code Sections 201 and 202, which require the payment of all unpaid wages due upon resignation or other termination of employment. Specifically, Bermudez's sixth claim alleged that YLA required security checks" before employees were "permitted to clock in for their start shifts, and that employees were required to remain on the premises during their rest periods, resulting in rest periods that were not duty free. Bermudez alleged that YLA did not compensate former employees for security check time or missed rest period time after they resigned or were terminated. YLA calculated the waiting time penalties for the sixth claim to be $5,148,000.00, based on assumptions that 1,500 employees might be entitled to waiting time penalties, that they worked 8 hour shifts, that they were paid the minimum wage of $14.00 per hour, and that they were entitled to 30 days of waiting time penalties. To support its assumptions, YLA provided a declaration from Jennifer Anelli, YLA's Senior Vice President of Human Resources. The Court evaluated YLA's four key assumptions: (1) 1,500 of its 11,991 former employees were entitled to waiting time penalties for the sixth claim; (2) Those 1,500 former employees were each entitled to thirty days of waiting time penalties; (3) YLA's employees were paid the prevailing minimum wage of $14.00 per hour during the putative class period; and (4) Each of the 1,500 former employees worked eight hours per day. The Court found YLA's assumption that 1,500 of its 11,991 former employees are entitled to waiting time penalties for the sixth claim was reasonable as they were not paid wages for the maximum waiting time period of 30 days. However, the Court determined YLA's assumption that those 1,500 former employees were paid $14.00 per hour was not reasonable because YLA provided no evidence to support the actual hourly rate paid to those former employees. The Court took judicial notice that the minimum wage in Los Angeles County during the period of July, 2021, to August, 2024, started at $15.00 and escalated to $17.27 by the end of that time period. The Court substituted the $17.27 hourly rate for YLA's assumed $14.00 hourly rate, because even that highest hourly minimum wage rate is not enough to expand YLA's estimated waiting time damages beyond the minimum $5,000,000.00 amount in controversy. The Court also found YLA's assumption that its former employees worked eight hours per day was not reasonable because it was not supported by evidence. The only evidence presented was Anelli's declaration that stated the vast majority" of YLA's California work force worked more than 5 hours in each shift. The Court substituted 5 hours per shift in place of YLA's assumed 8 hours per shift. Based on the modified assumptions, YLA's waiting time damages formula became 1,500 former employees x 5 hours x 30 days x $17.27. The product of that calculation is $3,885,750.00, which does not exceed the $5,000,000.00 CAFA minimum amount in controversy requirement. Because YLA did not estimate the amount in controversy for claims other than the sixth claim, the Court could not consider the potential amount in controversy for those other claims. Bermudez requested attorneys' fees upon remand. The Court found that removal was objectively reasonable based on the applicable law, however YLA's evidence was insufficient to establish the minimum amount in controversy. The Court determined there was no indication that YLA removed to prolong this case or to increase Bermudez's costs. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=F0HmVN YUSEN LOGISTICS: Monge Wage and Hour Suit Remanded to State Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Oscar T. Monge, Plaintiff v. Yusen Logistics Americas Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. CV 25-00419 TJH (SSCx) (C.D. Cal.), Senior District Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California grants the Plaintiff's motion to remand this putative wage and hour class action to state court. The Court noted there is no evidence, here, that YLA removed to prolong this case or to increase Monge's costs. On December 13, 2024, Monge filed this putative wage and hour class action against Yusen Logistics Americas Inc., and Staffmark Investment LLC., in the Los Angeles Superior Court, asserting seven various wage and hour claims that arose over three putative class periods. Defendant Yusen Logistics Americas Inc. is a logistics and shipping company that is incorporated in New York, has its principal place of business in New Jersey, and has operations in California. On January 16, 2025, YLA removed the lawsuit based on the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d), which permits removal when, inter alia, the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000.00 exclusive of interests and costs. The Court noted that because Monge's Superior Court complaint did not allege a specific dollar amount for the putative class's damages, and the amount of damages was not facially apparent from the complaint, when YLA removed it merely needed to plausibly assert, in its notice of removal, that the CAFA amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional threshold of $5,000,000.00. The Court examined defendant's calculation based solely on waiting time penalties for the sixth claim. "In both its notice of removal and its opposition to the motion to remand, YLA calculated the amount in controversy, here, based only on the waiting time penalties for Monge's sixth claim." The Court noted The defendant's calculation assumed: (1) 1,500 of its 10,650 former employees were entitled to waiting time penalties for the sixth claim; (2) Those 1,500 former employees were each entitled to thirty days of waiting time penalties; (3) YLA's employees were paid the prevailing minimum wage of $14.00 per hour during the putative class period, and that they were entitled to 30 days of waiting time penalties; and (4) Each of the 1,500 former employees worked eight hours per day. The Court found several assumptions unreasonable. Regarding the hourly wage assumption, the Court stated: "YLA's assumption that those 1,500 former employees were paid $14.00 per hour is not a reasonable assumption. YLA provided no evidence to support the actual hourly rate paid to those former employees. The Court took judicial notice of the fact that the minimum wage in Los Angeles County during the period of December, 2021, to December, 2024, started at $15.00 and escalated to $17.27 by the end of that time period. Concerning work hours, the Court determined: "YLA's assumption that its former employees worked 8 hours per day is, also, not reasonable because it is not supported by evidence." The Court found it reasonable to substitute 5 hours per shift based on the evidence that the vast majority of YLA's California work force worked more than 5 hours in each shift. Based on the above modified assumptions, YLA's waiting time damages formula becomes 1,500 former employees x 5 hours x 30 days x $17.27. The product of that calculation is $3,885,750.00, which does not exceed the $5,000,000.00 CAFA minimum amount in controversy requirement. The Court denied Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees, finding that removal was objectively reasonable based on the applicable law, however, YLA's evidence was insufficient to establish the minimum amount in controversy. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fEoRQ9 ZENNIHOME HOLDINGS: Gatewood Alleges WARN Act Violations -------------------------------------------------------- Maurice Gatewood, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZenniHome Holdings, Inc.; ZenniHome LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-08160-MTL (D. Ariz., July 31, 2025) arises from Defendants' failure to provide its affected employees with proper Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act's required notices and other benefits. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and other similarly situated former employees who worked for Defendant and were terminated as part of the foreseeable mass lay off or plant closing ordered by Defendant on or around July 14, 2025 and within 90 days of that date and who were not provided 60 days' advance written notice of their terminations by Defendant, as required by the WARN Act. Based in Page, AZ, ZenniHome Holdings, Inc. develops and manufactures modular houses. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lincoln Combs, Esq. O’STEEN MACLEOD COMBS PLC 300 W. Clarendon Ave., Suite 400 Phoenix, AZ 85013-3424 Telephone: (602) 252-888 Facsimile: (602)-274-1209 E-mail: lcombs@omclawyers.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS, & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Facsimile: (317) 636-2593 E-mail: ltoops@cohenmalad.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI, LLP 613 Williamson St., Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 237-1775 Facsimile: (608) 509-4423 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com ZULLAS LC: Dorsey Suit Consolidated with Kolding Action ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALLISON LAMAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ZULLAS, L.C. d/b/a Café Zupas L.C., Case No. 2:25-cv-00183-HCN-DAO (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge Daphne A. Oberg entered an order granting the motion to consolidate and appoint interim class counsel as follows: The following cases are consolidated with the instant case: Dorsey v. Zullas, Case No. 2:25-cv-00195; and Kolding v. Zullas, Case No. 2:25-cv-00217. The clerk shall administratively close these two cases, and no further filings shall be made in them. The consolidated action shall be styled In re Zullas, L.C. Data Breach Litigation. All papers filed in the consolidated action shall be filed under Case No. 2:25-cv-00183. Ken Grunfeld of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A. and William B. Federman of Federman & Sherwood are appointed as interim co-lead class counsel to act on behalf of Plaintiffs and the putative class Charles H. Thronson of Parsons Behle & Latimer is appointed as interim liaison counsel. Zullas is a casual dining establishment. A copy of the Court's memorandum decision and order dated July 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hqOOEt at no extra charge.[CC] Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemours Faces 815 Pending PI Lawsuits at June 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Chemours Company, at both June 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, had approximately 815 lawsuits pending against E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (EID) alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos, respectively, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "These cases are pending in state and federal court in numerous jurisdictions in the U.S. and are individually set for trial. A small number of cases are pending outside of the U.S. Most of the actions were brought by contractors who worked at sites between the 1950s and the 1990s. A small number of cases involve similar allegations by EID employees or household members of contractors or EID employees. Finally, certain lawsuits allege personal injury as a result of exposure to EID products. "With limited exception, the Company previously rejected EID's demand for indemnity and defense of asbestos and product liability matters arising from an EID subsidiary, Sporting Goods Properties, Inc., ("SGPI"). EID brought an arbitration proceeding on this issue and in November 2024, the Company and EID reached an agreement in principle and adjourned the arbitration. The Company finalized the settlement agreement in March 2025. Per the terms of the agreement in principle, the Company assumed approximately 20 current SGPI asbestos cases as well as all future SGPI asbestos and product liability claims. The agreement also includes that the Company is entitled to insurance recoveries where applicable under certain existing insurance policies as well as potential cost sharing between the parties for certain cases. As of June 30, 2025 there are approximately 20 SGPI asbestos litigation claims outstanding. The Company is entitled to insurance recoveries where applicable under certain existing insurance policies as well as potential cost sharing between the parties for certain cases. "At June 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, Chemours had accruals of $86 and $61 related to these matters, respectively." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=in0Aas ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Reports $379MM Reserves at June 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- Duke Energy Carolinas has experienced numerous claims for indemnification and medical cost reimbursement related to asbestos exposure relating to damages for bodily injuries alleged to have arisen from exposure to or use of asbestos in connection with construction and maintenance activities conducted on its electric generation plants prior to 1985, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Duke Energy Carolinas has recognized asbestos-related reserves of $379 million at June 30, 2025, and $396 million at December 31, 2024. These reserves are classified in Other within Other Noncurrent Liabilities and Other within Current Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. These reserves are based on Duke Energy Carolinas' best estimate for current and future asbestos claims through 2044 and are recorded on an undiscounted basis. In light of the uncertainties inherent in a longer-term forecast, management does not believe they can reasonably estimate the indemnity and medical costs that might be incurred after 2044 related to such potential claims. It is possible Duke Energy Carolinas may incur asbestos liabilities in excess of the recorded reserves. Duke Energy Carolinas has third-party insurance to cover certain losses related to asbestos-related injuries and damages above an aggregate self-insured retention. Receivables for insurance recoveries were $540 million at June 30, 2025, and $539 million at December 31, 2024. These amounts are classified in Other within Other Noncurrent Assets and Receivables within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Any future payments up to the policy limit will be reimbursed by the third-party insurance carrier. Duke Energy Carolinas is not aware of any uncertainties regarding the legal sufficiency of insurance claims. Duke Energy Carolinas believes the insurance recovery asset is probable of recovery as the insurance carrier continues to have a strong financial strength rating. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4aAphS ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enviri Corp. Defends 17,000 Pending PI Actions --------------------------------------------------------------- Enviri Corporation is named as one of many defendants in legal actions in the U.S. alleging personal injury from exposure to airborne asbestos over the past several decades, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "At June 30, 2025, there were approximately 17,000 pending asbestos personal injury actions filed against the Company. The vast majority of these actions were filed in the New York Supreme Court (New York County), of which the majority of such actions were on the Deferred/Inactive Docket created by the New York Supreme Court in December 2002 for all pending and future asbestos actions filed by persons who cannot demonstrate that they have a malignant condition or discernible physical impairment. A relatively small portion of cases are on the Active or In Extremis docket in New York County or on active dockets in other jurisdictions. The complaints in most of those actions generally follow a form that contains a standard demand of significant damages, regardless of the individual plaintiff's alleged medical condition, and without identifying any Company product." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8pcFTT ASBESTOS UPDATE: Merck & Co. Has 575 Pending Cases as of June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., Inc. is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the U.S. arising from consumers' alleged exposure to talc in Dr. Scholl's foot powder, which Merck acquired through its merger with Schering-Plough Corporation and sold as part of the divestiture of Merck's consumer care business to Bayer in 2014, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "In these actions, plaintiffs allege that they were exposed to asbestos-contaminated talc and developed mesothelioma as a result. As of June 30, 2025, approximately 575 cases were pending against Merck in various state courts." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wNDKAM ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Inc. Faces Numerous Exposure Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------- Numerous lawsuits against American Optical, Pfizer Inc. and certain of its previously owned subsidiaries are pending in various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged personal injury from exposure to products allegedly containing asbestos and other allegedly hazardous materials sold by Pfizer and certain of its previously owned subsidiaries, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Between 1967 and 1982, Warner-Lambert owned American Optical Corporation (American Optical), which manufactured and sold respiratory protective devices and asbestos safety clothing. In connection with the sale of American Optical in 1982, Warner-Lambert agreed to indemnify the purchaser for certain liabilities, including certain asbestos-related and other claims. Warner-Lambert was acquired by Pfizer in 2000 and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Pfizer. Warner-Lambert is actively engaged in the defense of, and will continue to explore various means of resolving, these claims. "There also are a small number of lawsuits pending in various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged exposure to asbestos in facilities owned or formerly owned by Pfizer or its subsidiaries." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7aqGbP ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Has 848 Outstanding Cases --------------------------------------------------------- Standard Motor Products, Inc., at June 30, 2025, had approximately 848 cases outstanding for which they may be responsible for any related liabilities, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Since inception in September 2001 through June 30, 2025, the amounts paid for settled claims and awards of asbestos-related damages, including interest, were approximately $101 million. We do not have insurance coverage for the indemnity and defense costs associated with the claims we face. "In evaluating our potential asbestos-related liability, we have considered various factors including, among other things, an actuarial study of the asbestos related liabilities performed by an independent actuarial firm, our settlement amounts and whether there are any co-defendants, the jurisdiction in which lawsuits are filed, and the status and results of such claims. As is our accounting policy, we consider the advice of actuarial consultants with experience in assessing asbestos-related liabilities to estimate our potential claim liability; and perform an actuarial evaluation in the third quarter of each year and whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that additional provisions may be necessary. The methodology used to project asbestos-related liabilities and costs in our actuarial study considered: (1) historical data available from publicly available studies; (2) an analysis of our recent claims history to estimate likely filing rates into the future; (3) an analysis of our pending claims; (4) an analysis of our settlements and awards of asbestos-related damages to date; and (5) an analysis of closed claims with pay ratios and lag patterns in order to develop average future settlement values. Based on the information contained in the actuarial study and all other available information considered by us, we have concluded that no amount within the range of settlement payments and awards of asbestos-related damages was more likely than any other and, therefore, in assessing our asbestos liability we compare the low end of the range to our recorded liability to determine if an adjustment is required." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vDr5tR ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Defends 373 PI Lawsuits as of June 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- One of Transocean Ltd.'s subsidiaries was named as a defendant, along with numerous other companies, in lawsuits arising out of the subsidiary's manufacture and sale of heat exchangers, and involvement in the construction and refurbishment of major industrial complexes, alleging bodily injury or personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "As of June 30, 2025, the subsidiary was a defendant in approximately 373 lawsuits with a corresponding number of plaintiffs. For many of these lawsuits, we have not been provided sufficient information from the plaintiffs to determine whether all or some of the plaintiffs have claims against the subsidiary, the basis of any such claims, or the nature of their alleged injuries. The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold in 1989. We have a coverage-in-place agreement with certain insurers and additional coverage issued by other insurers. Overall, we believe the subsidiary has sufficient resources to respond to both the current lawsuits as well as future lawsuits of a similar nature. While we cannot predict or provide assurance as to the outcome of these matters, we do not expect the ultimate liability, if any, resulting from these claims to have a material adverse effect on our condensed consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pbqDSx ********* 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 ***